"The Bartlett Rod" Discussion

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

Moderators: MontyMan, Ken M 44, fishnbanjo

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#161

Post by roycestearns »

One side of my brain is screaming ... "don't ask"
My opinion is that the PV is one of four historically important regions in the USA associated with classic rod making.
In your opinion, what is classic rod making?

In your opinion, what are the three other regions that are historically important and why?

re the "red herring" - at least it's similar product in a high production environment in a similar timeframe and sales challenges, vs a Ford manufacturing plant with zero comparison value, in product, scope or environment.

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#162

Post by TheMontyMan »

Thomas (TEJJR), we're seeing a pattern here that keeps repeating itself. You continuously make statements of fact based on little or no evidence. When knowledgeable people try to correct you, you circle back with more non-evidence to continue trying to prove your theories and opinions. You're frustrating the people that have spent years seriously researching these subjects. I offer a few examples and some possible explanations for your continued marching into a brick wall.
TEJJR wrote:some models were "better" than others. I did not say "all" of these were made at Pelham
Thomas, you DID say ALL of the higher quality rods were made in Pelham - repeatedly. And you state as fact that the Montague City shop was tooled for “another thing”.
  • 01/23/20 you wrote:An unknown number of these, but a fraction, were the high-end rods crafted in Pelham by E.P. Bartlett.
    and,
    01/27/20 you wrote:...a third Montague production facility in Pelham, MA. It was there that the higher-quality/value Montague rods were produced - understandably in lower numbers.
    and,
    02/24/20 you wrote:My research points to the fact that ALL the higher quality Montague rods, including what he refers to as the "super-Montagues" were produced in Pelham. Montague City was tooled for another thing.
    and,
    In your AFF article you wrote: the higher-priced items brought to market by Montague in the next decades continued to be produced at the Amethyst Brook factory
    and,
    In your AFF article under the photo of the Montague City factory you wrote: The former Montague City Rod Company factory in Montague City, Massachusetts. This is where the company mass-produced its less expensive bamboo rods.”
You also stated the following as fact without sufficient validation:
In your AFF article you wrote:This recently surfaced Eugene P. Bartlett split-cane rod was manufactured in Pelham sometime between 1878 and 1889. It is… apparently the “Best Light Fly” model listed in the 1878 catalog.
Later you acknowledged that you had no proof as to when it was built, or whether it was built in Pelham. You also admitted that this rod did not match the illustration of the "Best Light Fly" model in the catalog you mentioned. So, actually, it is apparent that the rod does not match the description of the "Best Light Fly" model in that catalog. It would have been prudent if you would have compared the rod to the illustration before you published the results as fact.

Another indication that you haven't spent much time (compared to others) researching the companies you're writing about:
you wrote:I used my early 1950s Sewell Dutton Angler's Choice 6' "Seaweed" model, crafted here in the Pioneer Valley using cane and machinery from the defunct Amherst Fishing Rod Company.
Your Seaweed model Angler’s Choice rod was NOT built on AFRC equipment or with AFRC cane. Sewell Dunton was the treasurer for The Montague Rod and Reel Company, and upon their closure in 1955, he acquired rod making machinery, rod blanks, rod-making hardware and a huge supply of Tonkin cane from the Montague shop, not the AFRC shop.

Thomas, are you wondering why your comments are being met with such skepticism and opposition?
Are you wondering why nobody is taking your side or coming to your rescue?
you wrote:The issue it seems to me is that there is no conclusive evidence here.
The issue is not, “that there is no conclusive evidence here.”
The issue is that there is no conclusive evidence here, yet you repeatedly state your ideas, theories and opinions as facts.

Some possible contributors to this issue are:
  • on 1/21/19 you wrote: - I'm new to fly-fishing and collecting
    and,
    In your AFF article you wrote:The AFRC’s original building is located two doors away from me in South Amherst
    Since you live in the area, maybe there’s a hint of local pride influencing your theories and opinions???

    When you first contacted me, you mentioned that you had an article scheduled to be published in AFF. You acknowledged, "its clear you are the 'go-to guy' for all-things Montague", yet you didn't ask for my help, for my opinion, or for me to review your article before publication.

    Apparently you didn't run your article by any of the people that are well educated in Montague history. For the most part, you used 20, 40, 60 and 100 year old documents to build your story without regard to what's been discovered in the past 20 years. If you had reached out, you would have found out that a lot of relevant information has been discovered, shared, published and discussed since A.J. Campbell wrote his book over 20 years ago. Many inaccuracies in the references that you based your article on have been revealed and corrected, and some of the holes have been filled in.
I have no problem with you having and expressing your theories and opinions. These should be the basis for more research to produce conclusive evidence. The issue I (and many others) have is that you have repeatedly stated your theories as facts, though you admit "there is no conclusive evidence". At some point you ventured from trying to be a historian to becoming a storyteller of a tale “based on a true story”, where you fill in the blanks based on your theories and opinions, and not on facts. Your story has become part fact, part conjecture and part fiction. It may sound good. It may be logical. But it’s not good, accurate history. Most of the community on this Forum are interested and dedicated to discovering, preserving and sharing real, accurate history - myself included.

As far as I can tell, you’re not thinking or writing like a historian. You’re thinking and writing as a storyteller that lives near Pelham, MA (and full of local pride) that wants to prove to everyone that the Pelham rod factory produced "ALL the higher quality Montague rods", had many other exemplary attributes that can't be proven at this time, and that the Amherst Fishing Rod Company was making the best rods on the market during their few years of production.

I’ll agree that the Pelham rod factory was exceptional for its time, and that it most likely produced some very high quality rods, and maybe some of the best quality rods made by Montague. But to stretch the story to fit your preconceived conclusions isn’t working well without conclusive evidence. Your dogged continuance along this track has spread quite a bit of grief among serious historians and has resulted in the loss of most of your credibility.

All that said, I mean no disrespect to you, and I applaud the effort you've put into your research. Keep digging for the truth and you might find the proof you need to convert some of your opinions and theories into fact some day.

. . . Rex
The Monty Man

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#163

Post by Gnome »

TheMontyMan wrote:Thomas (TEJJR), we're seeing a pattern here that keeps repeating itself. You continuously make statements of fact based on little or no evidence. When knowledgeable people try to correct you, you circle back with more non-evidence to continue trying to prove your theories and opinions. You're frustrating the people that have spent years seriously researching these subjects. I offer a few examples and some possible explanations for your continued marching into a brick wall.
TEJJR wrote:some models were "better" than others. I did not say "all" of these were made at Pelham
Thomas, you DID say ALL of the higher quality rods were made in Pelham - repeatedly. And you state as fact that the Montague City shop was tooled for “another thing”.
  • 01/23/20 you wrote:An unknown number of these, but a fraction, were the high-end rods crafted in Pelham by E.P. Bartlett.
    and,
    01/27/20 you wrote:...a third Montague production facility in Pelham, MA. It was there that the higher-quality/value Montague rods were produced - understandably in lower numbers.
    and,
    02/24/20 you wrote:My research points to the fact that ALL the higher quality Montague rods, including what he refers to as the "super-Montagues" were produced in Pelham. Montague City was tooled for another thing.
    and,
    In your AFF article you wrote: the higher-priced items brought to market by Montague in the next decades continued to be produced at the Amethyst Brook factory
    and,
    In your AFF article under the photo of the Montague City factory you wrote: The former Montague City Rod Company factory in Montague City, Massachusetts. This is where the company mass-produced its less expensive bamboo rods.”
You also stated the following as fact without sufficient validation:
In your AFF article you wrote:This recently surfaced Eugene P. Bartlett split-cane rod was manufactured in Pelham sometime between 1878 and 1889. It is… apparently the “Best Light Fly” model listed in the 1878 catalog.
Later you acknowledged that you had no proof as to when it was built, or whether it was built in Pelham. You also admitted that this rod did not match the illustration of the "Best Light Fly" model in the catalog you mentioned. So, actually, it is apparent that the rod does not match the description of the "Best Light Fly" model in that catalog. It would have been prudent if you would have compared the rod to the illustration before you published the results as fact.

Another indication that you haven't spent much time (compared to others) researching the companies you're writing about:
you wrote:I used my early 1950s Sewell Dutton Angler's Choice 6' "Seaweed" model, crafted here in the Pioneer Valley using cane and machinery from the defunct Amherst Fishing Rod Company.
Your Seaweed model Angler’s Choice rod was NOT built on AFRC equipment or with AFRC cane. Sewell Dunton was the treasurer for The Montague Rod and Reel Company, and upon their closure in 1955, he acquired rod making machinery, rod blanks, rod-making hardware and a huge supply of Tonkin cane from the Montague shop, not the AFRC shop.

Thomas, are you wondering why your comments are being met with such skepticism and opposition?
Are you wondering why nobody is taking your side or coming to your rescue?
you wrote:The issue it seems to me is that there is no conclusive evidence here.
The issue is not, “that there is no conclusive evidence here.”
The issue is that there is no conclusive evidence here, yet you repeatedly state your ideas, theories and opinions as facts.

Some possible contributors to this issue are:
  • on 1/21/19 you wrote: - I'm new to fly-fishing and collecting
    and,
    In your AFF article you wrote:The AFRC’s original building is located two doors away from me in South Amherst
    Since you live in the area, maybe there’s a hint of local pride influencing your theories and opinions???

    When you first contacted me, you mentioned that you had an article scheduled to be published in AFF. You acknowledged, "its clear you are the 'go-to guy' for all-things Montague", yet you didn't ask for my help, for my opinion, or for me to review your article before publication.

    Apparently you didn't run your article by any of the people that are well educated in Montague history. For the most part, you used 20, 40, 60 and 100 year old documents to build your story without regard to what's been discovered in the past 20 years. If you had reached out, you would have found out that a lot of relevant information has been discovered, shared, published and discussed since A.J. Campbell wrote his book over 20 years ago. Many inaccuracies in the references that you based your article on have been revealed and corrected, and some of the holes have been filled in.
I have no problem with you having and expressing your theories and opinions. These should be the basis for more research to produce conclusive evidence. The issue I (and many others) have is that you have repeatedly stated your theories as facts, though you admit "there is no conclusive evidence". At some point you ventured from trying to be a historian to becoming a storyteller of a tale “based on a true story”, where you fill in the blanks based on your theories and opinions, and not on facts. Your story has become part fact, part conjecture and part fiction. It may sound good. It may be logical. But it’s not good, accurate history. Most of the community on this Forum are interested and dedicated to discovering, preserving and sharing real, accurate history - myself included.

As far as I can tell, you’re not thinking or writing like a historian. You’re thinking and writing as a storyteller that lives near Pelham, MA (and full of local pride) that wants to prove to everyone that the Pelham rod factory produced "ALL the higher quality Montague rods", had many other exemplary attributes that can't be proven at this time, and that the Amherst Fishing Rod Company was making the best rods on the market during their few years of production.

I’ll agree that the Pelham rod factory was exceptional for its time, and that it most likely produced some very high quality rods, and maybe some of the best quality rods made by Montague. But to stretch the story to fit your preconceived conclusions isn’t working well without conclusive evidence. Your dogged continuance along this track has spread quite a bit of grief among serious historians and has resulted in the loss of most of your credibility.

All that said, I mean no disrespect to you, and I applaud the effort you've put into your research. Keep digging for the truth and you might find the proof you need to convert some of your opinions and theories into fact some day.

. . . Rex
The Monty Man
+1

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#164

Post by TEJJR »

Rex – Thanks for your message. I do acknowledge your long interest with and knowledge of Montague. What prompted me into this research was the Horace Gray monograph held by the Pelham Historical Society. Until I investigated, so far as I can tell it author was unknown. Turns out it was written in 1999 by a UMass professor, a resident of Pelham, but someone with no interest in fishing, rods or any of the issues that this forum has been discussing. He was simply interested in local history. I see no reason to question his motive in writing the monograph, and to me it seems he got it basically right.

My interest and yes bias in terms of local history remains (local pride, yes!), and there are many questions that remain which you in particular but also others perhaps can shed light on. For example, the supply of Tonkin which sustained bamboo rod making in the first years after WWII.

When AFRC opened for business in 1947-48 where did their cane come from? Seems reasonable to conclude from existing pre-war stock. Autio wrote that when AFRC closed in 1953, one of the partners got the remaining stock of bamboo. He (and AJ) state that some of this stock resurfaced in the 1980s when Mark Aroner used it. Autio goes on to write that Sewell Dutton obtained in 1954 “the remaining stock of Tonkin cane.” I surmised this came from AFRC, which closed the year before. I accept that I was likely mistaken in that Dutton got the Montague stock, and what AFRC had was used decades later by Aroner.

But perhaps it’s a moot point in that I think it all came from the same source. I believe AFRC got its cane to work with from Montague (where else could it have come from?), and thus what Dutton worked with and Aroner much later had the same pre-war Montague source. We are talking about a small world here in the PV. What do you think given your research?

Thomas

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#165

Post by Gnome »

The question;

Where did the cane come from and also where else would it have come from? Odds are it all came from the Demarest company initially!! being as they where one of the Main importers of cane used for bamboo rods.

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#166

Post by TEJJR »

OK, what do we make of this from the Demarest website? To me, it appears getting new cane from them in 1947 may have been unlikely...

During WWII Harold served his country in the Navy while his father continued running the business. The war years were lean ones for the company as the men were away fighting and domestic efforts were focused on wartime concerns. But the postwar years saw an explosion in the Tonkin cane business. Men returning from the war were anxious to resume fishing and the tackle trade flourished. Rodbuilding companies at this time had a policy of carrying a 4 year supply of Tonkin in inventory and began rebuilding their stocks. In 1950 Harold took his first trip to China and completed what turned out to be his last Tonkin transaction prior to the embargo.

wrong66
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3986
Joined: 09/01/09 18:00
Location: S.F. Bay Area

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#167

Post by wrong66 »

Where does that statement suggest that Demarest didn't have a supply of Tonkin in 1947? Sounds like they had enough to at least last until 1950, or beyond.

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#168

Post by jeffkn1 »

Unless I'm mistaken, tackle manufacturers could sell completed goods during the war but could not make any more. That might have led to a shortage of finished goods, as the first post war catalogs often declared, with a surplus of bamboo culms and/or glued up sticks.

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#169

Post by Gnome »

how much cane did they have stock piled pre-war? and how much did they import from the start of the Company??

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#170

Post by TEJJR »

I don't know if Demarest had stock then. Not clear from this. Says a trip to China presumably for new stock was not made until 1950, so perhaps there was leftover Just seems likely that makers like AFRC in PV would have sourced locally if possible. Here it appears there was sharing/transfer of people, machinery and materials.

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#171

Post by Gnome »

Sourced locally????? Just who would that have been?

The source for Tonkin usable for fishing rods has been and always will be China through importers kind enough to import for the trade and that is such a miniscule percentage of the bamboo industry that we are extremely lucky to have had People Like Charles and Harold and Eileen and their Family and Andy Royer and David now.

Sourced locally ?? Need positive proof for that one. That is the biggest reach yet in this thread. who was a local supplier of Tonkin cane there Locally????????!!!
Last edited by Gnome on 03/16/20 05:58, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#172

Post by cwfly »

It is certainly easy to speculate that the Amherst Fishing Rod Company might have obtained bamboo from Montague but that may be romantic and naïve speculation. This was 1948 and Montague had been trying to ramp up rod production after the war when its bamboo stock had been used to make ferruled tent poles and ski poles. What business reason would support supplying a new competitor with sufficient stock to start competing with you? None. And Montague was a company that had in the past (1932) gobbled up a competitor’s physical assets to (1) put it out of business, and (2) acquire its machinery and stock, thereby allowing Montague to increase its production by 20%. I wasn’t there so I can’t testify to it but it seems much more likely that AFRC would have acquired its bamboo the old fashioned way – from Demarest.

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#173

Post by jeffkn1 »

Now I know where the bamboo inventory went........

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#174

Post by jeffkn1 »

Dustnstuff has provided us with photos of one of the scarce M.C. Rod Company stamps. I'll let him add particulars. Someone will need refresh my memory regarding what years they used that stamp. That will help date this reel seat which found its way on to a good number of trade rods, one being the later Isaak Waltons.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#175

Post by TheMontyMan »

Thanks Jeff and Dustnstuff for posting pictures of this rod.

Jeff, you probably recognized the styling of the rest of the rod, besides the reel seat. Much of the rod's style, other than the reel seat and winding check, mimic the work of John Landman. The half-moon welts on the female ferrules, incisions at the step-down on the male ferrules, the black wraps at the ferrules and winding check, and the red intermediate wraps. They even flattened the bottom of the ferrules on these rods to look more like the Landman style.

My guess is that Montague "borrowed" Landman's styling after his death, which I think was around 1915. I have a couple of Montague-made, Landman style rods that were marked as Abbey & Imbrie Centennial Edition rods, stamped "1820-1920", indicating that they were probably built around 1920.

My best guess would be that the rod pictured was built after Landman's death as well.

I don't have a good feel for when this reel seat style was first used, but it was used on the Red Wing model in the late 1920's.

I have at least two rods with a similar stamp as the rod pictured. One of them has a reel seat similar to this rod, the other has a cherry or cedar reel seat and sliding band with the stamp on the butt cap.

. . . Rex
The Monty Man

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#176

Post by jeffkn1 »

What years did they use the MC Rod Company stamp?

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#177

Post by Bethabara »

Yes, I believe that I refinished a duplicate Calcutta cane rod just like this years ago for a guy in New York, same waisted real seat at the butt, soldered hood same NS ferrules, and tip tops. I might even have a few pictures buried.
After research, plus finding it in some catalog, I remember dating it circa 1922 to 1928. But I could be wrong about the date. The only thing that does not seem correct to me is the snake guides on the pictured rod above, not sure.
I think also, that the pictured rod has been rewrapped, again, I could be wrong.
Mike

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#178

Post by TheMontyMan »

I have no idea what years they used the M.C. Rod Co. stamps. I've seen so very few rods marked this way and haven't seen any documentation on the use of these stamps.

. . . Rex
The Monty Man

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

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#179

Post by jeffkn1 »

From Dustnstuff, in regard to his rod above

Rod has been restored with all wraps marked and replaced as original
Both tip tops have agate inserts and there are ferrule plugs.
This rod is very well made and the two tips are the best I've seen. Very thin for 6 strips of bamboo.
The M.C. Rod company only lasted for about two years before it's name changed to Montague
Amherst address was used as there was no post office in Pelham.
This was the time the two brothers were apart.

User avatar
Dustnstuff
Guide
Posts: 303
Joined: 11/17/05 19:00
Location: Cape Cod, Ma.

Re: Montague Rod & Reel History

#180

Post by Dustnstuff »

The M.C. Rod weighs 5.oz
Length 9'
Rod has two agate on the butt section
The tube is marked M.C. Treadway
bamboo at the tip is .76/1000
Dustnstuff

Post Reply

Return to “Montague Rod & Reel Co.”