| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
oneculm |
#21 | |||
|
OK looking back the original post was for individual or company so I will go back to my first choice which would be Heddon model 1000's. Used the best
bamboo with thousands of culms to pick from and enough different tapers to look for to collect them all. They are not all that common. dave
Last Edited By: oneculm 04/26/2009 15:30.
Edited 2 times.
|
||||
|
|
||||
gooseberryrods |
#22 | |||
|
Garrison or Payne with PHY not far behind. I leave EW rods off my list after owning no less than 8 original "Billy" rods and found only one to worth
much as a casting/fishing instrument. That's not to say they are not collectible but in my way of thinking , a rod has to be a nice casting rod before I
put a high value on it as a collectible. A rod, in my opinion, also needs to be well made and it must have an artistic appeal. Save for the few rods made
during or around the Filbert street period, I have not seen these attributes in his rods to the degree that separates him from some of the other icons like FE
Thomas or Lew Stoner.
Scott |
||||
|
|
||||
recane1 |
#23 | |||
|
For me, I would pick Jon Parker. I only have one of his rods, but need a few more. He is still with us but retired and not selling rods. Every now and then
one pops up on the market. Pre- fire Leonards, and my other favorite, Edwards Quads would be the top three.
Aaron |
||||
|
|
||||
mosquito |
#24 | |||
|
Wow great question!
Might I suggest, instead of trying to accumulate very fine rods from one builder classic or contemporary. You may want to collect one very nice rod or examples from each of the makers of the past and present. You would have much better luck finding a very nice Dickerson, Payne, Carlson, PHY, Gillum, Garrison, Wojnicki, Aroner, etc. rather than trying to find 10 high quality Gillum rods. You get my point. By taking this approach you will no doubt have a very nice collection that will hold its value but also get a chance to see and perhaps cast some of the best rods ever made by some of the best makers. As the old saying goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket."
Good luck with the quest. KM
Last Edited By: mosquito 04/26/2009 12:32.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
||||
jeffkn1 |
#25 | |||
|
I'll cast a vote for 'real' Cross rods, those made in Lynn, Mass. The gives your friend a 6-year production window to search for. They're
around, reasonably priced, and designed by a man whose impact was greater than any other single 20th century man in the industry.
All the rest of the 20th century designer stuff is already overpriced. All of it. Have at it, guys. |
||||
|
|
||||
tim simbari |
#26 | |||
jeffkn1 wrote: We have been waiting about 50 years for that 19th century stuff to make a move. The actions of the rods developed in the 40's-50's for primarily 3-5 weight lines, and they're offspring is what makes them so eminately collectable worldwide. |
||||
|
|
||||
Whitefish Press |
#27 | |||
|
Awesome responses. I'll forward the link to the gentleman and I'm sure he'll have the best possible advice to follow...honestly, Cross slipped my
mind until Jeff noted them but I would almost amend my list and replace Maurer with Cross. I think they are badly, badly underpriced.
-- Dr. Todd |
||||
|
|
||||
creakycane |
#28 | |||
|
I'd second Mosquito and collect the" best of the best" - List makers desired, and include one from each that they are best known for, or the
best performing from each maker..... The list of makers could be Eastern Makers, Makers from 30's - 60's, Hollowbuilt makers etc. This could produce a
very interesting collection.
|
||||
|
|
||||
jeffkn1 |
#29 | |||
|
Todd
Your friend's style of collecting, as typified by his reel and lure collections, may give you a clue to what would work for rod collecting. At the shows I'm sure you've noticed collections of reels of all the same type, say sidemounts like in Jim Schottenham's collection, or baits of all the same marque, as in Stag's collection of McHarg stuff. Or your friend could collect nothing but 4,5,7, or 8-strip rods(no 6-strippers since that's what everybody else has). I considered doing just 8-strippers since a number of them have found their way to my neck of the woods but I only have 2 more makers to go, Fowler and Divine, and then it may be done as a category. A John Landman collection could have some depth to it, since he did 6 and 8-strip, bait and fly (and surf if you include his son), trade and non-, 19th and 20th century, and Calcutta and Tonkin. Now that I think of it, that would be an impressive collection and there wouldn't be a dog in the bunch. Tell him not to go heavy on the Cross yet. I'm still working on them myself...*g* |
||||
|
|
||||
pcg |
#30 | |||
|
And ignore Gooseberry's comment--he's just sorry he sold off his Edwards rods.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Whitefish Press |
#31 | |||
|
Yes, I think guys who start out in lures and reels--where you can "color collect" a single model lure or "area collect" a certain kind of
reel, as Jeff mentions--have a different approach to collecting. It helps explain why they might feel comfortable collecting, say, Gene Edwards Quads or Payne
Bantys. This is a really great thread full of wonderful advice for the new rod collector...I'll stick by my original assessment with the addition of
pre-fire Leonards.
-- Dr. Todd |
||||
|
|
||||
gooseberryrods |
#32 | |||
|
I can only speak from my own personal experience of having owned many EW`rods. The only one I wish I'd kept was the unsigned 8' Weber Henschal. Now if
a Filbert Street rod landed in my lap, I'd probably hang onto it awhile as an investment but that does not imply that I think these rods are great casting
rods. IMO, most of the Heddons and Grangers do a nicer job of presenting a fly and can be had for a mere fraction of the cost.
Scott |
||||
|
|
||||
jeffkn1 |
#33 | |||
|
About 20 years ago Thomas Capstick, a McGraw-Hill editor, passed away. In Fly Fisherman Magazine it was said Capstick had one of the best Theodore Gordon-tied
fly collections known, and sadly it had disappeared from his office walls after his death.
Less than ten years before he died he stopped in at the store where I was most often to be found behind the tackle counter. In answer to his question I said that yes, we did buy estate tackle. I added that we did occasionally get rods. "Do you ever get any old flies? I'm not looking for rods - the collectors have driven prices right through the roof." Then he handed me his business card and I agreed to contact him if any 'old flies' showed up. I never saw him after that. Now, there was a well-connected collector who saw that prices were wacky 30 years ago. Competition hasn't improved the situation since then and it's partly for that reason that there's a new class of collector, one who seeks stuff currently in production. Starting out collecting, questions to answer might be: 1) What can I reasonably afford to collect? 2) Do I simply want an array of similar, or related, items (i.e. same color, same size, same model, same region, or same maker)? 3) Is it important to collect landmark examples (first six-strip, first impregnated, first year of production, etc.)? 4) Can I stand to spend money for something that will not necessarily be used? Will I be satisfied just to have them? 5) Are other people's opinions about the collection important? 6) How many different ways can something be considered the "best", and does that matter? Capstick had the resources and the connections, but also a sense that collecting should have reasonable limits to it. Everybody gets to decide that for themselves. For more insight into collecting, suggest your friend get ahold of copies of Art of Angling, in which Jerry Girard wrote columns about collecting.
Last Edited By: jeffkn1 04/26/2009 18:35.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
||||
tim simbari |
#34 | |||
pcg wrote: Here's the scene, maybe in heaven, Paul Young leans over to his buddy Jim Payne, "Hey Jim, you think this guy even owns a cane rod? Sam Carlson chimes in, if it was'nt so sad it'd be funny"
Last Edited By: tim simbari 04/26/2009 18:50.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
||||
pcg |
#35 | |||
|
Jeff, I'd be thrilled to be able to go back 30 years & select rods. "Prices right through the roof" three decades ago? What was he thinking?
When new bamboo rods today typically sell for $1500-2500 (+), prices for rods by any of the acknowledged masters discussed in this thread seem reasonable. I'd make exception for rods that sell for more than, say, $5,000. Otherwise, combine casting wizardry, history, exquisite aesthetics, provenance and the sheer romance associated with the maker---prices do not seem unusual. We can buy many prime examples by makers such as Hawes, Leonard, Thomas, Edwards, Dickerson, Payne and others for the price we would pay for new rod. IMO that's not bad. Name brand antiques almost always sell for multiples of new versions. Not in the tackle field. Not yet. I've looked at all my vintage acquisitions as bargains. And I still do. Pat |
||||
|
|
||||
jeffkn1 |
#36 | |||
|
Pat
Mr. Capstick was a pragmatist, and despite his Manhattan/bigtime publishing/Theodore Gordon Anglers affiliations he felt that rapid appreciation wasn't good for collecting because it squeezed out the little man. I can't disagree with him. It's unavoidable, but it ultimately happens to anything perceived as collectible. We're Americans, and we all have way too much disposable income. |
||||
|
|
||||
Arctic Grayling.fiberglassflyro... |
#37 | |||
|
I must admit that life was much easier when I only collected Ugly Sticks and Medalists.
And I didn't need an extra bedroom to store them!!!!! |
||||
|
|
||||
Horton Creek |
Thomas or Granger | #38 | ||
|
FE Thomas or Granger. Nice mix of abundant and scarce (Try finding an 8'6" FE Thomas Streamer or a 7' Mahogany Fairy or a 7'6" Granger
Favorite or Registered in original condition). These rods may not have the potential upside but they have much less risk of going lower. Thomas and Granger
prices have held consistently steady through both good and bad economic times. Their supply has already been factored into the market's prices.
Personally, I would be worried as a collector when all the older baby boomer collections who have been hoarding Young, Payne, Garrsions, etc start flooding the
market in 5-10 years. That said I am not a collector but if I was, I would want to collect rods that were as well thought of for their casting ability so I
could fish them, as they were for their scarcity.
|
||||
|
|
||||
WatercolorMan |
#39 | |||
|
I find the question of one Maker or Company to be the most interesting part. I don't think just one would work for me, I'm way to interested in fishing
different rods. But all that aside Looking at all the different choices out there I might go with Leonard for several reasons.
First you could buy a rods going back well over 100 years. Great possibilities for the historic part. The Paynes, FET's, Edwards & H.W. Hawes. The Leonard company would give you a chance to own rods built by so many great builders that worked there over the years. Getting one of each would be a great group alone. Then there are the Series of rods they made. Just in the Catskill Series you have the Baby Catskill, Fairy Catskill the Early Catskill going back into the 1890's. They also built a Petite and regular Catskills. Some of the other varieties of rod include the Letort Series, Ausable Series and Yellowstone Series. A whole collection custom made rods by Leonard could be gathered. Then like others said Tom Maxwell Leonard's. You could pick several rods in certain sizes and get one from each era. The model 50 or 38 or. . . You get the idea. Thinking the question over began a process that has lead me to a plan for gathering a new group of rods for myself. |
||||
|
|
||||
cwfly |
#40 | |||
|
One company or maker. Can afford nice rods but would like to be able to add to the collection fairly regularly. That sort of eliminates Garrison, Brandin, Gillum, and the like, at least the way I read it.
One real question among the parameters is how far back in time he cares to travel and if there exists a reason for doing so.
Does he wish his rods to be compatible, chronologically, with his existing collection of lures, reels and ephemera? If so, then that's a limitation that has significant affect on the range of possibilities. If you want a rod, for example, that might have met up in the past with a Silas Terry reel or a 19th century Vom Hofe that's one thing. For a Bogdan, another. In other words, is the expansion into rods designed to integrate with the existing interests, or is it a whole new and unrelated venture.
Could be that chronology or region is no factor at all. Just a thought. The brook runs over the bones of the planet and carries the sky on its backā¦. Odell Shepard |
||||
|
|
||||