Looking for any and all information regarding Frederick Malleson.
My understanding is that he was born in 1850 and partnered with Conroy & Bissett in 1875 likely due to his skills as a maker. Believe he lived in Brooklyn, N.Y. where he ran his production. Received a patent for a bow in 1879 that used bamboo to further strengthen the wood and another for a reel in 1883. Reportedly back on his own in 1881 but still producing the reels and product for Conroy.
He sold out to Montague in 1893 and I saw a newspaper notice of that same year announcing his moving to an upstate NY location where he would have more room but not sure if this ever happened. Wondering if he worked for Montague for a while after sale or what happened to him?
Frederick Malleson
Moderator: Titelines
Re: Frederick Malleson
#2Rob
I think that the best starting point is to search out Malleson posts made by Charlie. I think he is more on top of that history than most of us.
I think that the best starting point is to search out Malleson posts made by Charlie. I think he is more on top of that history than most of us.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#3Have looked through everything I could find here over the past few days and have made some interesting inferences about him and his work but there are few facts available. I just received an email from Ron Gast and he has an article on him that will be published in the upcoming ORCA newsletter. He shared that he died suddenly at the age of 52 but was no longer connected to the trade. Waiting to hear back on permission to post (might have to wait till article drops which I would fully respect).
Have a PM into Charlie and I look forward to what he finds but there has been little posted about him here. He had ten pages about on Anneals but it is alas gone now.
Did find this from Charlie 2010 (per usual, thank you Charlie!:
"This is a brief and general overview. Very recently, when I ran across the New York Factory Inspector’ Report covering 1896 I did a little work looking into Fred Malleson because I was astonished at the size of the factory, Malleson Rod & Reel Co. in Brooklyn. It’s misspelled “Mallison” in the report which it makes it a little hard to find. Malleson seems largely forgotten, but I don’t think he should be.
But it’s not only Fred, born about 1850 who is of interest. His older brother Theodore J. Malleson, in 1880, was the Superintendent of a Fishing Tackle factory while Fred was listed as an importer of fishing tackle. And then there is Thomas E. Malleson, six years younger than Fred who in 1880 was a “Clerk – Fishing.”
Fred, of course, had the 1879 patent for a bamboo or lancewood archery bow that was sold by Conroy. That patent is witnessed by Thos. E. Malleson. Next Fred had the 1883 reel patent and lastly, Thomas E. Malleson, of Brooklyn, had a 1923 fishing reel patent that was assigned to Montague City Rod. Co.
Various writers have suggested that Montague bought Malleson’s reel factory in about 1899 (or Montague bought U. S. N. & T.’s factory). But another reference suggests there is much more to it.
In 1930 Stone, History of Massachusetts Industries Their Inception, Growth and Success[/i] (Boston, 1930) was published with detailed histories of Massachusetts industry. It included a history up to then present of Montague and specifically the following:
“In 1893 the rod business of the Malleson Rod and Reel Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., was acquired, and five years later the reel department of the same concern was purchased, which permitted the Montague concern to provide the tackle trade with a large portion of its requirements. In 1922, when Leander L. Bartlett died, the presidency passed to Eugene P. Bartlett. Up to that year, E. P. Bartlett had been in charge of the Pelham plant, Charles A. Powell had been superintending the operations at the Post Mills unit, and Thomas E. Malleson had managed the Brooklyn plant.”
What we find is that Montague first acquired in 1893 Malleson’s rod making business, and may well have continued to operate with the Malleson name, and in 1898 acquired the Malleson reel business with Thomas E. Malleson as supervisor of the factory in Brooklyn for many years thereafter.
With the size of that plant, it makes we wonder how many rods and reels it was capable of producing – and for whom. That is a lot of rods and reels with someone’s name on them.
It is correct that Fred Malleson, and now I suspect both Theodore and Thomas as well, were closely connected to Conroy. Conroy, Bissett & Malleson is the obvious. And in 1889 when Conroy filed for bankruptcy and the New York Times[/i] reported it was expected he would be able to pay ten cents/dollar to creditors, Malleson was still linked to Conroy. Both Conroy, the “dealer” of 65 Fulton Street and Malleson, “manufacturer of fishing tackle at 375 Kent Avenue in Brooklyn were in the same business failure article with the same assignee. Malleson had endorsed, as an accommodation maker (guarantor) about $70,000 of Conroy debt for which Conroy was to pay ten cents, and Malleson another ten cents. Not a good risk, but an old friend.
Worth more work? Probably. My thanks to Tom Kerr who graciously sent me pieces of the history that he had.
Charlie"
Have a PM into Charlie and I look forward to what he finds but there has been little posted about him here. He had ten pages about on Anneals but it is alas gone now.
Did find this from Charlie 2010 (per usual, thank you Charlie!:
"This is a brief and general overview. Very recently, when I ran across the New York Factory Inspector’ Report covering 1896 I did a little work looking into Fred Malleson because I was astonished at the size of the factory, Malleson Rod & Reel Co. in Brooklyn. It’s misspelled “Mallison” in the report which it makes it a little hard to find. Malleson seems largely forgotten, but I don’t think he should be.
But it’s not only Fred, born about 1850 who is of interest. His older brother Theodore J. Malleson, in 1880, was the Superintendent of a Fishing Tackle factory while Fred was listed as an importer of fishing tackle. And then there is Thomas E. Malleson, six years younger than Fred who in 1880 was a “Clerk – Fishing.”
Fred, of course, had the 1879 patent for a bamboo or lancewood archery bow that was sold by Conroy. That patent is witnessed by Thos. E. Malleson. Next Fred had the 1883 reel patent and lastly, Thomas E. Malleson, of Brooklyn, had a 1923 fishing reel patent that was assigned to Montague City Rod. Co.
Various writers have suggested that Montague bought Malleson’s reel factory in about 1899 (or Montague bought U. S. N. & T.’s factory). But another reference suggests there is much more to it.
In 1930 Stone, History of Massachusetts Industries Their Inception, Growth and Success[/i] (Boston, 1930) was published with detailed histories of Massachusetts industry. It included a history up to then present of Montague and specifically the following:
“In 1893 the rod business of the Malleson Rod and Reel Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., was acquired, and five years later the reel department of the same concern was purchased, which permitted the Montague concern to provide the tackle trade with a large portion of its requirements. In 1922, when Leander L. Bartlett died, the presidency passed to Eugene P. Bartlett. Up to that year, E. P. Bartlett had been in charge of the Pelham plant, Charles A. Powell had been superintending the operations at the Post Mills unit, and Thomas E. Malleson had managed the Brooklyn plant.”
What we find is that Montague first acquired in 1893 Malleson’s rod making business, and may well have continued to operate with the Malleson name, and in 1898 acquired the Malleson reel business with Thomas E. Malleson as supervisor of the factory in Brooklyn for many years thereafter.
With the size of that plant, it makes we wonder how many rods and reels it was capable of producing – and for whom. That is a lot of rods and reels with someone’s name on them.
It is correct that Fred Malleson, and now I suspect both Theodore and Thomas as well, were closely connected to Conroy. Conroy, Bissett & Malleson is the obvious. And in 1889 when Conroy filed for bankruptcy and the New York Times[/i] reported it was expected he would be able to pay ten cents/dollar to creditors, Malleson was still linked to Conroy. Both Conroy, the “dealer” of 65 Fulton Street and Malleson, “manufacturer of fishing tackle at 375 Kent Avenue in Brooklyn were in the same business failure article with the same assignee. Malleson had endorsed, as an accommodation maker (guarantor) about $70,000 of Conroy debt for which Conroy was to pay ten cents, and Malleson another ten cents. Not a good risk, but an old friend.
Worth more work? Probably. My thanks to Tom Kerr who graciously sent me pieces of the history that he had.
Charlie"
Re: Frederick Malleson
#4Most of what I wrote about the Malleson family was posted in a long series of somewhat illustrated posts on the now deceased Annals of Fly Fishing. While I have some of that research stored on various thumb drives (right term?), It is not as complete or cohesive as what I had posted on Annals.
Shortly before that forum disappeared, I wrote to Ron Gast, since I knew he was a Malleson fan to advise him it would no longer exists and learned, happily I might add that he had copie all the Malleson posts. So, hopefully, some of that information will show up in his forthcoming ORCA article.
The history starts with the arrival in America from England of the once bankrupt surgeon Charles Malleson and his family and continues........
Shortly before that forum disappeared, I wrote to Ron Gast, since I knew he was a Malleson fan to advise him it would no longer exists and learned, happily I might add that he had copie all the Malleson posts. So, hopefully, some of that information will show up in his forthcoming ORCA article.
The history starts with the arrival in America from England of the once bankrupt surgeon Charles Malleson and his family and continues........
Re: Frederick Malleson
#5History tells us that Dr. Charles Malleson undertook to start a new life in the United States and in order to follow that we must now travel from Yoxford, England down to London and then board the packet ship Mediator.
The Mediator, with the Malleson family on board (among the 48 passengers in steerage), left London on November 20, 1840. She stopped in Plymouth on the 10th of December and then spent more than two weeks, “west of the banks” in the north Atlantic with “strong westerly gales most of the time.” I have been in the North Atlantic in the winter and can assure all of you that being in the steerage of a 660 ton packet, in 1841, in that season would have been a most unpleasant experience – even for a physician.
However, in January, 1841 the Mediator arrived in New York and filed its passenger manifest for those in steerage. Here we find Frederick Malleson’s parents and his sister, ready to start a new life in their new country.
The Mediator, with the Malleson family on board (among the 48 passengers in steerage), left London on November 20, 1840. She stopped in Plymouth on the 10th of December and then spent more than two weeks, “west of the banks” in the north Atlantic with “strong westerly gales most of the time.” I have been in the North Atlantic in the winter and can assure all of you that being in the steerage of a 660 ton packet, in 1841, in that season would have been a most unpleasant experience – even for a physician.
However, in January, 1841 the Mediator arrived in New York and filed its passenger manifest for those in steerage. Here we find Frederick Malleson’s parents and his sister, ready to start a new life in their new country.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#6Sure, I'll reply with a few of the illustrations I tracked down. (1) father Malleson's assignment, the Mediator passenger manifest entry, and (3) awful weather on the way over.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#7Ron's article is reportedly going to be in the May issue of O.R.C.A magazine so will be a bit longer before I can post what he shared but here's a really interesting article I found in an 1878 Forest & Stream that describes the rod factory in Highland Mills.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#8And that article was two years after the Mallesons' young son Frederick Bissett Malleson died at home in Woodbury. So M was there for a while. The remainder I will leave for Ron's article.
9 February 1876
9 February 1876
Re: Frederick Malleson / ORCA article
#9Great article by Ron Gast in the O.R.C.A newsletter! here's a link: https://luresnreels.com/mallesonarticle.pdf
As Charle noted, Fredrick Malleson (guessing from his stamp and obit he went by Fred) was born in 1850. He was married in 1874 to Nellie Fallon (daughter of NYC comptroller and engineer of Prospect Park at time of his death). Malleson must have been a gifted craftsmen who fully understood the production process to have been made a partner to Thomas Conroy in 1875 at the age of 25. 1876 was the year he lost his first child as noted by Charlie and from which we know he was living in Woodbury while running the factory there (pictures of current state to hopefully come). 1898 he receives a patent for a bamboo bow (further evidence of his technical skill and knowledge of bamboo). 1881 C,B &M open factory in Brooklyn but by 1882 Fred Malleson is no longer a formal partner to C & B and starts the Malleson Rod & Reel Co. Minor fact check on Ron's article, The factory initially listed on First St that was noted to move to Kent was actually an address change by the city as First st BECAME Kent (old maps show this) the factory was once at the end of South 8th st and Kent and would have essentially been right on the water. There is still one factory remaining down there on other side of Brooklyn bridge (like 4 or 5 blocks away) that is being converted to apartments that gives a sense of what that building was like - he must of had a tremendous amount of employees. July 1889 the Malleson-Bartlett Rod Co. was reportedly started. In 1893 he sells rod company to Montague Rod Co and then in 1898 the reel co as well with his brother reportedly staying on as manager for Montague. July 1901 was one of the hottest months on record with the first two days officially listed at 100 degrees and heat stroke the likely cause of Fred's death at 52 years old. Much to digest but now that Ron's article is out wondering about the obituary found in the Brooklyn Times Union. Strikes me as odd the way it reads - why would someone write that none of his recent enterprises has been successful in someones obituary? Almost reads like someone was left holding the bag or wasn't compensated for somehow. According to the Brooklyn City Directory he was a Salesman Fishing Tackle and lived at 460 Throop Ave from 1898 to 1902 - here is a pic of the July, 8, 1901 obit (thanks again for sharing Ron!).
As Charle noted, Fredrick Malleson (guessing from his stamp and obit he went by Fred) was born in 1850. He was married in 1874 to Nellie Fallon (daughter of NYC comptroller and engineer of Prospect Park at time of his death). Malleson must have been a gifted craftsmen who fully understood the production process to have been made a partner to Thomas Conroy in 1875 at the age of 25. 1876 was the year he lost his first child as noted by Charlie and from which we know he was living in Woodbury while running the factory there (pictures of current state to hopefully come). 1898 he receives a patent for a bamboo bow (further evidence of his technical skill and knowledge of bamboo). 1881 C,B &M open factory in Brooklyn but by 1882 Fred Malleson is no longer a formal partner to C & B and starts the Malleson Rod & Reel Co. Minor fact check on Ron's article, The factory initially listed on First St that was noted to move to Kent was actually an address change by the city as First st BECAME Kent (old maps show this) the factory was once at the end of South 8th st and Kent and would have essentially been right on the water. There is still one factory remaining down there on other side of Brooklyn bridge (like 4 or 5 blocks away) that is being converted to apartments that gives a sense of what that building was like - he must of had a tremendous amount of employees. July 1889 the Malleson-Bartlett Rod Co. was reportedly started. In 1893 he sells rod company to Montague Rod Co and then in 1898 the reel co as well with his brother reportedly staying on as manager for Montague. July 1901 was one of the hottest months on record with the first two days officially listed at 100 degrees and heat stroke the likely cause of Fred's death at 52 years old. Much to digest but now that Ron's article is out wondering about the obituary found in the Brooklyn Times Union. Strikes me as odd the way it reads - why would someone write that none of his recent enterprises has been successful in someones obituary? Almost reads like someone was left holding the bag or wasn't compensated for somehow. According to the Brooklyn City Directory he was a Salesman Fishing Tackle and lived at 460 Throop Ave from 1898 to 1902 - here is a pic of the July, 8, 1901 obit (thanks again for sharing Ron!).
Last edited by Pentalux on 07/06/20 21:10, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#10Since the focus of Ron's article was reels, here's an 1886 article from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle about the workings of a sizable rod factory, inexplicably unidentified but almost certainly the Malleson plant.
https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/5033 ... 2Bfactory
https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/5033 ... 2Bfactory
Re: Frederick Malleson
#11Thanks for posting that Jeff - interesting read. With 150 employees the volume of production must have been staggering. Very intrigued by this maker From the examples of his work that I have seen his product was every bit as good if not superior to Leonards rods built at same time. Do we think the debate of hex vs round had any effect on Malleson's standing or was it the general smack certain dealers were talking combined with Thomas Conroy's poor business skills that ended him as a rod maker?
Re: Frederick Malleson - who was talking smack?
#12So who do we think was talking smack about C,B & M? This announcement ran in the main part of the paper (as opposed to the back advertising section) for multiple issues in 1877.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#13I think your answer lies in Joel's post of 12/30/2018 found at this link showing two cuts from 1877.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=117476&p=823212&hi ... 77#p823212
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=117476&p=823212&hi ... 77#p823212
Last edited by cwfly on 06/12/20 17:01, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#14No denying that A&I were in the group (was gonna post the page - man your good Charlie!) those "two cuts" were printed on page 669 in the 1877 book, “The Sportsman’s Gazetteer and General Guide” in the Dealers and Outfitters’ List chapter (Leonard was listed too but only said he made"the best and cheapest" with no mention of round or hex) but if notice the C,B&M printing says "dealers" and interestingly this was the same time as Leonard's first ad which references his product being "Sold by all principal dealers in fishing tackle throughout the United States."
Cannot help but wonder if they weren't the "dealers" being referred to. It's clear that the debate was strong between finished hex or round in 1877, but it's obvious that Leonard quickly realized hex was indeed the superior product and quickly changed his ad's to note offering both and interestingly immediately drops the comment about all principal dealers (perhaps he received a letter from C,B & M's lawyers)...
Personally from the few examples I have had the opportunity to inspect, Malleson was producing a much finer product in 1877 than Leonard was - the metal work alone is striking with full metal seats and ferrules without seams - the cane work was not even close - even when Leonard started making his rods hex they were much more round at the edges than Malleson's rods and same period Leonard's often show glue lines and seams - especially around nodes.
Cannot help but wonder if they weren't the "dealers" being referred to. It's clear that the debate was strong between finished hex or round in 1877, but it's obvious that Leonard quickly realized hex was indeed the superior product and quickly changed his ad's to note offering both and interestingly immediately drops the comment about all principal dealers (perhaps he received a letter from C,B & M's lawyers)...
Personally from the few examples I have had the opportunity to inspect, Malleson was producing a much finer product in 1877 than Leonard was - the metal work alone is striking with full metal seats and ferrules without seams - the cane work was not even close - even when Leonard started making his rods hex they were much more round at the edges than Malleson's rods and same period Leonard's often show glue lines and seams - especially around nodes.
Last edited by Pentalux on 06/12/20 23:53, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#16Here are a few pic's of the one I recently obtained - its a 10 1/2' two-piece rod with two tips - original bag w/ wood form for tips. Its the cane work for the time that impresses me the most. There are a few reflection lines on the seat but under magnification i cannot find a seam on any piece of it - same for the ferrules. Wondering if there really was something to his metal work as noted in that 1876 F&S article.
Gnomes disk #11 has an original Malleson that I believe was also made for the British market with brass seat and ferrules as this same seat has been seen in nickel silver too. He also reviews his C,B&M, C&B and T. Conroy rods and it should be noted while all rods were made by Malleson the ferrules found are not welted and are definitely sheet rolled and soldered so guessing a lower grade rod relative to the complete line offered -- I recently missed this one (note the NS ferrules are same waisted design:
**Pics returned as taken from web - permission to post granted by original owner - were good Joel and thanks again John**
Again though its the cane work that impresses me most. Will see if I can find my other images but if anyone else has any Malleson rods PLEASE POST SOME PIC'S
Gnomes disk #11 has an original Malleson that I believe was also made for the British market with brass seat and ferrules as this same seat has been seen in nickel silver too. He also reviews his C,B&M, C&B and T. Conroy rods and it should be noted while all rods were made by Malleson the ferrules found are not welted and are definitely sheet rolled and soldered so guessing a lower grade rod relative to the complete line offered -- I recently missed this one (note the NS ferrules are same waisted design:
**Pics returned as taken from web - permission to post granted by original owner - were good Joel and thanks again John**
Again though its the cane work that impresses me most. Will see if I can find my other images but if anyone else has any Malleson rods PLEASE POST SOME PIC'S
Last edited by Pentalux on 06/21/20 19:20, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#17Rob, are the rails on that brass reel seat body what I call formed, as opposed to soldered?
Re: Frederick Malleson
#18Yes it looks to be one piece of drawn metal and does not appear to be rolled as Chubb seats would be. Presume this was made for the British market and likely originally sold by W. Bartleet & Sons in London. Although this same seat can be found in nickel silver (from conversations with the Gnome) I believe his very top grade rods likely had soldered rails that were sculpted to fit and lock the sliding band (not Gilbert Bailey's slide lock as shown in picture above) but please enlighten me.
Last edited by Pentalux on 06/16/20 12:34, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#19I find the three Malleson brothers confusing - to me. The following photographs are of a rod that I believe is a Malleson product. It shows the sculpted rails and the spot where the sliding band stops.
Re: Frederick Malleson
#20Charlie thank you for posting those images in this thread. And for reminding us that there were three of them!
I can't quite tell in pic's - Are the ferrules crowned with the tabs centered on each flat? Also can you see a seem in any of the ferrules? From the close ups they look like they might have been drawn.
If we believe Malleson's early ad's about only using his Reg. ferrules on his finest rods and his alone the fact that that rod isn't stamped makes me wonder if maybe its a very early Montague. I'm also waffling on my opinion of what his top grade seat may have looked like for although to us the one piece is less impressive looking and may have theoretically taken less man hours to make than one rolled and soldered with the rail work added we are not taking into consideration material cost and from the thickness of the metal needed to press out the one piece along with cut-off waist, he probably could have made multiple seats with same amount of material - his labor was likely minimum wage so someone rolling and soldering only and then another only cutting and mounting rails (marking the X's) and yet another doing finer finish work on it if needed etc could have produced an astronomical number of seats in just a few days...
Wondering if this example posted by OldCreel (PLEASE POST MORE) in connected thread wasn't his top seat? as Charlie points out we must not forget there were three Malleson's and Fred technically was done with rods by 1893 when he sold out to Montague.
My understanding for what drove the continued changes in the seats was the various reel foot sizes in use with varying lengths and widths and why he also used a straight tube without rails and the Bailey seat (Patented March, 4 1884) for a period on some of his rods.
**Pic removed will repost if get permission to use as found on web**(thanks again Joel, my apologies for temporarily posting)
I can't quite tell in pic's - Are the ferrules crowned with the tabs centered on each flat? Also can you see a seem in any of the ferrules? From the close ups they look like they might have been drawn.
If we believe Malleson's early ad's about only using his Reg. ferrules on his finest rods and his alone the fact that that rod isn't stamped makes me wonder if maybe its a very early Montague. I'm also waffling on my opinion of what his top grade seat may have looked like for although to us the one piece is less impressive looking and may have theoretically taken less man hours to make than one rolled and soldered with the rail work added we are not taking into consideration material cost and from the thickness of the metal needed to press out the one piece along with cut-off waist, he probably could have made multiple seats with same amount of material - his labor was likely minimum wage so someone rolling and soldering only and then another only cutting and mounting rails (marking the X's) and yet another doing finer finish work on it if needed etc could have produced an astronomical number of seats in just a few days...
Wondering if this example posted by OldCreel (PLEASE POST MORE) in connected thread wasn't his top seat? as Charlie points out we must not forget there were three Malleson's and Fred technically was done with rods by 1893 when he sold out to Montague.
My understanding for what drove the continued changes in the seats was the various reel foot sizes in use with varying lengths and widths and why he also used a straight tube without rails and the Bailey seat (Patented March, 4 1884) for a period on some of his rods.
**Pic removed will repost if get permission to use as found on web**(thanks again Joel, my apologies for temporarily posting)
Last edited by Pentalux on 06/16/20 20:08, edited 2 times in total.