What hath Chubb wrought?

[jeffkn1]

Thanks, Jeff. Always like to hear a bit about Chubb, the old factory site just up the road from me.

The photos I took when I was there were taken four computers ago. My planning didn't allow for safe and orderly archiving, resulting in near-monumental tasks when I go searching for them.
The front entry door had glass panes and I took one shot through the glass into a room with wood beams in the ceilings, and an office immediately to the right that I bet was Chubb's. The catalogs have woodcut illustrations of numerous rooms, all not drawn to scale and appearing at least two or three times their actual size. The old woodcut of Chubb's office, the one where he is reading the newspaper, looks like it's 12 X 30' but I bet it was really 8 X 15 or some similar dimensions. That scale thing was commonly done in the papers and promo literature back then.

Here are some early images, starting with a photo of the second Chubb factory, as identified by the attached covered bridge. Off the top of my head, I don't recall the date this was built.

This image is from a nice little softcover book written by Jessie A. Baldwin, entitled , copyrighted 1983 and published by Thetford Historical Society. That little stream, the Ompompanoosuc (original native American name Nompompanoosuc) would sometimes generate spring freshets high enough to take the deck off the bridge. Look at the above image to put that into perspective. A repair crew is seen here, Chubb factory workers watching from the windows. It would surprise me if the repair crew was staffed by anyone who didn't work in the factory.

This one is a photograph of a stereoview image. One of these days I'll get it scanned. The bearded man standing up in the wagon(covered bridge behind) may be Henry Dodge, a Post Mills farmer and trucker. We have his ledger, with numerous entries for supplies and machinery delivered to the Chubb factory from the railroad station. The open door is the one through which I was able to get a photo. Near the center of the image is a gentleman wearing a hat and holding papers in his left hand. Some of us surmise that's Thomas Chubb. To get to the Chubb homestead it was a matter of crossing the bridge and walking up a slope on the left. I'll post a photo of that when time allows.

[jeffkn1]

And in the February 9 1882 we have the following advertisement




Mass production early for sure, and supplying his wares to all, not just the trade

Interesting to note that the ad shows this as a 2/3 without any explanation in the text. Though it's a bait rod it took the same new reel seat as seen in my photos, except it's minus the butt cap and it''s orientation is reversed.

[roycestearns]

Jeff, thanks for sharing those. The Jerry Girard article in (2003) Art of Angling Journal vol 2 issue 2 is a fantastic pictorial collection of the Chubb enterprise.

[headwaters]

Happy Birthday, Jeff!

Also, I am very happy that you are back posting.

Thanks,

Rupert

[jeffkn1]

Jeff

In my view, this singlehandedly drove the explosion in rod production in the late 1800's, all other advances considered, even the beveler.

Interesting ... I'd never considered the reel seat hardware as the lead on production. I like the thinking behind your premise.

Not arguing, just thinking out loud, the time consuming part of a rod is making a blank, reel seats didn't have to be metal for a production rod, but six strips were required. All the wood with bands seats could have continued into high production? CF Orvis (not high production) but quantity, produced reel seats without soldering brass. Maybe the Chubb parts enabled a lower cost high production rod than other options, but not single handedly drove the rod production explosion?

Thoughts?

Good point, Royce. By the time I type out my thoughts, always with endless edits, the sum of all the parts sometimes lacks cohesiveness. After review, here is how it should have read:

"In my view, once the bevelers were in place, this played a major role driving the expansion in rod production in the late 1800's, all other advances considered."

It was no longer necessary to solder individual components to provide an effective seat, and wood seats from then on assumed a relatively minor role, if surviving rods from that era can be considered good examples. Some makers made it a point to state that their solid reel plates were waterproof, and without a doubt the new seats were cheap, user friendly, and nearly foolproof to install; seat designs had always been problematic and those days were gone. Chubb made it possible to buy all the requisite components to make a rod and, with a few simple hand tools, assemble a finished product to rival what had once been the domain of skilled laborers. The hobbyist could do it, and it gave stores the option of stocking some hardware and ordering blanks as needed. The impact was really far reaching and in my view is one of the better examples of the advances brought on through the industrial revolution.

[jeffkn1]

Welcome back Jeff,
Just a bit more to add to this post.
Within 50 to 60 miles of the Chubb plant,
I have found 4 small rod shops operating during the
late 1800's
S. W. Goodridge of Grafton, Vt
Ed Smith of Pittsfield, Vt (just north of Killington)
W.S. Trumbull of Potter's Place, NH
Emery of Chelsea, Vt
All these makers could have come from the Chubb factory
during the down time after the fires closed down production.
Examples I have or seen, show Chubb hardware.
Over the years there have been a few post on the forum
about these makers, but little has come to light so far.
Dustnstuff

Thanks, Peter (and thanks Paul).

I had an Emery but didn't make contact with Chelsea Historical. It sold it on ebay for $200.

Jeff

[Gnome]

Must correct myself!!! The ad above I misstated as being from the Feb 9th 1882 Forest & Stream Rod & Gun when that ad appeared in the Oct. 22 1885 issue the ad I meant to refer to was this one from Feb 9th 1882;



Sorry about that too many F&S, R&G out at the same time. cornfused myself ;-)

[Gnome]

One of these is not like the other and yet it is dated 1881 Any thoughts??? I have my speculation on it and am curious about what others think?????




Click on the picture and then click on it again to get it as big as possible, one seat is almost identical to the others but there are a couple of things that say it is a something in Sheep's clothing and not what it appears to be initially.

[2dabacking]

Jeff,
The third rod looks like an early Wm. Mills Standard to me.

[roycestearns]

+1, the middle rod's seat is different. Jeff what's your assessment?
Also, the middle rod almost looks like it's not rails ... maybe the light in the picture. Almost Fowler like.

[2dabacking]

This thread reminded me of an article written in 1876 (several years before Chubb's patent) recounting a walk through the [CB&M] factory in Woodbury Falls. The following article was also included in Tom Kerr's book, Early American Rods and Rodmakers.

[cwfly]

Thanks Joel.
Very noteworthy. No seams, no solder before Thos. Chubb's patent. The article also demonstrates the sheer quantity of rods being produced. Here is an 1873 observation of the Chubb output.


And this one reminds me of the Bartlett brothers:


And, finally, Thomas Malleson (brother Frederick was long gone) was an honorary pallbearer at L. L. Bartlett's funeral. May be related to this:

[Tom Smithwick]

Jeff - It also appears that the rattan on the middle rod might be wound in the opposite direction. Hard to tell from the photo. Is that what you are seeing as well?

[Gnome]

my SWAG is it is a very early Mills Standard circa 1882-5 everything is early Leonard and if you look close the rails are soldered on the middle rod, my main point was that rod details can be very similar from maker to maker and even swaged and drawn and seamed and soldered so close attention to detail is really important in identification and placing a piece within the historical time frame,


in postimage blow it up and you can see the solder seams on the rails and you also can see the rail on the right is just short of the hood, so the trees in the forest can tell us much if we study them closely for the fine needles or details ;-).

The solder seams on the rails are immaculate and almost impossible to see. extremely fine work of P&P perhaps??? old Leonard stock by P&P used to make money with the "Standard" Model?

fun stuff

[2dabacking]

Great clips, Charlie. Thank you. I'm still fuzzy on the relationships among these various players and factories. It would be interesting to connect the dots among the factories by ownership and date (with examples of the hardware during each period). [disclosure: project underway]

Thinking more about Chubb, what did the hardware look like prior to 1880?

Jeff, I very much agree with you that details are important.

[2dabacking]

The solder seams on the rails are immaculate and almost impossible to see. extremely fine work of P&P perhaps??? old Leonard stock by P&P used to make money with the "Standard" Model?

Jeff, here is your answer:

[Gnome]

Yours is definitely earlier and P&P now with the one I posted it almost makes me believe it was made by a Leonard shop employee thus no markings?? having seen how that worked at SCOTT makes that a plausible explanation of no STANDARD mark. Don't have much hair left to tear out ;-)

[2dabacking]

Jeff, I wasn't trying to throw you a changeup. I believe your rod to be older. My intention was to show, as you proposed, that Mills was using old stock to build the Standards. Keep your hair.

[OldCane]

Love the thread!

[jeffkn1]

Here you go. Click to zoom, and keep in mind these photos were taken at different times, with different cameras, by different people.