"The Bartlett Rod" Discussion
Moderators: MontyMan, Ken M 44, fishnbanjo
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#121in the links provided at one point in the interview the gentlemen states that they "NEVER" used greenheart, the ??1878?? catalog list 1 all greenheart model.
I do not see any proof of High quality rods coming from Pelham when that catalog list 1 model as hand made amongst over 50 models not designated and the majority of those rods sold by the dozen and that is not how high quality rods where sold back then.
Where are all of the Super Montagues when compared to company's that obviously had way less numbers produced yet on a much higher standard and they still exist yet we have very few of the super Montagues. And just to stave of one reply or question; the GTRS does have examples of a Geo, I Varney maker Montague city Mass and also a G.I.Varney & Bro Central valley rod so I do understand what a high quality monty is, I also have a tournament and a few other high grade montys but they are much later than the professed high quality rods from Pelham which are more scarce than dragon teeth and at this point In time we have not ever seen a high grade "Marked" Bartlett rod to the best of my knowledge and IMHO.
with them selling to A&I during the late 1870,s and when you look at F&S and R&G ads you see A&I offering split cane rods in the lower prices $5.00 to 20.00 and you must ask yourself who was providing these trade rods to them??? I believe in part it was E.P.Bartlett and the boys at Pelham and they where not high grade when compared to the work of Leonard and Murphy and C,B&M, or Krider or Wheeler or B.F. Nichols of Boston and these men all advertised their wares and have left a solid paper trail that compliments and confirms our collective knowledge of those makers work with pretty solid documentation.
in the one interview the man states "We never made rods with greenheart" the 1878 catalog list a complete greenheart rod so that brings his memory into question and makes the whole interview questionable as to his memories retention and the veracity of the interview.
TEJJR keeps expounding on the Super Montagues and I would love to hear his personal experience with those models of rods or is it all conjecture due to never having handled what is being discussed?
Especially when you have people like CWFLY and others who have deep experience with the material being discussed and it comes from actually having handled and studied the high grade rods discussed here which sadly does not include a verifiable High quality Marked Bartlett rod which I believe we have never seen and at this point in time. we have to question whether they really exist of not.
I have to see one to believe it, and to apply the quality level of late Varney influenced Montague high grade rods to the Bartlett's work from the late 1870's and early 1880's is an extreme reach that I believe is not provable.
out of over 50 different models in the 1878??? catalog only 1 is listed as hand made and the majority where sold by the dozen and to me this speaks of low quality high number production proven by the sold by the dozen factor (with the cheapest costing about .15 cents per rod when bought by the dozen). Not how high grade rods where sold for sure. Just look at the ads from a 25 year period in American Angler and Forest & stream, Rod & Gun. it is an eye opener if you are willing to do the research.
Need proof and not just claims to back up statements made.
I do not see any proof of High quality rods coming from Pelham when that catalog list 1 model as hand made amongst over 50 models not designated and the majority of those rods sold by the dozen and that is not how high quality rods where sold back then.
Where are all of the Super Montagues when compared to company's that obviously had way less numbers produced yet on a much higher standard and they still exist yet we have very few of the super Montagues. And just to stave of one reply or question; the GTRS does have examples of a Geo, I Varney maker Montague city Mass and also a G.I.Varney & Bro Central valley rod so I do understand what a high quality monty is, I also have a tournament and a few other high grade montys but they are much later than the professed high quality rods from Pelham which are more scarce than dragon teeth and at this point In time we have not ever seen a high grade "Marked" Bartlett rod to the best of my knowledge and IMHO.
with them selling to A&I during the late 1870,s and when you look at F&S and R&G ads you see A&I offering split cane rods in the lower prices $5.00 to 20.00 and you must ask yourself who was providing these trade rods to them??? I believe in part it was E.P.Bartlett and the boys at Pelham and they where not high grade when compared to the work of Leonard and Murphy and C,B&M, or Krider or Wheeler or B.F. Nichols of Boston and these men all advertised their wares and have left a solid paper trail that compliments and confirms our collective knowledge of those makers work with pretty solid documentation.
in the one interview the man states "We never made rods with greenheart" the 1878 catalog list a complete greenheart rod so that brings his memory into question and makes the whole interview questionable as to his memories retention and the veracity of the interview.
TEJJR keeps expounding on the Super Montagues and I would love to hear his personal experience with those models of rods or is it all conjecture due to never having handled what is being discussed?
Especially when you have people like CWFLY and others who have deep experience with the material being discussed and it comes from actually having handled and studied the high grade rods discussed here which sadly does not include a verifiable High quality Marked Bartlett rod which I believe we have never seen and at this point in time. we have to question whether they really exist of not.
I have to see one to believe it, and to apply the quality level of late Varney influenced Montague high grade rods to the Bartlett's work from the late 1870's and early 1880's is an extreme reach that I believe is not provable.
out of over 50 different models in the 1878??? catalog only 1 is listed as hand made and the majority where sold by the dozen and to me this speaks of low quality high number production proven by the sold by the dozen factor (with the cheapest costing about .15 cents per rod when bought by the dozen). Not how high grade rods where sold for sure. Just look at the ads from a 25 year period in American Angler and Forest & stream, Rod & Gun. it is an eye opener if you are willing to do the research.
Need proof and not just claims to back up statements made.
- TheMontyMan
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1706
- Joined: 03/13/09 19:00
- Location: Pacific NW
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#122Royce, here are a couple of pictures from my 1893 Montague City Rod Co. catalog that was printed specifically for the 1893 Chicago Worlds Fair.
The cover page accounts for their participation as it says, "Exhibited at..."
The illustration of the mortised (inlaid cedar) rod is a pretty good indication that they were probably able to produce this style of rod in large quantities.
. . . Rex
The Monty Man
The cover page accounts for their participation as it says, "Exhibited at..."
The illustration of the mortised (inlaid cedar) rod is a pretty good indication that they were probably able to produce this style of rod in large quantities.
. . . Rex
The Monty Man
- roycestearns
- Bamboo Fanatic
- Posts: 1827
- Joined: 06/10/08 18:00
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#123Rex - thanks, that is in premium condition.
We could start an expo thread.
We could start an expo thread.
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#124This thread has been exceptional. I know nothing of this era in the development of fly rods but certainly have great interest now.
Thank you gentlemen.
Thank you gentlemen.
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#125so going through the 1891 Chubb catalog reprint that I have, I do not find an example like Rex posted in the 1893 catalog, is this a date point perhaps of when Chubb started doing Mortised rods? sometime between the fire and 1893 and definitely later than Leonard. Good stuff and keep it coming.
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#127When did they buy Malleson?Gnome wrote:so going through the 1891 Chubb catalog reprint that I have, I do not find an example like Rex posted in the 1893 catalog, is this a date point perhaps of when Chubb started doing Mortised rods? sometime between the fire and 1893 and definitely later than Leonard. Good stuff and keep it coming.
- TheMontyMan
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1706
- Joined: 03/13/09 19:00
- Location: Pacific NW
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#128Jeff, The Malleson-Bartlett Rod Company was established in 1889, based on a publication that cwfly dug up a while back.
. . . Rex
The Monty Man
. . . Rex
The Monty Man
- roycestearns
- Bamboo Fanatic
- Posts: 1827
- Joined: 06/10/08 18:00
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#130Thanks to Rex for sharing the 1893 expo catalog. The rod featured is an example of the Montague output at the time I suspect was made at Montague's Pelham workshop, i.e., by E.P. Bartlett. I admit, likely no way to ever know for sure...
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#131Royce, A better example of the text is found below. It is from Hubert Howe Bancroft, A Book of the Fair (1893). As you know there were a variety of publications about the Columbian. This Bancroft is the only version I know of that mentions Montague City Rod Company and until I saw Rex's stunning catalog for the Fair I was unaware it exhibited there.
Charlie
- roycestearns
- Bamboo Fanatic
- Posts: 1827
- Joined: 06/10/08 18:00
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#132Thomas - I'd say that's a giant leap, especially when the catalog states "Manufactured by - The Montague City Rod Co., - Montague City, Mass."Thanks to Rex for sharing the 1893 expo catalog. The rod featured is an example of the Montague output at the time I suspect was made at Montague's Pelham workshop, i.e., by E.P. Bartlett. I admit, likely no way to ever know for sure...
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#133Royce,
I don't think so. In 1893 The Montague City Rod Co. was based in Montague City, MA but they the facilities there, Chubb in VT and the Pelham factory. The reel factory in Brooklyn came just a little later.
We're talking here about what location particular models of rods were made in, not the location of the "corporate HQ." I repeat: the reason they kept Pelham open until the 1930s was to make the better stuff. There is no other economic rationale for doing so since they had the mass market covered by the other factories.
Regards,
Thomas
I don't think so. In 1893 The Montague City Rod Co. was based in Montague City, MA but they the facilities there, Chubb in VT and the Pelham factory. The reel factory in Brooklyn came just a little later.
We're talking here about what location particular models of rods were made in, not the location of the "corporate HQ." I repeat: the reason they kept Pelham open until the 1930s was to make the better stuff. There is no other economic rationale for doing so since they had the mass market covered by the other factories.
Regards,
Thomas
- TheMontyMan
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1706
- Joined: 03/13/09 19:00
- Location: Pacific NW
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#134Actually, I happen to agree with part of your theory/opinion. I think some of the best rods were probably built in Pelham. To date, I have not been able to find substantive evidence to confirm this.TEJJR wrote:I repeat: the reason they kept Pelham open until the 1930s was to make the better stuff. There is no other economic rationale for doing so since they had the mass market covered by the other factories.
I can think of a few other reasons to keep the Pelham operation going.
- It could have been because Eugene didn't want to move to Montague City. It wouldn't be the first time a facility was kept open just to accommodate one of the owners/founders.
From what I know of the production from the Chubb factory, they had the high end market covered pretty well too. So maybe Pelham was kept open so the Montague City plant wouldn't have to tool up to build wood rods. The Pelham plant was already tooled up for building wood rods, and had workers experienced in that part of the craft.
Maybe they just needed the extra production capability.
I'm not promoting any of these possibilities, but I can't confidently confirm or exclude any of them either.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I cringe when anyone turns suppositions and theories into fact. Even Mark Aldrich, who managed the Pelham shop for a period of time, wasn't sure on this subject. On page 42 of his interview he said, "We supposedly made the better rods.". By definition, his statement is a supposition, not a fact. Taking that a step further, if he wasn't sure of this during the time he was a manager in the Pelham shop in the 1920's, how could he be sure that this was the case 40 years earlier, and 20 years before he was born?
I would be happy to agree with you more if I am presented with clear, conclusive evidence in support of your theories/opinions.
. . . Rex
The Monty Man
- roycestearns
- Bamboo Fanatic
- Posts: 1827
- Joined: 06/10/08 18:00
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#135Repeating something without any real evidence doesn't confirm anything. Your economic rationale is just that ... your rationale, and it means zero in light of the lack of evidence.I repeat: the reason they kept Pelham open until the 1930s was to make the better stuff. There is no other economic rationale for doing so since they had the mass market covered by the other factories.
Rex has given you other things to consider, in light of lack of evidence.
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#136Gentlemen,
The issue it seems to me is that there is no conclusive evidence here. We can view it as making suppositions, or as inferring conclusions based what the evidence indicates. Opinions will naturally differ on what can be inferred.
To suppose a facility is kept open for decades simply to make-happy an individual is a real stretch. There was a business reason for Pelham's continued existence. It was not simply to continue turning wood rods. Please look at the citation in the AFF article to the 1889 description of the plant in the book, Handbook of Amherst, by Hitchcock.
Also suggest you look again at A.J. who writes that most of the Chubb Vermont production was wood rods, so this was not likely the rationale for Pelham. More importantly, see Campbell page 157 where A.J. writes, "The higher-quality trout and salmon rods models built at the Pelham plant usually carried Varney seats or Leander Bartlett's "new" German silver locking reel seat." Mind you, he's referring to a later period between 1906 and 1930. If Pelham was not making much of the higher quality rods, why would the use of this hardware be? Would Montague just ship (the best) seats to Pelham for the heck of it? I do not think so.
You can disagree with with what A.J. wrote, but based on what I have learned in my research including Mark Aldrich's oral history I see no reason to. What's the evidence to the contrary? In other words, what do we know that A.J. did not?
The issue it seems to me is that there is no conclusive evidence here. We can view it as making suppositions, or as inferring conclusions based what the evidence indicates. Opinions will naturally differ on what can be inferred.
To suppose a facility is kept open for decades simply to make-happy an individual is a real stretch. There was a business reason for Pelham's continued existence. It was not simply to continue turning wood rods. Please look at the citation in the AFF article to the 1889 description of the plant in the book, Handbook of Amherst, by Hitchcock.
Also suggest you look again at A.J. who writes that most of the Chubb Vermont production was wood rods, so this was not likely the rationale for Pelham. More importantly, see Campbell page 157 where A.J. writes, "The higher-quality trout and salmon rods models built at the Pelham plant usually carried Varney seats or Leander Bartlett's "new" German silver locking reel seat." Mind you, he's referring to a later period between 1906 and 1930. If Pelham was not making much of the higher quality rods, why would the use of this hardware be? Would Montague just ship (the best) seats to Pelham for the heck of it? I do not think so.
You can disagree with with what A.J. wrote, but based on what I have learned in my research including Mark Aldrich's oral history I see no reason to. What's the evidence to the contrary? In other words, what do we know that A.J. did not?
- 2dabacking
- Master Guide
- Posts: 867
- Joined: 07/29/10 18:00
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#137Scale, Market Share, PP&E, Synergies, [Family Reunion]TEJJR wrote:There was a business reason
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#138Yes, something like this. Appreciate a Forum member thinking like a turn-of-the-20th-century businessman!
- 2dabacking
- Master Guide
- Posts: 867
- Joined: 07/29/10 18:00
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#139Well, ignore the synergies remark. The rest are valid reasons during this time.
Last edited by 2dabacking on 03/11/20 15:09, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Montague Rod & Reel History
#140I happen to see "synergies" as a valid explanation, but opinions can differ. Montague writ large seems to me to be an amazingly "integrated" company at its time. Pelham was an important part, just as was Chubb's production (mostly wood) and the reel production in Brooklyn. I feel each had its part. Again, the evidence indicates the best rods were largely produced in Pelham.