Another Leonard question...

[Eperous]

Curious to understand the difference between a Leonard Hunt 50 and a Leonard DF50... both rods in questions are clones, made by AJ Thramer.... both are 3/2 8 foot 5 weights...

Thanks.

Ed

[perfesser]

.

[Greg Reynolds]

I've wondered about this too. I've read that the Hunt rods were a faster taper, but I've come to distrust the books most of us use as references due to a serious lack of scholarship. What's really needed is a William Mills & Son catalog that has the Hunt listed--I think they were initially cataloged in the 1950s, but available much earlier.

The 50DF has 15/64 & 10/64-ferrules. This Hunt listing is for a rod with 16/64 & 10/64-ferrules: https://www.classicflyfishingtackle.com/product/1335/

Another listing, but no mention of ferrules: https://www.vintageflytackle.com/collec ... bamboo-rod

Marc Aroner mentions (link above) that is was a 50DF made to a different aesthetic. I could believe this because a faster 8-foot Leonard describes the Hewitt pattern, which I think has 16/64 & 10/64-ferrules, or the Model 4099 for that matter.

Hope someone with catalog can help.

[headwaters]

Greg--

Trying to help, but I'm not sure how much help I can be, but -- for the historical / research record -- here goes:

First, there was no Hunt Pattern listed in the 1942 Mills & Son Spring Booklet; I don't have the actual "catalog" for 1942. I don't believe there were catalogs issued during WWII. And, I've never seen any catalogs for 1946, 1947, or 1948. My assumption has been that they did not issue the booklets or catalogs until 1949. If anyone has a catalog for 1946-48, I hope they weigh-in.

I don't have the 1949 Mills catalog, but the 1949 Spring Booklet lists a new one-line category immediately after the Leonard Dry Fly Rods (Models 48, 49, 50, 50-1/2, 51, 4099, and 4099-1/2), as follows:

" 'HUNT' Pattern DRY FLY ROD

"Dry Fly Action, stained bamboo, oxidized mountings, length 8 ft. weight 4 oz. $86.00" That is the sum total of the description!

The 1950 catalog carries the same exact language, with the sole exception that the weight is now carried as 4-3/8 oz.

I don't have the 1952 catalog, but the 1951 and 1953 catalogs continue the same exact listing, although the 1953 catalog fails to list a price. The 1954 catalog continues the same listing but with a price of $95.00. The 1955 catalog has the same listing with a price of $100.00.

I don't have the 1956 or 1957 catalogs, but the 1958, 1960, and 1961 catalogs continue the same exact listing with a price of $120.00.

I don't have a 1962 catalog; I don't even know if there was one, and they changed the format of the Mills catalog significantly in 1963. They continue to list the Hunt Pattern as a separate, one rod category "The H. L. Leonard 'Hunt' Pattern Dry Fly Rod," and -- for the first time -- provide a bit more definition of what the Hunt Pattern is. The entire listing provides as follows:

"This rod is another variation of the popular #50DF, this one with a slightly heavier butt for faster action. The bamboo has been stained and the mountings oxidized to minimize light reflection. Two tips, aluminum case and cloth bag. (e) [sic?] $135.00

"50 Hunt -- 3 piece, 8 ft., 4-1/2 to 4-7/8 oz." [Note how the weight has increased from 4 oz. in 1949 to 4-1/2 - 4-7/8 oz. in 1963.]

The 1964 catalog includes the same listing, but the price has increased to $185.00.

This listing continues in the 1967 and 1968 catalogs, although in '68 they revise "the bamboo has been stained" to "the bamboo has been darkened" and list the price as $195.00 / $165.00 (for 1 tip). This same listing is continued in the 1970 and 1971 catalogs, but the price has increased to $250.00 / $195.00, and $270.00, respectively.

As I have indicated in another thread, I believe 1971 was the first year Leonard issued its own catalog (although it was undated). That catalog lists the 50 "Hunt" DF immediately under the 50DF in the "H. L. Leonard 3 piece Dry Fly Rods" category, as follows:

"3 piece, 8 ft., 4-1/4 - 4-5/8 oz. A variation of the popular #50DF with a more powerful butt, oxidized mountings, and darkened bamboo to minimize reflection. The action is slightly faster than the 50DF. Recommended line -- DT6F."

In 1972, the Leonard catalog does not list a "Hunt" Pattern, although they do list a 50H in the Ausable Series Trout Rods category, as an 8', 3-piece rod, 4-3/8 - 4/5/8 oz for DT7F line size and fly size 8-14.

I hope this is of some use.

[Greg Reynolds]

Hi Rupert,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I know it took more than a few minutes to go through those catalogs...

So based on the 1963 catalog description, the 50DF and 50 Hunt are not cosmetic variants built on the same taper. CLASSIC FLYFISHING TACKLE's add for the 1961-vintage Hunt supports this with the mention of 16/64 & 10/64-ferrules. https://www.classicflyfishingtackle.com/product/1335/

I'm not too surprised that there's differing opinions on what the pre-fire Hunt is, they appear to be very scarce. I've only found the two rods in the links in my OP, which makes me wonder if anyone has done a side by side examination of both models in recent times.

A couple of asides; I noticed the rod in Gary Siemer's ad, which appears to be a 1950s-1964 rod, has the as the "Reg. U. S. PAT. OFF." roll stamp. I do believe it was used from 1929 until the fire, as you suggested in a recent post. Also, I recently downloaded images of every William Mills and Leonard catalog I could find on the Internet, and I haven't come across any from 1943-1948. I haven't seen a 1962 issue either, and I was specifically looking for it to determine when the format change was made.

Regards,
Greg

[Short Tip]

I've never owned a pre-fire Hunt, but several reliable sources have told me it was a stronger taper, much like a Hewitt. It's possible that the post-fire versions were just a cosmetic variation, like a Thomas Browntone.

[LeeB]

Here's my pre-fire 50DF Hunt, which shows many of the hallmarks discussed above.
- 1950s rod with "Reg. U. S. PAT. OFF." roll stamp. Also marked "Special Tournament".
- All oxidized mountings
- Screw locking seat mounted uplocking
- Darker cane, very similar in color to a Payne
- 16/10 ferrules; Weighs 4.5 ounces
I've owned several other pre-fire 50DFs, and this one is indeed a bit faster, and slightly heavier, but I still consider it a 5. All the others had 15/10 ferrules, and those also equipped with screw locking seats typically weighed 1/4 - 1/2 ounce less. I really like this one with the Wulff Bamboo TT5F, as it seems to like the longer belly. I've tried it with a couple of the lighter WF6F lines (e.g., Sylk, SA Trout) and it's fine with those as well. But for me, the slightly heavier 5s (Wulff, Rio Gold, SA GPX) are where it's best. I've only handled one Hewett, and that rod had a much more pronounced swell in the butt, and even larger ferrules, as did a pre-fire 4099 I used to own.
Lee

[headwaters]

Greg--

I decided researching this was a better use of my time than watching or reading about the election news.

I think I agree with your conclusion that the 50 Hunt likely was more than a cosmetic variation of the 50DF, at least over time. However, if you focus on the rod weights over time, you notice that it initially started out at 4 oz (clearly within the nominal weights listed for 50DFs in the Mills 1949 booklet, which was 3-3/4 oz. to 4-1/8 oz).

So, my guess is that I think it may be possible that it started out as a (mostly? . . . perhaps?) a cosmetic variant of the 50DF, but by the next year (1950) it evolved into a beefier taper at 4-3/8 oz. In fact, I'm now curious whether it was trying to compete with the early dark cane 8' Orvis Battenkill (which was 4-1/2 oz and sold for $82.50 in 1951 versus $95 for the 50 Hunt) for the "one rod for everything" angler.

Then, it grew in nominal weight to 4-1/2 - 4-7/8 oz from 1963 to 1971 before moving to 4-1/4 - 4-5/8 oz with a recommended line weight of DT6F, then settling in again at 4-1/4 - 4-5/8 oz for a DT7F line in 1971! So, it's hard to believe that it wasn't definitely a stronger taper by 1950, and most certainly by the 1960s.

[Short Tip]

Here's my pre-fire 50DF Hunt, which shows many of the hallmarks discussed above.
- 1950s rod with "Reg. U. S. PAT. OFF." roll stamp. Also marked "Special Tournament".
- All oxidized mountings
- Screw locking seat mounted uplocking
- Darker cane, very similar in color to a Payne
- 16/10 ferrules; Weighs 4.5 ounces
I've owned several other pre-fire 50DFs, and this one is indeed a bit faster, and slightly heavier, but I still consider it a 5. All the others had 15/10 ferrules, and those also equipped with screw locking seats typically weighed 1/4 - 1/2 ounce less. I really like this one with the Wulff Bamboo TT5F, as it seems to like the longer belly. I've tried it with a couple of the lighter WF6F lines (e.g., Sylk, SA Trout) and it's fine with those as well. But for me, the slightly heavier 5s (Wulff, Rio Gold, SA GPX) are where it's best. I've only handled one Hewett, and that rod had a much more pronounced swell in the butt, and even larger ferrules, as did a pre-fire 4099 I used to own.
Lee

Lee, love that rod. My Hewitt also has 16/10 ferrules. It would be fun to compare them side by side. Mine is 4 1/4 oz. with the slide band seat, and prefers a 6wt.

[LeeB]

Short Tip;
Interesting. That's a very different looking rod than my recollection of the one I saw, but no surprise there I guess. Here's a couple photos of the pre-fire 4099 I owned. It had 17/10 ferrules, and a more pronounced swell in the butt. It also weighed 4.5 ounces (same as my 50DF Hunt), but with a lighter slide band seat. My recollection was that the Hewitt was similar in taper, etc., but I only saw it once.
Lee

[Short Tip]

Lee, nice one also. I'm just not sure how any of these rods compare, but it'd be fun to find out. I've owned two Hewitt rods and seen one or two more, all had the intermediates and signature wraps, the slightly longer (6") grip, the "pinched" circular snake guides, 16/10 ferrules with patent date on the butt ferrule. They are pretty distinctive, as are Hunts.

[Greg Reynolds]

Lee & Paul,

Thanks for posting the photos and helping me understand the Hunts and the more powerful 8-foot pre-fire rods. Those rods of yours are absolutely beautiful. I've downloaded the photos and the entire thread into my records.

The tag on Lee's Hunt was written with a fountain pen, while the two others were done with a ball-point. Wonder when they switched--mid-1950s?

I think it's odd that so little has been written about H. L. Leonard and the rods from the William Mills & Son ownership to closure. I've become more interested in them since being gifted my 1920s 50DF by my wife, and well-researched information is hard to come by.

I'm also glad the Rupert has that collection of catalogs, I don't feel a need to start buying them...

Regards,
Greg

[Short Tip]

Hi Greg, thanks for the kind words. I'm pretty sure the Hewitt tag was done by fountain pen, it has that slightly browned look as well. Hewitts are pretty easy to date, they only appeared in one or two catalogs ca. 1930-31.

[LeeB]

Thanks Greg. My Hunt is certainly one of my favorite "all around, do everything" rods. As you know from previous exchanges, another of my favorites I would put in that same category, is my 8' - 3/2 Battenkill from 1952. And coincidentally, both are 16/10F rods weighing 4.5 ounces. Go figure.
Lee

[jeffkn1]

I think it's odd that so little has been written about H. L. Leonard and the rods from the William Mills & Son ownership to closure. I've become more interested in them since being gifted my 1920s 50DF by my wife, and well-researched information is hard to come by.

Jerry Girard and I have a handful of favorite rod collecting discussions that we rehash irregularly. Admittedly, some of the dialogue between the two of us is biased but at least we hold the same biases.
We're in total agreement that an accurate accounting of the activities of even the most recent era of Leonard is a virtual impossibility. And that's despite there being a handful of people who worked at Leonard in the Eighties and who are still alive and active to varying degrees. But, and I say this without ever having had the chance to speak to them all at the same time(another virtual impossibility), consensus about activities there seems to be elusive. If we can't do that, and if the old records are as gone as I believe them to be, there is no hope of clearing up much about the history of the rods.
My feeling is that the most useful thing we can do regarding Leonard is to provide a single reference source, whether website or book, that includes all known catalogs so that at least we can all start from the same point. Discussions above seem to suggest that. Rod collectors, being unique and independent, have steadfastly avoided organizing nationally and lack archives that reel and lure collectors benefit from. That seems to help keep the prices of ephemera high while limiting our ability to spread the knowledge.
I have chased CE Wheeler for 20+ years and it wasn't until 6 months ago that I was able to acquire a reference that would document what rods he produced. I was, and still remain, tickled to have it but that's only a single year and is of no use answering questions about his other 48 years of rod making. Leonard is a pretty old marque but at least there are catalogs for 80 +/- years of its history. Maybe it's time to get everybody on the same page for starters, and then supplement that with detail photos of tagged rod examples, beginning with rods of known vintage.

[Greg Reynolds]

Hi Jeff,

I believe you're on the right track with the idea to develop a single-source repository for what is know about Leonard & Mills. I'd prefer a book sitting in the Library of Congress, but a website is probably more feasible. My belief is, that if it isn't done soon, it never will be. The few people that care and have knowledge are getting older, and I don't see the next generation taking up the challenge. I also understand the enormity of it.

I've heard for many years of the lack of knowledge & disagreements over Leonard & Mills history. I'd record those disagreements. As you mention, there are quite a few catalogs available, and there's the rods themselves. A timeline is needed.

BTW, I spoke with Jerry Girard for several hours non-stop at the Leonard meeting at the CFFM. He's a treasure. I also cast his Wheeler.

Best regards,
Greg

[Short Tip]

Jeff, well said, as usual. I've been part of some of those conversations myself.

I'm in. I have many Mills and most of the Leonard catalogs. Happy to share in whatever way is best. We have a start with the post-fire Leonard database as well. There are patterns to the changes and eras in Leonard rods, we just have to assemble the info. We'll never know everything, but we already know a lot.

While we're at it, we should work on Payne as well. Jim Payne's rod models changed a LOT through the years, causing confusion for us today.

[headwaters]

Jeff & Greg--

I am willing to share my Mills & Son and Leonard catalog collection for the collective repository as well.

There is also a tape recording of Ted Simroe's talk from the Leonard Rod Gathering at the CFFM, which I believe Jed (fefferje on the Forum) still has, and I have my notes of his presentation as well.

The purpose of that Gathering was to start a process to fill in a lot of blanks regarding Leonard history, rod Models, etc., and hopefully to document what we could. However, we didn't get many volunteers to contribute products at the time, or thereafter. Jerry Girard's history, which essentially was Jerry's presentation at the Gathering, and that Jeff shared several months ago, is the only other product I am aware that came out of it.

[Eperous]

Curious to understand the difference between a Leonard Hunt 50 and a Leonard DF50... both rods in questions are clones, made by AJ Thramer.... both are 3/2 8 foot 5 weights...

Since I posted this, I acquired a rod from my buddy that AJ Thramer built for him... It's a Hunt 50... at one time, I also had a DF50, acquired used in a trade for it and cash when I sold a G.H. Howells rod I had... I since sold my DF50 but remembered how sweet my buddy's Hunt 50 was, and inquired... asking if he wanted to sell it, which he did to me...

He told me his Hunt was hollow built, pre-fired and a darker cane, which looks great... he only fished this rod twice, and it's basically in mint condition...

So my understanding, with regards to the Leonard Hunt 50 and DF50, they are basically the same rod, except one is a darker cane finish...

Ed

[headwaters]

As I indicated above, unless it is a 50 Hunt from 1949, or a modern rod built on that first year taper, it is my view that a modern 50 Hunt is probably a beefier taper than the 50DF.

However, you could always ask AJ.