Orvis Equinox worth repairing?

[gfirob]

I found an old Orvis rod which I thought I had long discarded in a closet today, buried with a bunch of obscuring junk.
It is a two piece 7 ½’ Equinox from (I think) 1941 numbered 0303. It has both tips, but both are broken, one is full length, one four inches short, both have their tip-tops. It has a brown fiber tube (Synthane?) with a female threaded cap and an olive sock. One tip is seems weathered and dark and the other matches the color of the lower section.

It is pretty beat, with one ferrule held on with tape, one guide missing, another guide held on with tape. The cork is also pretty beat with a fairly large chip out of it. The reel seat is fine and overall the lower section looks pretty good. As I recall from long ago, I had purchased it for $10 at a farm auction, fished the crap out of it and eventually closed a car door or trunk lid on the tips, first one, and then a year later, the other one.

I had sent it to Orvis at sometime in the 90’s for evaluation, and they told me it was not worth the trouble to fix and they wouldn’t work on it anyway. I thought I had thrown it away, but now I see I held on to it.

I fish now mostly with a 8 ½” Phillipson Pacemaker from the 40's, so the idea of a little bamboo rod like this is kind of appealing.

Does anyone have sense of whether a rod in this condition is worth trying to revive, or if I should sell it for parts (or put it back in the closet)? Are there more options now for repairing something like this or even building a new tip than there were then and if so, are there any suggestions to whom I might send it for evaluation? I can try to upload some photographs if that would be helpful. I have no idea what the dollar point of diminishing returns are for this kind of repair, or what the rod is worth in good condition. It is very far from good condition now.

Thanks for your help,

Rob Gardner

[waltryan1]

If you enjoyed fishing it before you broke it I think it would be worthwhile to at least see about getting it up to fishable shape. Depending on where you live you can probably find someone who can at least advise you on the possibility and cost of repair.

[fisherman911]

To me low serial # Orvis rods are always worth trying to preserve and get into fishing condition. 0303 puts it around 1942. Is this rod impregnated or varnished? Someone like Dennis Stone could build replacement tips, he could not duplicate the Orvis impregnation process but dark flaming and a oil finish would be a very close match. If the ferrules are not usable you might be able to find a set if you advertised on this forum or someone like Dave LeClair could build a reproduction set. Dave could also probably make the new tips. The resale value , if you did these things would probable not be equal to your investment but it would a very neat rod to own and fish. Worst case there is value in the reel seat, tube and bag.

[GRASSNGLASS]

If Orvis said it wasn't worth repairing twenty years ago I don't see why it would be worth repairing now.

Sell any good parts and be done with it.

Also,is this rod varnished or impregnated? For some reason I thought the impregnated Equinox rods were made in 1960's by Sharpes for Orvis.

Barry

[Webfly]

+1 for parts.

[gfirob]

I don't think this is impregnated. Should I put it on the forum here for parts? Any ballpark value? I'm sad to say that sounds like the sensible way to go. It was a great little rod when it was only 30 years old or so...
Thanks for the comments and the help.

[gooseberryrods]

From the time it was made, and if it is varnished rather than impregnated, it could have some value. At the time it was made, Pinky Gillum and George Halstead were working at Orvis. I have a 6 footer from the same vintage and it is a jewel of a rod. Mine sports Halstead ferrules and hardware so I would love to see your rod for comparison. It is my belief the early varnished rods are Orvis rods in name only. Judging by the appearance of the few I've seen, rods from this time period could well have been shop rods made by Gillum and/or Halstead. It is possible that Orvis did not want to touch it if it is a varnished rod since they make impregnated rods. I have included a picture of my rod (serial number 0460) for comparison.

Scott

[eastprong]

Wow, Scott, that's the only 6'0" rod from that era in Greg's database, the Holy Grail for Orvis collectors. Congratulations!

--Rich

[fisherman911]

If it is not impregnated then, to me, it would definitely be worth restoring. The 4" short tip could be scarfed and the other tip reproduced or maybe fixed. Or just keep it as a one tip rod. Could you post some pictures?

[gooseberryrods]

Thanks Rich. I bought the rod because I am a Halstead fan and I believe it was made by him, although others might argue Gillum was the maker. It has a refined taper not unlike a Young Midge.

Scott

[eastprong]

The tapers of the early Jordan era (1940-45) rods are very different from what most folks have come to know about Orvis rods. The varnished rods have a fine tipped and steep taper, similar to Dickersons and some Paynes. (At least from the published tapers of those rods that are floating around.) It appears to me that Jordan was experimenting with the impregnated tapers during this time, but they were still similar to the varnished tapers. Somewhere around 1946, when there were only impregnated rods offered, the tapers started showing the thicker tips and flatter taper design for the first half of the rod.

These early Jordan rods are surprising. It's hard to say what influence that Gillum and Halstead had on the tapers, especially since I haven't found any consistent data on their tenures. But there must have been some commingling of ideas at some point.

--Rich

[Flyman615]

I have Orvis Manchester #0182 (1941-42). Found it a few years ago, had Dennis Stone work on it and I'm glad I did.

I agree, these non-impregnated rods are quite different from the run-of-the-mill Orvis impregnated rods and well worth restoring in my opinion.

Scott

[gooseberryrods]

I may be on an island here but I do not believe Orvis would have set up their mill to build a rod or two of a particular taper which is one reason why I believe my rod was a shop built rod by one of the craftsmen I mentioned earlier. America was involved in WWll at the time, so demand would not have been very high for a 6' bamboo fly rod. The taper does not correspond to the Dickerson fast-action type as a previous poster mentioned but instead has a rather flat butt and Para feel, very much like a Young Midge.

Scott

[Greg Reynolds]

From the time it was made, and if it is varnished rather than impregnated, it could have some value. At the time it was made, Pinky Gillum and George Halstead were working at Orvis. I have a 6 footer from the same vintage and it is a jewel of a rod. Mine sports Halstead ferrules and hardware so I would love to see your rod for comparison. It is my belief the early varnished rods are Orvis rods in name only. Judging by the appearance of the few I've seen, rods from this time period could well have been shop rods made by Gillum and/or Halstead. It is possible that Orvis did not want to touch it if it is a varnished rod since they make impregnated rods. I have included a picture of my rod (serial number 0460) for comparison.

Scott

It a wonderful rod, but give Wes the credit. Gillum was at Orvis from May 1945 to August 1946. Halstead was briefly employed--July to November 1946.

[gooseberryrods]

Greg,

In a thread about this exact rod from November of 2007 on this forum you mentioned that both Gillum and Halstead almost certainly were working at Orvis at the time my rod was made. So you apparently have more up-to-date information that puts their employment later than what you previously wrote on this forum. Orvis must have therefore purchased both reel seats and ferrules from George Halstead since they are both found on my 6' Battenkill which was made in 1942. I give credit where I think credit is due and in this case I would say Mr. Halstead gets the nod; no disrespect to Wes Jordan intended. Furthermore, although I am not an expert on doing comparisons of hand writing, I have compared the numbering on the rod to examples by George Halstead and they look the same to me.

[eastprong]

Scott:

I have several varnished rods from that era from 7'0" to 9"0''. I've measured their tapers and compared them to other published tapers. Just for the record, I am not saying they were copied -- there are differences but the stress curves show an overall resemblance to Dickersons and Paynes in the same rod length. They may in fact look like others as well -- I just didn't do the comparisons.

And I don't doubt at all what you say about your rod resembling a PHY Midge in action.

--Rich

[gooseberryrods]

Does anybody really believe Orvis would have set up their mill to make one rod? In 1942 during WWll? And why would the rod have 100% Halstead hardware including the hook keeper? See thread under "Collecting" for more info about the rod. I may have overstated my opinion that "other" rods from the same era are Orvis rods in name only but I stand firm on my assessment of the one I own. If you read the other thread you will find others who actually saw the rod and their thoughts.

Rich- it is the only Orvis 6' two piece rod that has been documented. I am happy to share the taper with you so you can compare it to the others if you would like?

Scott

[Greg Reynolds]

Greg,

In a thread about this exact rod from November of 2007 on this forum you mentioned that both Gillum and Halstead almost certainly were working at Orvis at the time my rod was made. So you apparently have more up-to-date information that puts their employment later than what you previously wrote on this forum. Orvis must have therefore purchased both reel seats and ferrules from George Halstead since they are both found on my 6' Battenkill which was made in 1942. I give credit where I think credit is due and in this case I would say Mr. Halstead gets the nod; no disrespect to Wes Jordan intended. Furthermore, although I am not an expert on doing comparisons of hand writing, I have compared the numbering on the rod to examples by George Halstead and they look the same to me.

Scott, you're correct, it was information received later. In 2009, a forum member forwarded a response from Orvis to several of his questions:

...Howard "Pinky" Gillum worked at Orvis making bamboo rods for Wes Jordan from May 1945 through August 1946. George Halstead was there from July 1945 through November of 1945.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please e-mail me.

Sincerely,
Dan Gracia
Orvis Rod and Tackle
Sporting Traditions Specialist
1-800-548-9548

[gooseberryrods]

Thanks Greg. Would love to hear your thoughts on why an Orvis rod built in 1942 would be dressed entirely in Halstead's hardware to include: ferrules, reel seat, hook keeper? Would Wes Jordan have acquired rods from other sources? Also, the taper profile and cane work looks to be that of Halstead, at least the other one I owned. Again, do you really believe Orvis would have made one 6 foot rod in 1942? I cannot imagine a production rod company undertaking this when resources were limited at best due to our country's war effort. Also, is it not likely that since Jordan, Gillum, and Halstead had established relationships that Wes would have leaned on them for help perhaps to fill orders when Jordan was just getting things going at Orvis? In your experience have you seen Wes Jordan rods that look anything like the rod in question? Here is what the late Martin Keane had to say about an early Orvis from a 1994 catalog (number 64).

16. "Undoubtedly the rarest and highest quality early ORVIS ever built and prior to the impregnation process, in my opinion, is this superb mirror like varnished darkly flamed rod w/occasional lt. patches, mkd. "Battenkill" under the varnish...also "Orvis Manchester" on its SL burnished blue ring w/varnished wood seat, ser. #0716; wraps are iridescent bronze/gold w delicate blk. tipping each guide w/blued guides, ferrule blue is turning a mixed gray/blue from age. This is not only a spectacular rod, it's also a tiny 7', 2/2 w/a crisp DR action for a #4 line- frankly it looks more like a Payne or Gillum than anything else, rated at 98% new it's overall condition and impact is beyond description, even has orig. bag & old Orvis Champion tube w/green plastic cap. $1200."

A little research tells me this rod was made in 1944. This rod, according to your latest documentation also pre-dated the arrival of Halstead and Gillum.

Scott

[Greg Reynolds]

Hi Scott,

Any information 1940-1945 Orvis rods has been, and remains, difficult for me to find. I was able to obtain an undated catalog from Rich Margiotta that appears to be from about 1941, which has helped. A least I know what rods & grades were offered without having to piece it together from the extremely limited number of rods of the era that come to market. I do have a fair number of photos of Orvis war-time rods sourced from the internet, which helps.

I'm not aware of Orvis outsourcing rods during the war--only limited postwar work to Montague. I've never seen anything to suggest that Orvis sourced hardware or rods from Halstead. They were supplied, per Wes (and I forget the source), with reel seats for a period during the war, but again, no reference to Halstead.

As an aside, Halstead purchased at least one Orvis rod during the 1950s, and IIRC, Gillum also owned one.

I know nothing about early Orvis tapers--Rich Margiotta is the person to ask.

Basis the database and other information, Orvis made extremely limited runs of rods; experimentals, prototypes and low-demand models. So, I'm certain they'd set-up the mill for a small run or even a single rod.

The Orvis ledger starts at rod #0529 and I've only been able to add 45 of the 528 missing rods or 8.5%. Although Battenkill #0460 is the only one of its type to surface, and does appear to be unique, the reality is that there may be others.

As far as Marty Keene and rod #0716 goes, he described a great example of a perfectly typical varnished Battenkill of the era. I didn't even have to look it up in my catalog--I know it well and wanted it badly... They were/are very nice rods...

Confusion concerning the time of the employment of Gillum and Halstead at Orvis stems from--and absolutely no disrespect intended--Dick Spurr's book. He placed them there at the earlier, incorrect date, which I accepted as his Wes Jordan was better researched and more focused than books that preceded it. However, Keane got it mostly right and Hogan & Schullery did it right (as I should've known) but didn't flesh it out.

Best,
Greg