Being new to Cane and new on this board ,..... I'm hoping I can ask the following question without getting anyone upset , so here goes. I know folks
collect rods and fish old rods and I can appreciate that. I also know that there are a lot of very fine modern rod makers out there today that build classic
and new taper rods and can appreciate that also. In my thinking I am wondering why anyone would fish a 50yr old cane rod or buy one "to fish" rather
than buying a new one ? In my mind a piece of wood 50 yrs old cannot be as strong as one that is brand new...Am I wrong here? I'm taking apples for
apples here, same material , same taper, so forth and so on. Again , I'm not talking collecting , I'm taking about fishing it. Enlighten me please.
Thanks in advance ....Ed
This forum began as Clark's Classic Bamboo Rod Forum, founded by Clark Davis for all who share a passion for classic rods. The forum is now owned by Whitefish Press aka Dr. Todd Larson - banjo.
For those who don't use English as their primary language we now have a translator for your language of choice hosted by Google.
0 Kudo
- Members Corner
- Forum Announcements
- Collecting Bamboo Fly Rods
- Fishing Bamboo Fly Rods
- Rod making, restoration, repairs and discussion on those related topics concerning bamboo rods.
- Rod and Reel Makers Forum
- Information About Makers & Manufacturers
- Taper Exchange
- Appraisals & Identification of Bamboo Fly Rods
- Ephemera, empherma and Ephemerella.....
- Book Talk
- Photos, paintings, written stories and talents.
- Classic Reels
- Collecting and Tying Classic Flies
- The Cooks Kitchen
- The Classic Fly Rod Classifieds
- Technical Support
Old vs New ?
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 ET flyrods |
Old vs New ? |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 5 06/13/2009 10:36 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Gnome |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 2189 06/13/2009 11:11 King of the Gnomes |
Please see the KOSMIC post in this category for a wee bit of insight.
Jeff |
|||
|
|
||||
|
pcg |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 2947 06/13/2009 11:12 Admin |
100-year rods are as strong as 1-yr old. What are you talking about? Age is not a factor whatsoever.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
bobbeegee |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 2789 06/13/2009 11:36 |
I prefer old, maybe because I'm getting there myself?
That's just my opinion. You are correct there are some folks building great rods today, and maybe that's your preference. I would suggest you study and try as many old and new rods as you can get your hands on and then make your decision. You might be pleasantly surprised at what some of these "old" rods can do with the right line! Very subjective question. Bob Go Heels!!! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
tedgolden |
The pursuit of virtue | #4 | ||
|
Posts: 2881 06/13/2009 11:40 Moderator |
Ed, your question is somewhat personal in nature and I can only speak for myself. I find that some older rods have acquired the characteristic of mystic
potency. Such a quality is not easily acquired and some rods have more than others. As you might imagine, any rod starts in life with a zero balance.
Older rods have a longer period in which to acquire mystic potency and those which withstand the tests of time are typically rated by anglers, usually thru the
price mechanism. Some rods acquire their powers thru a nod from a great authority. A smile of approval from Ernie or Marty, AJ or Wes could be enough to
catapult a rod on the hierarchy of rods to the point it may glow in the dark with mystic potency. But there are many ways in which this consideration is
acquired. But is does take time.
There are rods being made today which will find such favor, some having a head start by virtue of their maker's reputation. At the end of the day, I am reminded of the saying, there is more to fishing than fish. In sort of a half-assed paralell, there is more to a fishing rod than meets the eye. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
pcg |
#5 | |||
|
Posts: 2948 06/13/2009 11:56 Admin |
Eloquently stated.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
recane1 |
#6 | |||
|
Posts: 213 06/13/2009 11:58 |
If you had a 1957 T - Bird would you leave it the garage for the entire time that you owned it and only drive your new VW turbo deisel Jetta on the road?
You think about all the people who drove that bird before you. You think about how times were different when that car rolled out of the show room floor. You think about how some young guy got to take his best girl out to the prom in that new bird 50 years ago and they are still married and maybe even your grandparrents. Aaron |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Short Tip |
#7 | |||
|
Posts: 1167 06/13/2009 12:08 Moderator |
Everything TG said, plus:
There's a certain stubborn perversity in continuing to use an item for it's intended purpose for 50 or 100 years. These are items which were crafted to do a specific job, and do it well. The fact that many modern makers build close copies of these rods is a testament to their brilliance in execution. They were built for the long haul, with little regard for trend marketing, planned obsolescence or even profit! I think a good argument could be made for using either, but it's such an emotional thing, few will be swayed by the other side. Besides, there's the whole mystic potency thing. It's real! Enough of this, I'm off to the garage to touch up paint and varnish on my 60 year old canoe................ |
|||
|
|
||||
 Cane Head |
#8 | |||
|
Posts: 2228 06/13/2009 13:50 |
Far be it for me to let some 50 year old rod sit around in retirement, plus I know they were built with the only shelf life being considered was that of their
owner. Besides, older rods on some occasions allow me more bang for my buck. I doubt I could buy a new rod equivilent of my Orvis' Flea, the 6 1/2'
Deluxe, or my 7 1/2' 6wt Battenkill for the prices I paid for them. Being among some of Orvis' best of the best at the time, I doubt if I could touch
a contemporary's equivilent for under a grand a piece. No - I rather like my old rods. Unlike things brand new, they come from the tube with karma already
included - I need all the karma I can get.
Cane |
|||
|
|
||||
|
quashnet |
#9 | |||
|
Posts: 2608 06/13/2009 16:24 Moderatus Muscae |
To address your main concern: yes, a fifty-year-old, well-made cane rod can be just as strong, straight, and resilient today as it was when it was new.
That's assuming that the rod was fished often, but fished well, and used for the purposes intended. A little midge rod that was fished in salt water or
used to troll musky plugs may of course be damaged. But this Midge, built in 1958, just happens to have recently passed its fiftieth anniversary, and looks
good for another half-century of use.
Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of over
460 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories, etc. Thank you to all
who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
BlackHillsBill |
#10 | |||
|
Posts: 2816 06/13/2009 17:30 |
Drew's is the best explanation I've read anywhere
set off by your question, I discovered that half the rods are fifty or older, that none could be called expensive either in its heyday or now, that I still fish them all, and that, yes, it's because each retains its mystic potency: three Heddons, two H-I Tonkas (a Queen and a Prince), two Edwards (a Bristol and a quadrate), one Granger, and a Phillipson. This could be explained in two ways: (1) I am growing dotty, or (2) I remain remarkably sly. Please do not poll the membership. P.P.S.--I really do dislike seeing you disappear in a huff over some perceived insult which none of us intended. So if it will add more balance to what I've said, my current "favorite" rods were made by three contemporary makers: 7' for 4 wt (by Marcelo Calviello, with his innovative bamboo-on-bamboo ferrule system), 7'9" for 5 wt (a Parabolic 14 by Bob Lancaster, using the Paul Young taper), 8' for 5 wt (by Bill Abrams, using an 801610 Dickerson taper). I figure they'll be lasters, too--well beyond my own duration. And that puts me nearly to the end of my rack. So if it still does nothing toward mollifying you, so long and good luck. Oh, and it usually doesn't work out very well to say you're looking for enlightenment when what you really want is confirmation.
Last Edited By: BlackHillsBill 06/14/2009 09:16.
Edited 4 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
ET flyrods |
#11 | |||
|
Posts: 6 06/13/2009 19:20 |
I had feared this type of reaction to my question which was not meant to strike to the bone of anyone. All I was asking was is a 50 yr old piece of bamboo as
strong as one that was just made. I will not make the mistake of asking anymore questions , and am considering this to be my last post on this forum. My
appologies if I have offended everyone........Ed
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Eric Peper |
#12 | |||
|
Posts: 273 06/13/2009 19:29 |
ET flyrods wrote:Dunno what bugged you, but I think your questions were answered accurately and succinctly. Answer to first question was "Because they want/like/lust for an older rod for reasons solely their own." Answer to second question ("Am I wrong here?") was "Yes." As to being enlightened, I think if you read each of the responses with an open mind and lose some of your sensitivity, you will have been enlightened. Just my opinion as a basically disinterested bystander who was a little take aback by your reaction to the responses . . . EP |
|||
|
|
||||
|
bobbeegee |
#13 | |||
|
Posts: 2792 06/13/2009 19:40 |
ET flyrods wrote: Ed, I really don't understand your response to how your question was answered? I'm of the opinion that all responders were very civil and forthcoming as to their opinion of old v/s new. Doesn't seem to me that anyone was stricken to the bone? You asked the question, and a few responded. How did we offend you? Bob p.s. I think the majority of respondents also own some modern made rods. I own a couple and like them very much! Go Heels!!!
Last Edited By: bobbeegee 06/13/2009 19:49.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
pcg |
#14 | |||
|
Posts: 2952 06/13/2009 20:42 Admin |
BOB SAYS THAT WELL. Most of us own a variety of rods, old & new. I own an 1896 or '97 Kosmic, and a 2006 Zero Gravity Orvis graphite--as well as many,
many rods in-between. The age of a rod really has nothing to do w/ strength. An old cane rod is just as strong & reliable as a new $500 graphite.
You've gotten a variety of great responses, & no one has over reacted. And hopefully you've realized that the question has little merit (although it's common--many people believe cane is fragile, while it's actually tough as steel). I personally worry far more about my contemporary graphites than I do about my 80-year old cane rods. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
kimk |
#15 | |||
|
Posts: 666 06/13/2009 21:41 |
Ruggedness of old rods aside, the question of why we do what we do, has been asked many times and in many guises on this forum. Drew's prosaic approach is
probably the best explanation of the inexplicable.
AgMD |
|||
|
|
||||
|
quashnet |
#16 | |||
|
Posts: 2609 06/14/2009 01:18 Moderatus Muscae |
Every 50-year-old rod was bought new by somebody. The fact that so many of them still fish perfectly well ought to be seen as an encouragement to those who
build or buy new rods today. If many old rods remain in such good condition, we can certainly expect that today's rods will be in as good or better shape a
half century from now. The comments thus far imply a win-win situation for rod makers and anglers, and cannot reasonably be interpreted as arguing against
contemporary rods.
Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of over
460 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories, etc. Thank you to all
who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
DrakeBob |
#17 | |||
|
Posts: 1363 06/14/2009 12:08 Formerly Drake |
As my wife has been known to tell me regarding some of life's great mysteries, "If I have to explain it to you, that means you won't understand." In a way, I wish I could offer you something more definitive than that, Ed, but the truth is, if I were interested in being definitive about such things, I wouldn't be a fisher of bamboo, let alone old bamboo.
Piscator Non Solum Piscatur
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Pete in Vermont |
Well, the 50 year old rod might . . . | #18 | ||
|
Posts: 36 06/14/2009 15:54 |
The 50 year old rod might be the wrong year to choose because the post WWII, 1946 to 1949 glue used by some of the well known makers has been known to
separate. I'm sticking with my two favorite rods, one made in 1939 and the the other in 1940. Now, those 70-year-old rods are really tough. I just came in
from lawn casting one and I'm going fishing tonight with it on the local river. The real reason a cane rod is made out of bamboo is that BAMBOO is NOT a
wood. It is a PLANT and it flowers and grows very fast. There are more than 70 species of bamboo, only one of which is the best for cane rods. There is a big
difference between a "woody grass plant" and wood like maple or oak. Bamboo retains its natural resiliency and rod makers heat-treat and then seal
the bamboo with varnish or an impregnated waterproofing to protect the fibers forever.
Pete In Vermont
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
quashnet |
#19 | |||
|
Posts: 2610 06/14/2009 20:40 Moderatus Muscae |
Post-WWII was a time of great experimentation and bursts of creativity for American rod makers. Some may have made bad choices in materials, but overall there
was a lot of good war surplus equipment and materials available for innovative workers to select and adapt for use in making great rods that still hold up very
well. For example Paul Young, in his 1950 catalog, went out of his way to discuss the glue he was using in his rods, a glue that was strong enough to withstand
immersion in boiling water. He listed the government specs and approvals by the Army Air Forces, Bureau of Ships, Army, Navy, and Navy Air Forces for the use
of this glue, which seems pretty clearly to have been war surplus.
Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of over
460 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories, etc. Thank you to all
who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
teter |
#20 | |||
|
Posts: 1338 06/14/2009 22:48 |
Ed,
I'm sure no one meant to offend you, but there might have been a touch of defensiveness in some answers; perhaps that's because we're accustomed to people looking at us with raised eyebrows. I happen to enjoy fishing old rods more than new, because I just like history and old things. Fly fishing is great; fly fishing with bamboo is even better, and fly fishing with a bamboo rod and reel that someone made decades ago is the best of all. To some of us, at least. I have something on the order of three old rods (40+, the oldest around 115 years old) to each new one, and there are only a couple I wouldn't fish, not because of their age, per se, but because they would need restoration to make them fishable or because they are historically important . One, a c.1895 Kosmic, fits both categories. Most of my fishing is done with rods that are 50 to 80 years old, and I have caught hundreds of big fish on rods older than me (I'm 57) without fear of breakage (of the rods). I no longer worry about whether the rods are strong enough, as long as I am using appropriate flys and lines and know the likely size of my quarry (I get nervous if I hook a 20-inch rainbow on a 4-weight, whether the rod is 80 years old or brand new) and as long as I know the ferrules and varnish and glue are sound. Of course, the value of a rod comes into play when I consider fishing it -- I DO worry that a careless step by me or an impulsive jerking of a line to free a fly caught in a bush could wreck a rod that is irreplaceable, whereas a new rod ruined in a stupid mistake can be replaced. But my natural bias is toward fishing any given rod, so odds are I will find a way to do so. For the most part, I think new bamboo rods are made better and look nicer than old ones, but they haven't earned their stripes yet, and they aren't stronger just because they are newer. Lighter and prettier, yes, but not stronger. Fish the new ones if you desire, but not because the old ones are fragile. So I hope you'll reconsider your decision not to post here anymore, and perhaps, if you have made it to the end of this rambling, Guinness-fueled thesis, you really don't plan to go away. |
|||
|
|
||||
- Members Corner
- Forum Announcements
- Collecting Bamboo Fly Rods
- Fishing Bamboo Fly Rods
- Rod making, restoration, repairs and discussion on those related topics concerning bamboo rods.
- Rod and Reel Makers Forum
- Information About Makers & Manufacturers
- Taper Exchange
- Appraisals & Identification of Bamboo Fly Rods
- Ephemera, empherma and Ephemerella.....
- Book Talk
- Photos, paintings, written stories and talents.
- Classic Reels
- Collecting and Tying Classic Flies
- The Cooks Kitchen
- The Classic Fly Rod Classifieds
- Technical Support
Quick Reply
The Orvis database by Greg Reynolds Finally available again!!
Check out the Paul Young Rod Co. database which is owned and maintained by member Robert Golder (quashnet).
Paul Young Rod Co. database by quashnet
DISCLAIMER:The views, and opinions, posted here are the sole responsibility of the poster. Negative comments, when directed at individuals, or other private concerns, will not be tolerated, posters should treat this media no differently than any other media source, in other words, if you would not submit what you are going to post in the newspaper, or a magazine, and sign your name as the author, kindly refrain from doing so here. The Classic Fly Rod Forum is not an open air forum for vendor/maker complaints. If you seek resolution, it is recommended you talk to the vendor/maker. If you seek an audience, it is recommended you go elsewhere. The admin and the Moderators reserve the right to remove any items deemed inappropriate according to the rules of conduct prominently displayed on each forum. If you have any questions or concerns you are free to email us at
send email to the Classic Fly Rod Forum
Posting to sell Domain names and the like, i.e. SPAM, is against YUKU Policy, if you post these types of posts here you will be banned from this board and YUKU will more than likely ban you from the site entirely. Thank you..........
The Fly Fishing Loop is sponsored by flydepot.com
[ Home Waters | Next | Random | List | Search ]
