To all; A glorious good day.
At the risk of opening an unending debate, or not receiving any replies at all due to all you long-time wrappers going through the same question once again, I will be appreciative of your insight and opinions concerning rod blank refinishing. I can hear you now, “Not this again!”, and I can’t really blame you. But I am new to wrapping and have some of my own ideas/theories which will benefit from contributions from experienced tradesmen such as you.
My quest is to find the ultimate rod blank finish, especially for the vintage FG/polyester blanks, at least for us rod (re)builder types. My quest was initiated from being unable to find a typical rod finish with a UV additive. If Threadmaster, RodDancer, Lumiseal and Perma Gloss do not proudly state their product contains UV protection, I can only assume they do not. The quest parameters are:
1.) Flexible durability
2.) UV protection
3.) Finish quality
4.) Ease of application
5.) Cost
6.) Availability

I have read and totally understand Ralph O’Quinn’s “Refinishing Rod Blanks” in the Library section of this website and appreciate and respect his rod building experience and his “epoxy/adhesive formulator” abilities as well. I am in total agreement with him in that a 2-part, catalyzed automotive clear, but not the cheaper varieties, would probably perform the best as a rod finish. The quality of UV protection and resilience to ozone as well as other chemicals is outstanding. How many newer model cars to you see with their clear coats crazing? While quite expensive, they actually may be less than the standard rod finishes compared ounce to ounce. But there are inhibiting factors: 1.) It is virtually impossible to purchase less than 1 quart. With a limited shelf life, the inherent cost of waste would be prohibiting to all but the largest, production rod shops; 2.) The mix ratio is measured by weight rather than volume resulting in the need for purchasing a rather expensive scale to accurately measure down to a few grams; 3.) They are designed to be sprayed, and only with high dollar spray equipment. The cheapie ones at the discount tool suppliers are simply incapable of producing an adequate let alone desirable finish with these clears; 4.) I am uncertain how they would perform being wiped on a blank; 5.) While labeled as “Urethanes”, to achieve their outstanding performance qualities, they are extensively and extremely modified utilizing a host of nasty chemicals and, consequently, are very toxic. One small whiff would prove my point.
While I certainly do not disagree Mr. Quinn’s views, I have conducted some tests of my own which have shown excellent results using ProKote (reg.) Thread Finish as a rod blank finish. Please note I am not affiliated in any way with ProKote, but it was simply the first finish I used when starting to wrap, it performs well, and I see no need to change. None of the peeling “the crud with my fingernail” or “one @#$%& of a mess” (as stated numerous times) was experienced. In fact, while able to scrape through the ProKote with a razor blade back down to the blank, it left no loose edge to facilitate peeling attempts and the finish quality was superb, perfectly smooth, leaving only a micro/nano orange peel surface to just break the reflective high gloss ever so slightly, which I prefer anyway. The possibility exists that ProKote bonds better to polyester resin and/or the FG /polyester matrix is more porous than the epoxies presently used in rod construction.
The stripped, FG/polyester test blank was scuffed with a grey ScotchBrite, dust removed with a rag followed by a wipe down with denatured alcohol and installed on my power wrapper. With the wrapper rotating at 150RPM, the ProKote was applied axially along the blank with a brush, less than half of what would typically be used for finishing wraps, just enough to obtain a nice, somewhat even gloss. An industrial, virtually lint free paper towel was cut into a 3in wide strip, folded over, then draped over the blank with the ends pinched between my fingers. The paper towel “sling” was then slowly and lightly dragged back and forth along the rotating blank, absorbing the excess epoxy. Depending how much epoxy was applied, a minimum of six passes was required to insure an even coat along the blank. If the towel became too saturated, one end was repositioned to expose a bit more dry area until a very faint streaking was left on the rod surface, then the wrapper turned down to less than 10RPM until the epoxy set. The rod was then left for 48 hours to obtain a good set yet well within the suggested 5 day recoat (without sanding) period but still lightly sanded with 320 to remove any nubs and high spots before one more coat was applied in the same manner. I did not think to, pre and post finishing, measure the blank but cannot imagine the two coats added more than 0.002in. Considering the possibility of future guide replacement, six coats of pure carnauba wax were applied prior to wrapping to hopefully facilitate removal of wraps and finish from the blank.
During a ten day trout fishing trip in the High Sierra, I was fortunate enough to hook into a few large fish which bent the rod well into the lower section. After returning, I took the rod to a machinist friends shop to use his optical comparator (it is the only high power magnifier I have access to) and inspected the surface of the rod. Granted it was only after ten, 10 hour days and not ten years, but was pleased to see no signs of cracking, chipping or peeling. If we all trust thread finish to protect our wraps, why not the blank itself as well, at least the FG/polyester rods?
My composite industry experience is limited to the laminating and tooling “B” type epoxies, similar to those used in blank manufacturing, with mix ratios of basically 100:25, by weight, and differ from the thread finish types with 50/50, by volume, ratios. While most epoxies are sensitive to UV degradation, so are most urethanes as well. But then, when you get right down to it, what isn’t? Side note; A couple manufacturers, not just epoxy, state to not expose their product to direct sunlight while curing as the UV filter properties will be adversely effected. Presumably because of the UV additives incorporated in thread finish, I have seen neglected rods left outdoors with surprisingly great looking wraps.
Let me stress the point that when I received this old FG rod, the wraps were unraveling, missing or broken guides, cork sections missing and just basically beat up. Most would have considered it a throwaway. But I love the vintage FG rods, especially if all original. Then there is restored, but then there is rebuilt as well. If a vintage rod is a virgin original, it should remain untouched. If it needs repair, it should be done so with material of that circa as best possible. I consider a rod like my test rod to be a candidate to experience the beauty and feel of old school craftsmanship while utilizing modern, advanced technologies and go out and fish the darn thing as originally intended. Similar to chopping the top of an original, pristine ’34 Ford to make a Hot Rod. While I appreciate both, there is a certain reverence involved with and due to the original. To those who might say,”But what if it breaks with a big fish?”my reply would be, “Then it was fortunate enough to die a glorious, honorable death!”
By the way, I have a 2oz, glass jar (possibly unused but I haven’t opened it) of “Spectra Rainbow Rod Varnish” in very good, thin liquid condition from my Dad’s tackle box. Since Dad is 94, I estimate it is from the late 40’s –early 50’s but could be from prior to him enlisting for WWII. He cannot remember. Is anyone familiar with its quality?
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond. Your thoughts, advise and insight will be graciously accepted prior to me “ruining” another rod.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

It's getting to the point where a fellow needs an advanced degree in chemistry to play this game. Unfortunately, my chemistry classes where long, long ago, so I will express no opinion on the merits of various blank finishes. However, two items in your process description did light up my radar, the first of which is the use of DNA to clean the blank before finish application. That can work, but sometimes not so well. The problem is the ethanol additives to 'de-nature' the alcohol do not always play pretty with finishes. I know of only one blank retailer who recommends the use of DNA to clean a fiberglass blank. Plain vanilla Dawn or Simple Green are effective degreasers / cleaners with no known to me downside risks for subsequent operations.

Secondly, the application of wax prior to wrapping and finishing the wraps strikes me as high risk. The idea is that the wrap finish will permeate the thread and bind to the blank. Maybe wax will facilitate future guide removal and maybe not. Regardless, no finish comes to that recommends application over wax.

Good luck.

Donald,
Thank you for your time, reply and insight. I used DNA because it leaves less, if any, residue behind than any other “solvent”, including isopropyl, is easily available and thought it mild enough to not have to worry about it attacking the surface. I guess I got lucky. My go to solvent for just about everything is acetone but knew better in this case. “Risk” is a good term for wrapping over a waxed surface; others may even call it stupid. Maybe I will call myself stupid if the guides and wraps start spinning on the blank but one does not know until one tries. While replacing guides, we have all struggled with removing the wraps and finish on some while on others everything comes right off, hence the wax theory. While the guides and consequently the wraps do experience torque under load, I think it is minimal with a spinning rod, especially one in the 2-4lb class. At least I know someone who can rewrap the guides if they come loose and the prep process will be a breeze.
Sincere thanks for the input.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

Agree with Donald, but will add that wrap finishes are NOT what you want for the rod blank itself. Best is to refinish the blank first, the last thing you do to it before adding the finish is to lightly use an abrasive pad (as you mention) on it and dry wipe it clean or lightly use a tacky cloth. No alcohol, acetone, or any other liquid.

Then do the guides using any finish you want.

The popular one-part urethanes, Permagloss and Lumiseal are very UV resistant, more so than any epoxy finish, are easy to apply to the blank they dry very fast, are VERY light (yes, weight is an issue with epoxy which cannot go on as thinly as these finishes). I'm sure some auto finishes are good too, but I don't know anything about them.

In general, I really don't think there is any justification for acetone in a builder's materials. Read up on the safety issues. isopropyl alcohol is better than DNA, as already mentioned, few if any "pollutants" in it, no bad smell, cheap and readily available, minimal safety concerns.

With due respect, you may be overthinking this a bit. It can be pretty simple and the results will be fine.

I have refinished a number of old fiberglass rods and when I first started I used crystal coat epoxy from Dale Clemens. This was a very thin solvent based epoxy that worked very well, you could get a very nice thin coat by wiping it on. After Clemens went out of business and I could not get crystal coat any more, I tried a number of other types of finishes none worked as well as permagloss, which worked exceptionally well. It is very thin and gives a very nice finish that will not yellow or break down. I apply it with a foam brush or a foam cosmetic pad. Back in the spring I went fly fishing for bluegill with a friend of mine for whom I refinished an old fiberglass fly rod using permagloss about 15 years ago, and the finish still looks good. He owns the farm pond we fished so he fishes this rod a lot. It is not like he keeps it in a dark room and only uses the rod occasionally.
Norm

Thanks to all responding.
From my research here and elseware, 100% will use nothing else than a rod finish, and of that overwhelming majority, 90% use Perma Gloss. Those kinds of numbers can’t be wrong. It will be interesting to compare the long term performance of the one rod finished with ProKote against all my others which will be PG. It is still quite odd to me that none of the rod finish manufacturers proudly state their product is UV fortified. That could have saved me time and thought and you guys “beating a dead horse” with another rod finish post.
Michael, thank you for your politeness. Many who know me are not as considerate when referring to my always trying to reinvent the wheel, but usually in fun. I can’t help it, it in my nature. I use acetone in my composite business and it works well to clean brushes, stir-sticks and ferrules while wrapping but that is its only use here.
Can PG be used to fill imperfections, AKA “doinks”, in the rod surface? While I realize it is designed to be applied in thin coats, will the solvents escape, de-gas, a thicker application?
I haven’t received any replies regarding the Spectra Rainbow Rod Varnish. Anyone familiar with the product?

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

I don't think PG will do a good job on filling "doinks" because it is so thin. It really has no fill capability I wouldn't worry about them, but if I had to fill them, I think I would carefully apply wrap epoxy, let it dry a few days, and then carefully sand it flush using a fine sandpaper with a block to maintain sanding pressure on the high spot. I'm sure some others who have more experience than I will answer.

Re "overthinking," I'm guilty too, on some things. On others, pretty shallow.

You need to define what you mean by UV protection. Many products are UV protected against their own degradation, some offer UV protection to the underlying material. These are not the same thing.

Generally, the more yellow an epoxy is, the more UV protection additive there is within it. These agents are themselves an amber or yellow color. PermaGloss will not easily degrade from exposure to UV, but will not provide UV protection to the product under it.

..............

There is an article in the new issue of RM that details a spray on product that is not really new, but this is the first time I have seen any real details on how to use it on a fishing rod. Little stuff makes all the difference. Might give it a try now that I know more about it. Spary Max and how to get the right results from it. No idea about UV protection.

Ken, if it's a car product it will have UV protection as good as they know how to provide it. UV protection is big stuff with car coatings.

Nice article at the right time, Tom.