Good detective work Mark. From SR71 to CIA to Conolon to possibly CTS Kantner influenced a lot. I also liked the Miami connection.

Dr. Glenn G. Havens is another name to look at and you will see how Shakespeare is rolled into all of this (it wasn't just Howald). In another thread I mentioned we used them way back in the day. IIRC Garcia got rights to the Conolon name in the early 60's. And a tip of the hat to Hexcel. So long before Seeker and Calstar there was a lot of "inbreeding" in the fishing rod biz.

Ironic the connection between war and leisure activities.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I grew up in Michigan's Eastern U.P., fishing small, clear streams for brookies, and lakes Huron. and Superior, along with the St. Mary's River for perch, jumbo perch, rock bass, walleye, smallies, and pike. I used a Zebco FB rod with a Zebco 202 reel, and caught many a fish with it, both from walking streams, and fishing with a bobber, minnows, and worms fro a 12 foot aluminum boat. I bought a Fenwick FB rod with a Mitchel 300 reel that also caught me a good number of fish, including a King Salmon. The rod groaned, and the reel was hard to crank, but I landed it withought breaking anything. Ugly Sticks were my goto for ultra-light rods. Smallies are a blast to catch on an Ugly Stick. None of these rods cost me more than $20, with the reel.

My favorite modern rods are my Winston 7 weight BIII, and my CTS FG 3 weight. They both feel just soft enough to protect a light tippet, and gently lay down the smallest dry flies, and stilol have lots of power for fighting fish, and casting streamers. My fly reels of choice are Lamson Waterworks.

My best times fishing were with my best friend, using the inexpensive tackle from my youth, and fishing with my Dad, using the Zebco rig. Fishing is about the experience, anf comradery, not the gear. It includes stepping in muck up to your knees, battling swarms of biting insects, stinging nettle, finding that hidden blueberry, or raspberry patc, the Saskatchewan,(sarvice berries) berry bush, the wild hazelnut bush. It's about hearing the cry of a solitary raven, or the drumming of ruffed grouse wings. It's about the smells of the forest. And it's about enjoying a meal of fresh caught fish, fried on site in a big cast iron pan, with some sliced potatoes, or enjoying a liverwurst sandwich streamside, while enjoying a cold drink thats been waiting in the U.P's icy water, in a net.

Tight Lies and frisky fish

RJF

While I have a few old rods from way back when that have sentimental value, when I go fishing and want to be as effective as I can be, I will not be fishing with any of them. I will be fishing with the latest and greatest.

Robert brought up a great observation as to the possible reason we all have our own favorite rods. Although it may be the main objective while on a fishing trip to catch fish, it really is only one part of the experience. The companionship, grandeur of nature and other factors all combine to provide the whole experience. If all aligns perfectly and the trip is a memorable and pleasant experience, we may tend to consider the rod used at the time to be memorable and pleasant as well. Inversely, the rod used on a lousy trip may be delegated to the back of the closet.

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

They aren’t a sponsor, but United Composites does a nice job of honoring Kantner while making excellent blanks. They have updated carbon and resin systems but still use his construction techniques and some of his mandrels. The new blanks measure slightly thinner while being lighter. I was told by them after my caliper and scale showed closer to the next size lighter rod that most of their charts have yet to be updated. It did fish correctly to its ratings after I built on it. This is a chance to fish both heritage and modern on the same blanks.

Michael, you can't build some of the rods of old, with what is available today. A case in point is the rod I named as my favorite rod of all time, in my initial post to this thread. As I described, the reel seat is actually set into thethe blank. The nose of the reel is barely above the blank's surface. Even with the higher profile casting reels of yesteryear, it was extremely easy and comfortable to palm the reel. With the reels of today, (I have a Curado 200 I on it now) your thumb position on the thumb bar and spool, is absolutely perfect. It allows precise spool control and the comfort while casting is off the charts.

It has nothing to do with the blank it's built on, or the guides it has on it .... It's all about the ergonomics of the rod and reel in combination. You can't build anything like it today. If I could, you better believe I would. It is the perfect rod for its' purpose.

David, you might come close by searching @#$%& for "pistol grip fishing rod handle." There are a number of them for sale there. If you find one, buy it just for insurance.

There is a widespread assumption that the performance of today's fishing rods is different from and better than the performance of older fishing rods. This assumption may or may not be true. There are precious few records of OBJECTIVE, MEASURED TESTS of the basic physical properties of fishing rods or rod blanks. No deflection tests, no harmonics tests, no bursting strength tests, no [measured] recovery speed tests - but PLENTY of spiffy adjectives such as "smooth" (?!!) or "fast" or "powerful" or "sensitive," or even "soulful"! Could it be there are no significant physical differences between blanks, or does the notoriously casual attitude of fishermen toward facts and the truth obviate the need for physical facts?

Michael, I am pretty sure I know what type of handle you're talking about. If it's the ones I am thinking about, it is an actual handle assembly that the butt of the blank slides into. The blank doesn't pass through the reel seat. I am sure some remember back when the words"blank through contruction" was part of the advertising for fishing rods, At least for rods aimed at bass fisherman. It was touting the benefits of having the blank pass through the reel seat. From what I saw, it was on the more expensive rods in a manufacturers line up.

I had an old Shimano Convergence casting rod, I think I paid $49 for it, that had the type of reel seat / rear grip assembly that I described above. It wasn't blank through construction, and the reel seat would actually flex when putting the rod under a load. Kind of funny how I found out it had that type of reel seat / rear grip assembly. I used the rod for fishing jerkbaits, and wanted to rebuild it. I wasn't observant enough to realize it wasn't blank through construction, but I quickly found out. lol

One of the first threads I started on here when I became a member was tittled "Messed up my jerkbait rod, so ..." came about because of what I discovered in tearing that rod down. So if we are talking about the same type of assembly, I sincerely appreciate your suggesting it.

Mr. Ewaniki,
I take serious offense to your statement “There are precious few records of OBJECTIVE, MEASURED TESTS of the basic physical properties of fishing rods or rod blanks”. I have orchestrated tests and posted the results for everyone, so has Mr. Danek and many others including Dr. Hannerman. Coming from someone like you who is always demanding hard data facts YET HAS NEVER OFFERED A SINGLE RESEMBLANCE OF SUCH is insulting and just plain rude!!!

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

David, do the search. They are not blank through constructions. You would have to put a ferrule on the blank to use these pistol grips. Which isn't a big problem. But my point is that I think the type of grip you are talking about is still available in a limited way. But still available.

Phil, this seems like a good time to present a method for determining the true natural frequency of a blank or rod. It has been mentioned before here, and a few builders have participated in using it. Before I do I will back up what Mark Talmo said regarding the Hanneman work, which is commonly called CCS. It is a truly objective method for measuring power and action of any type of rod. Hanneman and others, including increasing numbers of manufacturers as time goes on, have published lots of data. NFC recently communicated that they not only will soon be publishing all their CCS data, but also data from other manufacturers products.

Go to my new post to see the process.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2022 04:24PM by Michael Danek.

Michael, it seems we are both talking about the same type of grip that is available today. While the grips we are talking about will do the same thing in that it lowers the foot of the reel below the surface of the blank, it is not the same set up as the Speed Master pistol grip rods. I've attached a photo of the reel seat of the rod I am talking about. About 10 years ago I had to epoxy the reel seat back in, as it had come loose. It is more or less along the lines of the cutout you see in grips made for the Aero reel seat. The blank is cut out, to accept the reel seat.

I put new guides on it about 7 years ago. It has a clear gloss finish on the blank that was getting chipped up so I put a coat of Perma Gloss on it. I didn't really do a lot of prep work at the time, so this past year that coat of Perma Gloss started chipping off in places. I'm in the process of doing it over. Anyhow ...... here is a picture of it.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Got it, thanks.

I try to be practical about my life-long fishing mania: Does it work, and what's the proof? I have learned that the angler, not the rod, is the source of casting distance and accuracy - but I'm open to proof to the contrary. I welcomed the objective nature of the CCS rod evaluation as a basis for rod comparison, but I'm not sure how the CCS or harmonics relate to a blank's MEASURED casting distance or accuracy - the criteria by which I rate rods. I'm willing to examine Evidence, learn, and change my mind - but criticism of my sensibilities are a waste of my time and maybe yours too.

If we are talking fly rods, I love my Diamond back 7wt. I drooled over these when I was younger but couldn't afford one. REC was right down the road from me in Vt.
A couple of years ago I lucked out and the proprietor who took over the building acquired some blanks from the grandson of the original REC owner. I needed a heavier than usual rod for lakes so I got an 8wt. By my measurements it's a 7wt. I would categorize it as a medium to slow action rod which I like as I grew up fishing a fiberglass rod. The Diamondback casts wonderfully even with a heavier streamer.
I also have one of those older red Scientific Angler rods in 4wt with the metal spigot ferrule. I bought the blank at REC 40 years ago and just got around to building the rod lately. Once again it's a slow action rod. I really like that ferrule having repaired/replaced many a loose metal ferrule on bamboo rods. The spigot is cone shaped where it meets the receiver which addresses an issue with the more modern carbon spigots. You must leave a gap between the two sections of the modern spigot ferrule, not so with the SA spigot. Can't wait to try it out on the local small streams.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2022 07:33PM by Jim Pitman.

CCS is a fine way to determine the stiffness and lifting power of a rod blank but it reveals nothing about the blank's speed/recovery rate or vibration dampening. Unless consumers demand MEASURED, PHYSICAL evidence of the superiority of a product they will continue to get the same old stuff with a new name in a new package, courtesy of Madison Avenue.

Born on the Hawaii Island but my family moved to the Island of Oahu in the early 60's. Started seriously fishing off the cliffs for small and large game in the late 70's early 80's. For small game I started with Fenwick SH 1084 rods and started wrapping on Fenwick HMG salmon steelhead blanks. I tried using Loomis, Sage (spinning blanks), Powell, and Lamiglas but always preferred the extra fast and fast tapers of the Fenwick HMG blanks for the style of fishing i did/do. I still use a GSH 1084 modified to 10 1/2' that I built around 1982. Another rod that I built in the mid 80's and still use on most of my outings is an Anglers Workshop 14'8" spinning rod. There isn't anything that can replace it, Fast tapered rated 3/4-3oz.
For larger game I started using Sabre rods then progressed?? to Lamiglas, to Kilwell, then to Nitro, then Outcast, then to Island Rod Wrap. Getting older my large game style has changed to an easier style of fishing, now from beaches and not as frequently from cliff areas. I now use rods I've built on CTS Makoi, S8, and S7 blanks and a few CTS rods built by other people. One rod I built in the mid 90's and still use regularly is a13'6" CosmoTech rated 3-5oz (I use 5oz on this rod). I can cast just as far with this rod as I can with any of my CTS rods and it's the last one remaining of 3 that I wrapped. The taper of the CosmoTech can't be matched by anything I've tried since I purchased the blanks back in the 90's. The fish fighting capability is excellent. My favorite of my current CTS rods are a pair of S8 4-6oz wrapped using Fuji Titanium LC guides. These rods, and my CosmoTech are paired with Shimano Ultegra 14000's. Absolute joys to get my bait out there and to fight fish with. For my factory rod (one, lol) I have an Okuma HCS 3 piece. I have recently retired my Daiwa Ballistics and Fenwick Big SurfStiks.

"CCS is a fine way to determine the stiffness and lifting power of a rod blank but it reveals nothing about the blank's speed/recovery rate or vibration dampening."

But the process to measure the true natural frequency does provide a way to measure recovery rate. Yes, you have to have the blank to do it. And yes, there is a significant difference between blanks.