Brandin Rod on an unmentionable site

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
seattlesetters		#81	[url]	[-]
Posts: 412 10/28/2008 13:09	I am by no means an expert or a collector but there is merit to all arguments. Obviously, short rods were not as popular "back in the day" and the fact that relatively few of them were built lends to their scarcity today which feeds into inflating prices at auction or in the classifieds. Conversely, since many of today's highly-regarded makers are somewhat famous (see Per Brandin) for longer, lighter, hollow-built rods, one can surmise that shorter rods from these makers will eventually command a premium, as well, because fewer of them will come to market. I liken the short-rod phenomenon akin to a "buy & hold" strategy in the Market. The Market always goes up long term, and if you're willing to hold on to what has always worked in the past, you're likely to be rewarded. For investors, short rods are the "buy & hold" of the bamboo world, and are what I would search out if I bought rods purely for investment. However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact up & coming fly fishers have cut their teeth almost exclusively on 9' graphite rods. Perhaps there will be a future market for longer bamboo rods..... I personally like fishing with longer, light bamboo rods. And I find them superior to lifeless graphite for aesthetic pleasure...graphite will simply never feel the way bamboo does when fighting a fish or when you need to land that small dry fly ever so delicately in the feeding lane of that Stanford-educated spring creek riser. However, my idea of a long & light rod is 8'6"...maybe 8'9" max.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
pcg		#82	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1739 10/28/2008 14:27 Admin	No definitive or harsh stands on my part. Apologies if that's how my previous statement read. I was simply stating that short rods are, IMHO, vastly overrated. Of interest, the finest classic makers priced their rods according to length (& logic). I'm not looking at catalogs at the moment, but a 7 1/2' rod might have sold for $35, and the same model in a 12-ft Salmon rod version for $60. This reflected materials, labor, larger ferrules & larger reelseats. The short baby rods were a novelty, but not taken seriously by most fishermen. Around the turn of the century (that is, the 20th century) and in parallel with the rising interest in dry fly fishing, seven-foot rods became a minor sensation. Several writers at the time lauded their invention. It's debatable whether Edwards, or perhaps Divine, came out with the diminutive rod first. Schweibert claims it was Edwards, but I could never corroborate that statement. The short rods appeared almost simultaneously within a decade of each other. Regardless, as Jeff notes, none of the makers made many of the short rods. They weren't in great demand, and I've previously noted, not of much use except in small streams in the Catskills and in parts of New England. The bread & butter rod was eight to ten feet. But in today's world, scarcity breeds value. My earlier point was both practical, and cultural. I've been fishing now for more than a couple decades, and gravitated to short rods almost immediately when I began. What was not to like? Every sportswriter raved about them. So obviously they were better. But then as my confidence increased, I began throwing line with longer rods. It slowly dawned on me (& I admit to being slow at times) that I had bought into a lot of hype: shorter wasn't necessarily better by any means. And the cultural side of it? Since the late 1950s, beginning with Schweibert & Sparse Grey Hackle, we've been told repeatedly, in the most romantic sort of out-of-doors writing, that these short rods are some ultimate fly fishing grail. But at the time they were made by Payne, Leonard, Edwards, Young et al, they were largely novelties, and priced accordingly.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
quashnet		#83	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2223 10/28/2008 15:42 Moderatus Muscae	One reason that short rods didn't always get cataloged was due to scarcity of materials. Through the first half of the twentieth century, wars, economic declines, and the cane embargo caused American makers who could manage to get only a few new rods built per year to therefore build the most popular rods, thus continuing an emphasis on the long rod. There was a whole lot more time spent and emphasis required for repairing old rods, keeping them in service and thus perpetuating old standards. This was true even into the 1950's. In the circa 1952 catalog, Paul H. Young listed nothing smaller than a Martha Marie model, and he explained why: "We are always ready to discuss rod needs for any definite purpose, and our intention is to fit you perfectly. There are a number of models that we are skipping in face of a critical shortage of everything needed to make fine rods." But Young was already building Midges, and by 1953 he had built the Driggs, "...a short light rod for narrow brushy streams and creeks." These rods came into their own when customers were better off, and buying more than one rod became the norm. Old ideas about rod length couldn't change very much until that point. This doesn't mean that long or short rods are good or bad. Earlier this month I cast a Paul Young trout rod built in 1948, nine feet in length, with a 14/64 ferrule and a 3/64 tiptop. It was an eye-opening experience with a DT4F line. But the Midge and the Driggs models, built in the following decade, are pretty eye-opening too. Taper and other factors have much to do with creating a great fishing experience. Rod length is only one of the more immediately noticeable factors. It is certainly key in matters like mending line, but is not the sole determinate of what makes a great rod. Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of over 360 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories, etc. Thank you to all who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
SnooKen		#84	[url]	[-]
Posts: 736 10/28/2008 18:19	Since we've diverged from the original topic(Thank God) I'm wondering how much impact on the popularity of shorter rods might have been generated by increased size of crowds on the more popular large public waterways. Seems possible to me that many of the flyfishers of the past would have reacted the same way we do, seeking more solitude by ranging into smaller and more remote streams. Those waters would almost certainly have been more brush choked with shorter and tighter casting lanes as well as often requiring a significant hike through woods and rough terrain where a long rod already strung up would be more cumbersome. As to which rod format is "better", I like 'em both; a lot! Each does things the other can't do as well. Each has drawbacks. This argument of short versus long as it pertains to function is reminiscent of discussions of the "perfect boat", "perfect car" and "perfect woman". "Perfect" is relative to the situation and the tastes of the individual. Quash; Might I suggest a bowl of Ben & Jerry's "Willie Nelson's Peach Cobbler" ice cream washed down with a palate cleanser of milk then capped off with a clean bowl of "New York Super Chunk Fudge"?? Ken
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Dewardian	Brandin rod futures........	#85	[url]	[-]
Posts: 36 10/29/2008 01:20	Congratulations to the winning bidder. Commiserations to the runner up, I suspect that you win more than you lose in these contests. The future will bring what it will; the reasons for doing what we do, can be as capricious as the moment. In reading the responses I would commend you both for your bidding, the cause was a just one. Per Brandin, is in the opinion of many at the top of his game, as are a few others, both well known and not so well known. Their work speaks for itself, while they often do not. As to the merit of cost, in the relation to time, if a recent Dermatologist (substitute your own experience here), who crossed my path had to live on rodmakers rates, his rods would be in the $30-40,000 range. Brandin futures could be very promising. The thread segued into the merits of materials and short and long rods, and this is a minefield of contradictions. A few thoughts........ I would not characterize myself as a collector, but over time I have acquired a few rods, a few have moved on but most have stayed. There was the 5'6" Lee Wulff #5-6 (Garcia -Conolon) that came my way in the early seventies, and the 16' #9-10 Jim Green era Fenwick that found its way to me last year. That is the long and the short of it, In the bamboo middle there are a few Youngs, Dickersons, Heddons, various Wanigas, Fitch, Sharpe, Uslan, F E Thomas, Edwards, Pezon et Michel, Bogart, and a few English rods. In the suitability of rods for fishing, short rods have their place, and for me its not big rivers or for mending line, maybe it is for you. Likewise long rods in bamboo start for me at about 8', a favorite rod is one of Chris Bogarts 8'3" #5, as a hollow built it weighs less than some of the 7'6" rods that do not see a lot of daylight. Going to an extreme would be fishing a TC Ivens 10' #7, it is not called the "Iron Murderer" for nothing......... a half hour casting with this can put you a long way down the road to tendinitis. If you have to fish with only bamboo, this rod might give you a new perspective. To each his own.......... cast as many different rods as you can........... and when you find that rod, that speaks to you in that special way............ try casting different lines with it, and you will be most pleasantly surprised. I doubt that most subscribers to this list serve are stuck with a Hobson's choice situation. Fish with whatever rod makes sense to you. If your fishing pleasure demands that you only fish with a particular makers rods, then that is what you should fish with. Fishing after all should be a pleasurable experience, indeed some people actually have fun doing it, without any thought of realizing anything other than having a good time. My appologies for digressing. Peter
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
jeffkn1		#86	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1709 10/29/2008 09:36	Doesn't Per usually attend Lang's? I've never talked to him but if the chance arises I'll see if he's aware of the recent price paid for one of his rods, and I'll ask him if the market for his stuff is biased toward any particular configuration.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
pcg		#87	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1741 10/29/2008 12:52 Admin	I've already emailed him, so he's aware of this on-going thread.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Kaneman1		#88	[url]	[-]
Posts: 112 10/29/2008 16:02	Per made mention of that rod to his customers on his web site. Kaneman1
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
tim simbari		#89	[url]	[-]
Posts: 260 10/29/2008 19:04	pcg wrote: I can only attribute this quote to inexperience: Short cane rods are superior to short graphite rods and long graphite rods are vastly superior to long cane rods. This is precisely why long cane rods will never be in demand. Many of the old longer cane rods are exhilarating casters. I go Salmon & Steelhead fishing at least twice a year. My favorite rod? A 9 1/2-foot mid-1920s Edwards-made vom Hofe. It easily outcasts my longer Orvis graphites, & the sheer strength & power constantly blows away curious guides & graphite-only fishermen. It's become one of the few rods I treasure. I also spend 20 days+ on far smaller rivers fishing for browns & rainbows. Although I own a couple 7 1/2-foot graphites (that I paid far too much for), I find myself reaching for my 9-foot Edwards. There's a silken feel to the old DeLuxe that plastic just can't match. And I neglect to note the unexpected power of these old rods. If I need a beater--if I expect to bushwack a 1/4 mile--I bring one of my new Orvis rods. But when I do so, it's always a practical compromise. Before you start putting down old, long cane rods, cast a properly loaded example by one of the better makers. And let us not underestimate the fact that in a pinch you can pole vault across all but the widest rivers with one
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
pcg		#90	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1743 10/29/2008 19:47 Admin	Tim's only contribution to "pcg wrote" is the final line, which he included in the quote as if it were part of my earlier comment. It was not. And I'd gently disagree that one would use a 9-foot rod to pole vault across a river--any river. Tim may--I admit to never having fished with him. Ingenious idea though. Out of curiosity I spent a few minutes checking obscure fishing sites on the web. Lo & behold! I quickly found a shot of Tim using a very old Leonard 11-foot rod to leap a small river. Wonders never cease. Last Edited By: pcg 10/29/2008 20:31. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
tim simbari		#91	[url]	[-]
Posts: 261 10/29/2008 20:33	Well sir I must apologize for the impression that was your statement, I did not even know a post could appear that way. It was to appear as my post. I can only assume it was a global conspiracy by the moderators. My primary point about rods in the 9 to 12 foot[your reference] range is that "that's a hell of a lot of lumber" to be packing on a full day's fishing. Might we assume that could be why they sell for pennies on the dollar? Last Edited By: tim simbari 10/30/2008 18:30. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
tim simbari		#92	[url]	[-]
Posts: 262 10/29/2008 20:42	pcg wrote: Brooker wrote, long graphite rods are vastly superior to long cane rods Sorry, but such a comment reflects a lack of experience with longer cane rods. "Vastly superior"? There are advantages & disadvantages to both (for instance, if you have bad shoulders, you'll be delighted to be handed a graphite, regardless of its performance). But Brooker's comment is without nuance, & I very kindly attributed the statement to inexperience. Unless of course you've ever spent a week walking on bonefish flats. You would then realize Brooker is probably a bit smarter than your final bluster would paint him to be.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
creakycane		#93	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1880 10/29/2008 20:54	I believe the activity by many excellent and talented high-tech builders to build light, hollow, sometimes even epoxy-laden long, light-line rods out of tonkin bears witness to the state of things.... These makers are trying to imitate the long. light line, well designed graphite rods we are lucky enough to have since the 70's (why? because they are excellent fishing/casting tools - the best we have over 8').
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
troutist		#94	[url]	[-]
Posts: 193 10/30/2008 01:58	Hey, what happened? We started talking about quads and I kept reading and reading and waiting and waiting to get to the end to make my comment, then we are onto length of rods....well, I'll make my comment anyway. Was surprised that no one mentioned Tim Zietak when the discussion was on quads. Tim does really nice work with his quads - Rich( Bow River) and I both have rods ordered. He also is great with repairs. That is why when my 801510 Dickerson needed a little work, it only went to Tim. Uh, guess I'll yack a little about length of rods, too. I feel that the shorter rods will always be valued more because of their demand. I just don't like to cast cane rods over 8 foot because they feel too heavy in my hand and are not fun to cast all day. Maybe I just haven't cast the right long rod, but that's the way I feel now...and I believe the majority of cane rod fishers would agree. Of course, I've also been know to say "I've never met a cane rod I didn't like"! Thanks for listening....
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
David Dornblaser		#95	[url]	[-]
Posts: 191 10/30/2008 10:43	I know that the auction that started this thread was an unique confluence of rods, rod making personalities, and other unique circumstances. As a relative cane newbie I was hoping that this thread would have morphed in a different direction - more discussion on what determines who is a collectible or notable modern rod builder. I suspect that that conversation would be educational for us relative newbies as well as highly entertaining. It's interesting that the question of length focuses only on trout rods as there is a strong group of cane fans who fish longer, heavier line weight cane rods for steelhead/salmon. No surprise that most of the modern rods for steelhead/salmon are hollow-built. - David www.UpperMidwestFlyFishing.com - fly fishing in the Upper Midwest. Spring Creeks to Smallies to Steelhead.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
pcg		#96	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1746 10/30/2008 11:43 Admin	David, thanks for redirecting the "long rod" discussion. My original pro-long rod comment was in reference to Salmon & Steelhead fishing. Somehow it got turned on its head. In contrast, all of my trout work is using 7.5 & 8-foot cane or graphite rods. It's worth noting that very few steelheaders use anything shorter than 9-foot. And if they do, they usually regret the decision if they catch a memorable fish. Or regret the decision when their 8-foot rod beats them up. Or the fish breaks off. As I noted, different rods work in different environments. And the long (& heavy) cane rods have a place. When I was up on the Salmon River early in October casting my 9.5' vom Hofe rod, I was fishing beside a guide I've known for years. He was using an 9.5' Orvis Helios, and after a couple hours asked if he could throw a line w/ my rod. His first reaction (after casting about 80') was "Oh my gosh this is heavy." Then after a couple more casts (each progressively farther), he said, "I'm getting out there farther than I've ever cast. What's the secret?" I wish I'd been witty enough to say it was the weight, but I just smiled. Everything's got a time & place.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
oysterbamboo		#97	[url]	[-]
Posts: 243 10/30/2008 15:53	creakycane wrote: I believe the activity by many excellent and talented high-tech builders to build light, hollow, sometimes even epoxy-laden long, light-line rods out of tonkin bears witness to the state of things.... It is an interesting phenomenon. A bit like saying "I really appreciate fine Scotch... with cranberry juice and Ginger Ale"! Bill O.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
tim simbari		#98	[url]	[-]
Posts: 263 10/30/2008 18:41	We might also try and remember a very important fact. With the rise of catch and release fishing becoming so popular, combined with growing understanding of reasonable fish "playing" there is one issue without too much disagreement, many if not most of these longer rods are quite simply fish killers.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
HERMES2069		#99	[url]	[-]
Posts: 439 10/30/2008 19:21	Try landing a 12" rainbow, on a size 24 Midge, tied to a 8x or 9x tippet. A 7'-6' 4wt. helps control loosing or netting. Phil
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
bobbeegee	Fish Killers?	#100	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2030 10/30/2008 19:24	tim simbari wrote: We might also try and remember a very important fact. With the rise of catch and release fishing becoming so popular, combined with growing understanding of reasonable fish "playing" there is one issue without too much disagreement, many if not most of these longer rods are quite simply fish killers. I've always been under the impression that the opposite is expounded, in that short rods require more playing of a large fish and thus stress them too much? The ole "lay the wood to 'em" doesn't seem to jive with shorter bamboo. I like both long and short bamboo rods where they can best be utilized. Truly strange as to how this post has morphed! Bob Go Heels!!!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Brandin Rod on an unmentionable site