"The Bartlett Rod" Discussion

History of the Montague Rod Co. Feel free to discuss Montague Rods here.

Moderators: MontyMan, Ken M 44, fishnbanjo

Post Reply
User avatar
Gnome
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3997
Joined: 12/23/04 19:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#101

Post by Gnome »

and we have John P Lower's Sportsman depot 381 Blake street Denver (before Colorado was a state 4 months later) advertising a full assortment of goods, fishing Tackle and a host of other products in the April 1st Forest & Stream Rod & Gun

And perhaps Mr. Johnson Jr could address my comments about the Leonard that was fished in Estes Park in that time frame mid 1870's and it is a high quality signed rod so there can be no debate about that. And how about the man that fished that rod, the Earl of Dunraven??

I see lots of conjecture and I just went through A.J.s book again and I have even more comments but must hold them until some of my previous questions have been replied to.

User avatar
roycestearns
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1826
Joined: 06/10/08 18:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#102

Post by roycestearns »

Gotta love it, buy your rifle, pistol, fishing rod and go next door for some Whiskey!
Lower's large double shot gun signage is very similar to Edward K Tryon's sign
Nice fishing baskets, are those quality rods in front?
Image
blow up of the rods and baskets
Image
Last edited by roycestearns on 02/29/20 11:47, edited 1 time in total.

TEJJR
Sport
Posts: 91
Joined: 01/12/19 18:20

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#103

Post by TEJJR »

I agree with Gnome that the Bartlett Rod could be an anomaly, and is not necessarily high quality compared with others of the period, but it is historically important for no other reason than its the first documented. It has got us talking. I do hope it can some day be inspected by experts and compared - and that the AFF article and this discussion might help to surface others.

Glad to learn that Marshall Field is not unknown to some important Forum members, but the retailer is not one we typically see mentioned in the literature, including Campbell. To compare this company with anything that existed at the time on the west coast much less places like Denver is misleading. For perhaps the best perspective see the Harvard Business School Case Study (9-801-349) "Marshall Field and the Rise of the Department Store."

What caught my attention in seeing Field in Aldrich's oral history (lumped together with A&I and Tyron) is that it was a data outlier, and therefore significant. Why did E.P. Bartlett's shop sell to Field? Price? Quality? Both? My question remains to Forum members: which other makers of the 1880-1890s do we know of that sold to Marshall Field which at that time was the pinnacle of luxury? We may need to disagree about the degree we can extrapolate about the significance of Bartlett rods' association with Marshall Field based on the limited evidence we now have. It appears to be unique, and historically that is significant.

User avatar
Gnome
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3997
Joined: 12/23/04 19:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#104

Post by Gnome »

It will be interesting to compare the 1896 Marshall fields catalog with the contemporary rod makers catalogs at that time to possibly determine who was supplying MF with their trade rods because we KNOW for a fact that they where not makers just retailers.

And Thanks for the great picture Royce!!! to be able to visit that shop before Colorado achieved statehood in August of 1876 would have been a treat!! And I bet that it was not just low grade equipment being sold there at that time.

Denver was becoming the new hub at the edge of the Rockies and in some ways replaced retailers from back east, would you if you where in Denver at that time bought a rod you could inspect or would you order one from MF??

And in response to Royce's question about the 1876 expo; have my copy in hand of the 1876 copy of "the history of the Centennial exposition" award winning rod makers listed are;
C.F. Orvis , A.B. Shipley & Co, Conroy, Bissett & Malleson, Bradford & Anthony not a maker but a retailer, And Thaddeus Norris, the book says there where 229 awards given with very few awarded to US makers. And the awards are incomplete as stated in the book. Not only is the GTRS deep but so is my angling library which goes back to 1597;-)

jeffkn1
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06/08/05 18:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#105

Post by jeffkn1 »

Gnome wrote: In response to Royce's question about the 1876 expo; have my copy in hand of the 1876 copy of "the history of the Centennial exposition" award winning rod makers listed are: C.F. Orvis , A.B. Shipley & Co, Conroy, Bissett & Malleson, Bradford & Anthony not a maker but a retailer, and Thaddeus Norris. The book says there where 229 awards given with very few awarded to US makers. And the awards are incomplete as stated in the book. Not only is the GTRS deep but so is my angling library which goes back to 1597
Image
Image
The list of fishing exhibit awards included Wheeler and Leonard. Of 5000+ awards(example above), the lion's share went to non-US exhibits, but only because there were more of foreign origin. Every exhibit received a bronze medallion. There were no gold or silver. Accompanying the medallion was a judge's report, typically brief and understated, and a certificate 'suitable for framing'. Wheeler's report was "salmon and trout rods of split bamboo - good workmanship", or something similar. I was insulted about that until I read the judge's report for Sharp's firearms : "Simple, strong, and good.". Bradford & Anthony, who 7 years after the Expo were to be known as Abbey & Imbrie, received a special award for the breadth and depth of their tackle displays, including hundreds of flies and dozens of rods. The credit for that goes to Lorenzo Prouty, who had been the first tackle buyer to order split bamboo from Wheeler (1868) and Leonard (1871). It's my belief that among the unmarked rods in the B&A displays were probably a selection of Bartletts. The records show a broad range of rod types on display at B&A without identifying the makers, and since A&I is said to have stocked Bartlett products it would only make sense that they were continuing an already existing relationship from the B&A days. So, while the Bartlett name may not be in the records as an award winner, the odds are that they were displayed, and possibly by more than one exhibitor. Being unmarked rods no one would know that.

A word about purveyors of high end tackle: William Mills was best known for owning and selling Leonard, one day pitched as "the rod you'll eventually own". But nobody talks about their 14' poles of whole Japanese cane. Nobody mentions the steel rods supplied to them by Bristol or Richardson. Nobody remembers that they carried a full selection of unmarked, low-priced, blue collar rods. All the high end outfitters did. A&I marketed rods in their catalog by grades, with no maker names. In some cases we are familiar enough with the rod specifications to allow us to ID the makers. While stating that a product was being sold by a high end maker is a useful marketing statement, it does not qualify an item as a high-end product.
Last edited by jeffkn1 on 02/28/20 11:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheMontyMan
Global Moderator
Posts: 1703
Joined: 03/13/09 19:00
Location: Pacific NW

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#106

Post by TheMontyMan »

Royce, I have an original catalog produced by The Montague City Rod Company specifically for the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago. The catalog indicates that they were exhibitors at this event.

Taking us back to the original topic of this post, the first rod illustrated in this catalog is an "Inlaid Cedar (mortised) Split Bamboo Bait Rod with Cork Grip". That lets us know that they were already producing this style of rod by 1893.

I'm currently away from home, but I'll try dig out the catalog and post pictures this weekend.

. . . Rex
The Monty Man

User avatar
roycestearns
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1826
Joined: 06/10/08 18:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#107

Post by roycestearns »

Rex & Jeff K, I'm very interested in what you have in regards to the 76 & 93 expos. I think they have valuable information for a snapshot in time.

Thomas - Oral history is a toss up. Articles written at the moment seem to be better arbiters of dates and events. Maybe oral history is a recollection what we would like to have happened?
As the AFF article notes based on Mark Aldrich’s oral history not just to A&I and Tyron on the east coast, but by the end of the 1880s out west in Chicago to retail at Marshall Fields. This is much more significant than wholesaling to nearby retailers in Boston. What other quality eastern makers’ rods were sold half-way across the continent at the then most luxurious department store in America? Yes, this was marketing to the nouveau riche of the day, but at that point in U.S. history Chicago was where the action was.
In regard to MF & Co., we are talking about the late 1880's (when they became a department store) and that's significant vs 1860-1880's. I agree that MF&Co is an outlier in the data, however by the late 1880's significant things have changed in regard to outdoors and recreation. The article seems to lump 1860's-1880's together with the end of the 1880's and that is a significant time spam for bamboo rods. We have data (manufacturing records) from the late 1880's forward, bamboo rods were the accepted norm (vs 1860-1870's), MF&Co was not yet at it's zenith, and quality bamboo rods were readily available.

TEJJR
Sport
Posts: 91
Joined: 01/12/19 18:20

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#108

Post by TEJJR »

Royce, you raise a legitimate question about oral history. See this https://americanarchivist.org/doi/pdf/1 ... n1q9365x72.

As for the oral history of Mark B. Aldrich, it was conducted in 1981 by a local historian as part of a series on Pelham, MA. His father, Royal, started running the shop (taking over for E.P.) in about 1910 and Mark and Leander joined him as early as 1915 when they were just boys (they all lived in the big Bartlett house next to the factory). Judge for yourself staring on page 38 https://pelhamhs.org/pelham-library/His ... r_pt_1.pdf. I am not aware of this source ever being cited explicitly by Autio, Campbell, Rex or anyone else. Apologize if I have missed something in my research...

This is a remarkable historical record involving any rod production (see pgs. 44-45 in particular). It would benefit us all if more of these oral histories were available from other makers. It answers the earlier question (Gnome's?), among others, of use of a beveler, although unfortunately not when it was introduced. Aldrich's description of the process obviously covered a later period, probably the late-1910 through the 1920s. We know from the 1878 catalog that six-strip can rods were being produced in some numbers. This provides evidence a beveler was in use in Pelham if not by the mid-1870s then the early 1880s. Perhaps one of the Forum experts can opine on whether the American Rivers' Bartlett Rod appears to be tapered by hand or machine.

The oral history also supports what I (and A.J.) have written about the better Montague rods being produced in Pelham. This seems clear. Anyone have an issue with this "fact," which is one of the main points in the AFF article? If so, please provide your evidence to the contrary for all to consider.

When Aldrich mentions A&I, Tyron and Field there was absolutely no incentive for him to embellish since he was talking with a local historian that had no idea of what these names meant. They were Greek to Barbara Jenkins. He mentioned them b/c he thought they were significant in terms of the history of Bartlett and Montague. No reason to question this newly documented fact.

As for Marshall Field the issue is not that bamboo rods were pretty common in the late 1880s, but that Bartlett and no others we now know of provided the source of rods for the largest luxury retailer in the country at that time. What we don't know is why was this...

Bethabara
Guide
Posts: 187
Joined: 03/30/17 08:28

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#109

Post by Bethabara »

Playing the devil's advocate:
Yes, I read the transcript from the Pelham interview by BJ.
It reads as if the interviewer was leading the interview; as if facts were already in evidence via an unknown source.
It seems as is if the interviewer was jogging an old person's memory that may be accurate or maybe not.

Regarding oral history: Native Americans' entire cultures put a lot of faith in handed-down oral history.
It would not be advisable for any newcomer to correct their methods of historic records keeping.
In my opinion.

I remember everything perfectly for the last 51 years because I was there and an eye witness to every event; explaining any question my children may have. And yet my wife tells me I'm wrong.

User avatar
roycestearns
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1826
Joined: 06/10/08 18:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#110

Post by roycestearns »

Thomas, thanks for the links, enjoyed going through them.

Oral history is a great piece of the puzzle especially when it's captured in a timely manner. The further away in time and personal experience the less valuable it is in fact, of date, numbers and events. For example the value of the oral history of Mark Aldrich, as distant as it is, is we get a sense of the time and place, but little else. It's apparent in the interview that some of what is related has been passed down, and not personal experience. BJ Q. "O.K. So what I'd like to know if you could tell me about was how the fish rod factory happened to be there in the first place in Pelham" MA A. "Well, I really don't know." ... A. "I don't know that my grandfather -- they said the company was the first one to make machine split bamboo fishing rods in the United States. Just how they happened to start making them -- they made some hand rods before that, but just how they happened to get into the rish rod business I don't know". "They" passed it on, it's second or third hand hearsay and what did "they" know about machine rod making orgins in the US?

After reading the interview, I'm convinced more then before, the interview references a period 1900 - 1920 versus 1880-1890's. If you are going to use MF&Co as the upscale retailer to support a higher end rod, what I was inarticulate about in my previous post was, MF&Co wasn't part of an upscale Chicago until after 1895.
When Aldrich mentions A&I, Tyron and Field there was absolutely no incentive for him to embellish since he was talking with a local historian that had no idea of what these names meant. They were Greek to Barbara Jenkins. He mentioned them b/c he thought they were significant in terms of the history of Bartlett and Montague. No reason to question this newly documented fact.
This "fact" is very questionable. In his memory of 73 years, it doesn't have to be an embellishment to include MF & Co, they were part of his life experience, whether or not they were really part of B & M sales. Just imagine, there was an order from MF&Co, and it turned out to be part of the six years of orders "crossed off the books" around the first WW, at this point in time, in his memory it was a sale. Or imagine there was a rumor of a large order from MF&co. that never was transacted, this would have been talked about and turned into an actual order over time in memory. The rub is this interview happened to many years away from the event for us to interrupt a definitive conclusion.

The description of the "better rods" also convinces me that the better rods were nothing more then the cream of the production run, that received better "mountings". That said if the production run produced average sticks, the cream would only be a mid grade rod to begin with. The "better mountings" could be what we see in the "average" grade marked Bartlett rod, or average grade Chubb mountings but still the best of Pelham. I'm not clear on date or time and Pelham influence of Varney in this picture, maybe someone that knows, could fix my assumptions. Even with my limited rod making and restoration experience, it's very apparent that there is very limited information about "high end" rod making in this conversation.

What I don't see in the oral history is any great passion for the product. It's clear that it was a job for a lot of people in Pelham. It kept food on the table and a roof over the head. This factory or production mentality did not create a sense of pride in the development of the split rod, or the high end rod or even a passion for fishing. Understandably, times required a "where's my next meal coming from" thought process, but when you read of CF Murphy being an excellent fisherman, or read the names in the casting contests, or see the awards given at the expo, there's a different sense to the fishing rod product.

Bethabara
Guide
Posts: 187
Joined: 03/30/17 08:28

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#111

Post by Bethabara »

What I would like to know is what happened to all that old machinery from both Monty factories?
And what happened to all the original belt-driven Chubb machinery and especially the drum sanders Monty acquired with the last Chubb fire?
Where are all the belt-driven machinery from the Divine rod shop?
The old Mills & Sons machinery?

jeffkn1
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06/08/05 18:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#112

Post by jeffkn1 »

Bethabara wrote:What I would like to know is what happened to all that old machinery from both Monty factories?
And what happened to all the original belt-driven Chubb machinery and especially the drum sanders Monty acquired with the last Chubb fire? Where are all the belt-driven machinery from the Divine rod shop? The old Mills & Sons machinery?
Other than lathes and gluing tanks I can't see much use for rod machinery because it was all purpose-built. I had a contact in Farmington go through all the papers for a year after Wheeler's death and there was neither a for sale ad nor an auction notice for his equipment, despite the shop being shut down immediately when he died in 1916. Logic dictates it went to the dump or for scrap. Some of his machinery was general in nature because he was a job machinist all his life and things like saws, drills, and lathes can be useful to somebody else. Not so with bevelers, string binders and node presses and so on. I would expect the same for many rod companies, We know that some of the Montague machinery survived though I don't know if there's a record around for exactly what Sewall Dunton salvaged in bamboo tooling when Montague bailed out of the cane rod biz. No idea what went on with Divine or H-I. Mike Sinclair may have some idea about Divine. AFAIK, Mills was Leonard and we know where that went - an auction in 1985(?). Mark Aroner still has some of it. Chubb had banks of lathes but I've never heard what they used for cane.

TEJJR
Sport
Posts: 91
Joined: 01/12/19 18:20

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#113

Post by TEJJR »

Royce,

Appreciate your response. Your points on oral history are well taken. The process is normally employed with older folks whose memory may be flawed (course, this this wouldn't apply to us...). Nonetheless, it is an important, if only one, source for historical research. We should not dismiss it. I do feel you are correct in placing the general time frame for Aldrich's oral history of being the first couple of decades of the 20th century. Sales to MF & Co and the other retailers were likely to have been earlier and its unfortunate dates were not given. However, while one can't completely dismiss your point about memory being hazy (or worse), based on what we know from interview I stand by the evidence that Bartlett very likely sold to A&I, Tyron and Field. I hope additional proof to back this view up can be found.

In terms of your final points, I am not qualified to assess the relative quality of the rods produced by the Bartlett brothers. What I do stand by is the evidence that the best of what were produced, including the "Super-Montagues," were made in Pelham. I still see no evidence to the contrary. I do agree with you that there's no sense that either Bartlett brother crafted rods from a fisherman's perspective, like Murphy and (some) others. However, one must admit that the oral history interview was by a Pelham historian who could care less about fishing and rod making, other than it was just another local industry. One can understand how this colored the oral history.

Jumping forward a generation, I do feel more qualified to opine on the quality of the "Bartlett rods" produced by AFRC (led by Mark's brother, Leander Aldrich) during its brief existence. Perhaps these rods are too new and not "classic" enough for the tastes and expertise of Forum members, but I'd appreciate views on what I wrote in the AFF article. I believe these rods were among the best produced in America during this post-war period. If anyone is aware of earlier use of Mildarbide guides and/or Ambrac reel seat metalwork I'd be interested to know.

Most of us collect rods, for varying reasons. Like many others, mine value historic importance (including innovation/uniqueness). Based on what I find to be an intrinsic blend of quality of materials and craftsmanship, together with the limited production of the intriguing Don Quixote history of the (local) company, I would not trade my AFRC Amherst rod for one by any other maker, past or present. Imagine others have their favorites for similar reasons.

TJ

jeffkn1
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06/08/05 18:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#114

Post by jeffkn1 »

TEJJR wrote: I'd appreciate views on what I wrote in the AFF article. I believe these rods were among the best produced in America during this post-war period. If anyone is aware of earlier use of Mildarbide guides and/or Ambrac reel seat metalwork I'd be interested to know.
I can add only anecdotal information about the Amherst rods, based not on fishing with them but from acquiring them in auction lots in various states of condition.

1) I always felt they were well assembled.
2) The guide wraps sometimes exhibited a problem common to some Fifties and Sixties rods. It was what I assume was a failure to adequately seal the pocket around the guide foot, resulting in the foot rusting and/or the varnish on the wrap deteriorating. That may simply be an indication that the varnish needed tweaking to soak in better, or special attention to the application might have been called for. Naturally, it's a non-issue if the rod is cared for properly but not every maker's rods have that issue. I'm not comparing them to South Bend but I have seen some postwar SB's with the same issue. I suppose it could happen to a Leonard but I haven't personally seen that.
3) I am biased in regard to grip lengths, feeling that 6" is optimum. For some reason I seem to recall that AFRC grips were longer than optimum, and a bit smaller in diameter than I like for my 9" handspan. I sold a Thomas Wilson rod built by Eustis Edwards to Pat Garner and you can see that rod in Playing With Fire. It's a 9 1/2 footer with a very short (5inches?) grip and I couldn't cast it for more than a few minutes because it contributed to a decidedly nose-heavy sensation that bothered my forearm. Over the years there have been rods available with extra-long grips. The extra length answers a question my casting arm doesn't ask.
4) Wearing characteristics of stripping guides enter the picture when they have to be replaced on a regular basis. Having a stripping guide that holds up for a lifetime is nice but its improvements in casting characteristics may be of dubious value. Variations of the Fuji guide design wear well in high abrasion loads, but replacing all guides with low friction single foot ceramics makes a measurable difference in casting distance. So the AFRC stripper was easy for me to overlook. That and the fact I didn't give them any real test.
5) Similarly, alloys for reel seats are generally low on the priority list to me. I do seem to remember that AFRC rods seemed slightly heavy for their length. That is also anecdotal since I never weighed one. Maybe you can tell us what the length and weight of yours are. If it's a typical weight for its length then that's merely my perception.

All things considered, the weight and the grip dimensions would keep one from being my go-to rod.

User avatar
cwfly
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3012
Joined: 02/24/06 19:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#115

Post by cwfly »

TEJJR,
I’ll respond, generally, to your mildarbide question.
In your article you observed that “mildarbide is the trademarked name for a tungsten-based alloy originally made by the W. W. Mildrum Jewel Co….In 1948, Mildrum patented the use of the alloy for textile machinery guides, then quickly adapted the technology for rod hardware. An early adopter, AFRC began using the new butt guides manufactured by Mildrum the following year.”
First, “mildarbide” is simply a trademark for rod guides, not for a tungsten based alloy. The text of the trademark follows. Second, the trademark issued in 1938 with an assertion that it was in use earlier that same year, not as late as 1948-1949. Your reference to a 1948 patent is, to me at least, confusing. A patent summary is attached here, indicating an application was filed in 1948 and a patent issued in 1951. Part of the filed drawing and description are also shown. I cannot know if this patent is the one you write about.
In any event, it certainly appears that Mildarbide was a trademark for fishing guides, not an alloy, from 1938 and I expect someone was using the trademarked guides between 1938 and 1949.
Image
Image
Image
Image

TEJJR
Sport
Posts: 91
Joined: 01/12/19 18:20

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#116

Post by TEJJR »

I stand corrected for my imprecise wording in the article; the guide and not the material per the earlier Forum thread viewtopic.php?f=66&t=61118. I'll have to search into my notes as to where my 1948 date came from, although it may be from the same illustration posted stating the application (as opposed to filing) was late-1948. Sorry, but this to me borders on a quibble... The important question is are we aware when and by which maker(s) the guides were first used?

As to Jeff's appreciated points, the Amherst grip is indeed long at 7" which with my average-sized hand feels quite comfortable, but then I'm not a casting wizard so the extra inch may not matter to me. The 8' rod I have is 4.5 ozs. and feels well balanced in the hand. What I have that feels nicest in terms of weight is a 8' one-piece with a 6" Ritz grip (wonderful!) weighing just 3 ozs. Its like fishing with a whisker. I would not trade this rod either; one of a couple of dozen made in the 1940s by a fly-fisher in Maine.

User avatar
cwfly
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3012
Joined: 02/24/06 19:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#117

Post by cwfly »

TEJJR wrote:I stand corrected for my imprecise wording in the article; the guide and not the material per the earlier Forum thread viewtopic.php?f=66&t=61118. I'll have to search into my notes as to where my 1948 date came from, although it may be from the same illustration posted stating the application (as opposed to filing) was late-1948. Sorry, but this to me borders on a quibble... The important question is are we aware when and by which maker(s) the guides were first used?
Your wording was not imprecise. It was flat out wrong and misleading. I cannot say that the difference of a decade is quibbling. I won't tell you what I think about the accuracy of the balance of your article. I am done with you.
By the way, W. W Messer was manufacturing fly rods and other rods in the Pioneer Valley in the 1830's.

jeffkn1
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06/08/05 18:00

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#118

Post by jeffkn1 »

TEJJR wrote: the Amherst grip is indeed long at 7" which with my average-sized hand feels quite comfortable, but then I'm not a casting wizard so the extra inch may not matter to me. The 8' rod I have is 4.5 ozs. and feels well balanced in the hand.
There's no right or wrong weight for a given trout fly rod length, but average weight for what was once the average lengths is 9' at 5oz, 8 1/2' at 4 1/2 oz, and 8' at 4oz. Your 8' AFRC weight is consistent with what I'd recalled, a bit above average for the length, and I suspect the excess is in the reel seat. It's a subjective and only the rod's owner has to be happy with it, but you would be surprised how loudly today's angler complains about an additional half ounce, especially if he's cut his teeth on 2 or 3oz graphite rods.

Bethabara
Guide
Posts: 187
Joined: 03/30/17 08:28

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#119

Post by Bethabara »

It sounds to me like the Museums dropped the ball on collecting not only rods but vintage primitive rod making machinery. Plus the museums also let all of us down on collecting historical documentation as well.
We would not need to guess at who was first with what.
Who opened the first factory in America, who used the first drop hammer, transitions from hardwood to hardwood, transition from hardwood to Calcutta, splice to the ferrule, etc.

The Ford Museum near Detroit is a great example of stored history. In Michigan, we have the wooden shoe factory with original machinery still in operations ever year making shoes of Spruce and Poplar for tourists.
Machinery is most of the industrial revolution, it's where we came from, it's an important part of our history.

It sure would have solved a lot of problems, arguments, and hard feelings in today's collectors, researchers, and fly fishers in general if the museums would have tried a bit harder. A fly rod on display is fine but how, when, and who made it is more important. Too much conjecture, and contradictions. This is why I avoid history.
But scraping-out or melting down vintage fishing rod or gun-making machinery should be a criminal offense.

I like the seriously old rods because they fish well, feel right, and the old masters knew I was going to need their influence when I came along just to enjoy part of my life. I thought fly fishing was intended to make friends not lose them. Let us endeavor to cast our nets out the other side of the boat and be friends again.

TEJJR
Sport
Posts: 91
Joined: 01/12/19 18:20

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#120

Post by TEJJR »

Sorry if I offended but the article states the Mildarbide textile guide ring was patented in 1948. Actually may have been granted in 1951. The trademark issued in 1938 was for Milderbide and its use in rod components but I was not able to come across a patent for that. In any event, the question remains were makers "using the trademarked guides between 1938 and 1949." I don't know for certain if they were actually being made then. Unlikely to have been a high demand given the Depression and then WW-II. Suspect their use by AFRC and possibly others is basically all immediate post-war.

So who else may have been using this new material? Given the timing and geographic proximity between shops (East Berlin and Mount Carmel) I wonder about Gene Edwards. Campbell goes on about the quality of the production rods of this period but makes no mention I can find of Mildarbide guides. I also tried to search the past Forum threads on this viewtopic.php?f=64&t=54381&start=80 but could not find anything certain, including from the many photos. Those of you that are familiar with and/or have an Eugene Edwards rod made between the end of the war and 1955 could possibly confirm the butt guide material?

Post Reply

Return to “Montague Rod & Reel Co.”