Gary Howells rods-- why the value?

[cregb]

I have searched the archived posts from yuku but can't really find an answer to my question.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could distill why Gary Howells' rods bring the premium value and collectibility that they do. Please understand that I mean no disrespect to this maker, but looking at selling prices for presumably Howells-built Winstons, there appears to be a premium for the Howells solo-built rods.

Did Gary depart from Winston's actions in his rodmaking style once he started on his own? What qualities set his Winston work apart from his solo work? I've noted the aesthetic differences from photos. I'm prepared to not accept simple logic as the reasoning for the price difference or the collectability of his rods compared to Winston but would like some thoughts from those who know more than me(which is admittedly next to nothing).

Thanks- Creg

[jeffkn1]

There are at least a couple of explanations for high values of toys, the most simplistic explanation being that the supply lags too far behind the demand. When you look at the reason for the disparity, other than the fact that Mr. Howells is deceased, you find that his lifetime volume was pretty modest. Combine a skilled maker with a couple of historical tie-ins, and a limited lifespan, and you end up with the next Holy Grail. I think that as the known examples of increase, the values creep downward. When we know where all the Howells rods are we'll be less apt to throw our wallets out there every time one becomes available.Though there some conjecture in that approach, there's no denying that the estimated value of a Samuel Phillippe rod will stay at the top of the rare fishing pole list for at least the rest of our lifetimes.
Another theory could also be applied and someone will have to provide the citation for me. There's a writeup somewhere that postulates that the way to increase the value of a man-made item is to restrict the number being made, implying that there's a sloth factor of some kind. The less you make, the more valuable they must be, right? I think the original subject for that discussion was Pinky Gillum.

[quashnet]

...looking at selling prices for presumably Howells-built Winstons, there appears to be a premium for the Howells solo-built rods.

For me, this is the interesting part of the question. I contrast this observation with my impression about the similar relationship between Paul H. Young Co. rods built by Bob Summers, and later rods built by Summers under his own name. In this case, I believe that for many years a Summers-built PHY rod would likely have commanded a higher selling price than its near-equivalent Summers model (I think that in recent years the gap in pricing has been closing, as availability of Summers models declines toward the same relative scarcity as Young rods).

I think your use of the word "presumably" is important. If it's not completely clear that one is getting a Howells-built Winston, then the comparison for most buyers is between a generic Winston and a recognized Howells.

I've never cast a Howells rod, or a Winston for that matter, so I can only judge by appearances and have no knowledge of rod actions. But it looks like both Howells and Summers models retain influences of the work done at Winston and Young, but show a personal sense of design that sets them apart. The buyer can certainly exercise a choice based on aesthetics.

It would be interesting to compare perceived relative values for the work of other rod makers done for a company as opposed to solo output.

[cdmoore]

To add to what has already been said...

Disclaimer: I have not studied the tapers or construction methods of either "maker" in detail, but my observations come from handling, casting, and fishing about 15-20 of each over the years.

To oversimplify, Gary's tapers departed from Winston in being generally more limber, perhaps in a subtle way if not compared side to side. And I would say that his finish work was better, not by a magnitude of order, but in the small details.

There is a book on Howells forthcoming. Perhaps that will answer some of your questions.

If you haven't read Keane's comments on each maker, that might be a starting point for future investigation.

I'll also add that there are certain models from each that seem to be favorites and which command significantly higher prices than even similar rods from the same house. For example, the 7'3" 2/2 3wt Howells often brings 30%+ above one of Gary's 7'0" 2/2 4wts.

[cregb]

Thanks to all for the replies.

I think there are numerous relevant examples of the contrast in pricing(besides than Quashnet's on point note about PHY versus RW Summers rod values) between a "company" shop versus an individual's rod values. Several other examples comes to mind:

-Tom Maxwell solo rods versus T&T vintage (exception would be Maxwell-era Leonards)
-Carpenter rods versus later era Payne rods (not as big a gap from limited observations)
-current Aroner rods versus older T&T rods

So maybe jeffkn1 is exactly right when one considers a builder's lineage plus limited output and then figure in the notion that just this one noted individual worked on the rod and it's not a collective effort with other talented craftsmen/women.

I just wonder how many others besides Gary Howells (guessing Merrick earlier, perhaps Morgan later) worked on rods in the Winston shop back in the day. Perhaps it was a medium crew rather than 2 or 3 other workers. The impression I gather is that certainly one of those mentioned contributed with Howells in building Winston's bamboo heritage and the other sustained or perhaps perfected it with him.

Again, I don't know enough to comment intelligently on this and that there are some on the forum who knew Gary personally. Any comments from those members would be terrific.

[fishbum]

Another theory could also be applied and someone will have to provide the citation for me. There's a writeup somewhere that postulates that the way to increase the value of a man-made item is to restrict the number being made, implying that there's a sloth factor of some kind. The less you make, the more valuable they must be, right? I think the original subject for that discussion was Pinky Gillum.

Yes indeed there is another theory.

The Poobah Theory

http://wagnerrods.com/poobah.html

[cregb]

Yes indeed there is another theory.

The Poobah Theory

http://wagnerrods.com/poobah.html

I understand Wagner's point, and I have heard it apply privately to certain modern makers very recently. My question with respect to comments earlier in my post would be "Does it apply to Pinky Gillum or Gary Howells?" Did they limit their output in earlier decades so as to inflate their selling prices? Or is this phenomenon more limited to the internet era where hype is more readily circulated and waiting times are easily shared and discussed? Did someone like Lyle Dickerson,for example, limit his output to elevate his selling price? I have to assume (dangerously) that a classic-era single builder would have to have an ultimate limit to what he/she can produce under an ideal, unintentionally slowed, output. There are some that may sandbag what they can produce and therefore command a higher sales price in modern times but was that same business model in place 20 or 30 years ago? I am pessimistic to this line of thinking.

Additionally, if Gillum made a small amount of poorly crafted rods with bad tapers, then no one would really collect them and the price wouldn't appreciate over time. Why not collect x-builder who made less than 1000 rods in his lifetime? Limited output obviously does not directly correlate to perceived value.

The volume question seems like a delicate point to raise given the era. I don't discount it, but am curious if it applies more to the modernity of our current time rather than than yesteryear. Assuming advertising in pre-1990's was more costly than today, then wouldn't a builder try to maximize their advertising investment into as many rods sold as possible? Today, I could produce a web site promoting my rods with a very minimal overhead cost to me, then declare that I'm not taking any future orders and try to increase demand.

My discussion above drags away from my initial question regarding Winstons versus Howells' solo rods. I still would like to hear about any preferences that might explain the valuation of one versus the other.

[fishbum]

All good questions. I don't have the answers.

The price of an object is set by what the purchaser is willing to give up for that object. Add to that the fickleness of cane rod buyers and you end up with many questions that can't be answered. You may have a valid point about internet hype. There is certainly an abundance of hype and just plane BS on the internet.

Good luck on you quest.

[firehole]

FYI Gary Howells building of rods was interrupted every summer when he fished the local water around Twin Bridges(ex-wife hometown). Gary loved the upper Madison where Glenn Brackett deposited his ashes and Henry Lake. If I remember correctly Gary guided on Henry's Lake out of Staley Springs. Gary also spent time in the Winston's shop while in Twin. If you were to ask Glenn who taught him the most about rodmaking it would be Gary. Gary just wasn't a rodmaker he was also a fisherman.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
Dennis
P.S. I'm really looking forward to the Howells book.

[16pmd]

Gary Howells certainly has a great reputation, so some people like to talk about SF Winstons as Howells Winstons or Howells/Merrick Winstons, especially if they are selling a rod. I think those SF Winstons were made under the direction of Doug Merrick and worked on jointly by Merrick, Howells and others like Glenn Brackett. I don't know that any rod can properly be called a Howells Winston. If you want a rod made solely by Gary, you have to buy a Howells.

Though Gary seems to have adopted the same model designations as Winston like 8 1/2' 4 1/8 oz. 5 wt., the actual rod weights can be different from the Winston models. His rods tended to be slower than the comparable Winston models. Some preferred Gary's actions, others preferred Winstons. Gary's finish work was, in my opinion, considerably better, resembling that of Payne, which was Gary's model for cosmetics. Gary favored greater heat treatment, but Doug Merrick did not, so rods made during the time that Merrick owned Winston have light-colored cane. That changed when Tom Morgan took over, so those rods made in SF when Morgan was in charge were darker in color. I think if you read what Tom Morgan has written, he thinks that Gary's standards in the woodwork were higher than Winston's under Doug Merrick.

I think there were a heck of a lot more SF Winstons made than Howells, so that alone would explain some of the difference in current values.

In the end, personal preference plays a big part. I know quite a few knowledgeable people who would prefer to fish a Winston over a Howells because of the difference in casting qualities. I also know some who prefer Howells because of the difference in woodwork and finish qualities.

Merrick, Howells, Brackett and Morgan are or were all outstanding casters and fishermen in addition to rodmakers, which is what makes their rods so desireable.

[wctc1]

Creg brings up several interesting points. Since I’ve been working on a Howells book that is in the publisher’s line-up I’m allowing myself the privilege of making a few courtesy comments.

After studying about 2,000 of GHH’s letters, his log books, rod serial number table, and conducting at least 18 interviews; plus, doing a great deal of background research, perhaps some of my comments are well-based, if already found controversial by draft and proof readers.

• Howells did not constrain or limit the number of rods he made at any time during his production cycle. Over the years a number of factors caused his production to rise and fall, but playing a demand game was not one of them. With GHH, what you see is pretty much what you get and among other things, one thing his customers and friends got was straightforward honesty.

• Current prices are due to collector buying and selling. When Howells sold his rods he priced them very competitively. He never, meaning never, took advantage of his reputation through high pricing even when he built his limited run of three-piece rods.

• As noted, the major factor limiting GHH production was his yearly fly fishing adventures. Another was, with very limited exception, he operated a one-man shop.

• Howells finishes were among the finest of his time. Amazingly, they remain superb today. A discussion of his tapers is beyond the scope of this thread. Howells tapers are much more than a set of numbers. 16 pmd and fireholes’ notes on heat treating and actions are spot on.

• Howells had no incentive to limit cane production. Rod building was his only income. He never supplemented his income with glass rods. During his lifetime he tied a huge number of flies for sale. {Look forward to the book for the staggering number. It requires too much explanation for here. That effort alone epitomized his dedication to a fly fishing life}.

• With one minor exception, Gary did not advertise his rods, nor did he issue a catalog. One and two page information sheets were his sole printed promotions.

• After quite a few years of serving an unofficial apprenticeship under Lew Stoner, in 1957 GHH went to work for Winston. He left Dec. 31, 1969 and opened his own shop Jan. 1, 1970. Glenn Brackett told me Gary contributed to about 2,000 Winston cane rods.

• One of his primary duties was wrapping. Toward the end of his tenure, he did quite a bit of cane rod work as Doug Merrick was working his fiberglass line which contributed nicely toward the bottom line. However, Doug did a big percentage of bamboo rod spray finishing.

Joe Beelart
West Linn, Oregon
December 23, 2011

[Booman2]

IMO, Joe and CD have about covered it. Prices for Gary's rods reflect the fact that they are superb fishing rods that are very durable (I know of a couple which have been fished very hard for over 35 years and are still straight and have excellent varnish. Marty Keane once told me that he had never seen a used Howells rod that had a set of needed any work.
Gary built about 1300 rods under his own name in his lifetime, and many of these reside with about 4 collectors/fishers. Many others have found their way to Japan which further reduces inventory of those available.
Gary tried to price his rods slightly below Winston but high enough to be competitive. As mentioned, he took summers off and moved to Twin Bridges where he fished from early summer until cold weather came. He never restricted output and, unlike most builders, would only take orders for the number of rods he planned to produce in one year - therefore the waiting list was relatively short. He restricted sales to no more than 2 rods per person per year, friends included - and he would not fish overseas..
There's lots more, but wait for Joe's book and look for an opportunity to closely inspect and fish a Howells rod.

[quashnet]

Classic-era single-builder Lyle Dickerson said that if it wasn't for the Great Depression he never would have built rods. In 2008, Art Neumann (92 years old at the time) told me how after WWII he converted an old chicken coop into a rod shop in order to work. Paul Young cranked out rods post-WWII for the love of it, but also out of a real need for income, and if one type of fitting or piece of hardware wasn't available he would substitute another fitting in order to make the sale and move on to the next sale. They all built a rod so that they could eat. Then they built another rod, so they could eat again.

More recently, some makers have turned out fewer total rods for reasons that have nothing to do with the Poobah Theory (the tone of which I felt was unnecessarily bitter). Morris Kushner turned out relatively few rods, but his output came at a quick pace for, as Bob Summers explained to me, Kushner was sadly forced into "trying to cram it all in before he died." Hoagy Carmichael might have built more rods except for the fact that he quite frankly has many other creative outlets and professional options besides rod building. Skilled makers are allowed to have other interests. Joe Beelart writes convincingly that Howells did not limit his production but, even if he had done so, it would not really matter. In the end, what matters is the rod in your hand as you wade into the stream.

[16pmd]

Gary did have a couple of rules about selling rods. You could only order two per year and he would adamantly refuse to sell to buyers in foreign countries. That meant a foreign buyer would have to buy one second hand - very tough to do with no internet - or have an American friend buy one for him. I remember him saying at one time that he had a plan to build some extra rods and put them aside as his informal "retirement plan" - to sell a few each year when he was no longer making rods. Don't know if he ever did that.

When Gary went to Argentina, he took Winston glass rods, which he referred to as "disposable rods", as backups! Most of us thought those Winstons were pretty fine rods in their own right, but we weren't rodmakers like Gary.

I too look forward to the book on Gary and hearing all those stories because Gary was a very unusual guy who generated a lot of great stories.

[cregb]

Thanks so much for the detailed and thoughtful replies. I feel I have a better sense of Howells' rods and what sets them apart from others without a now-desired opportunity to examine and cast one. Joe- I look forward to your book's publication. Thank you for sharing the information you did; it sounds like there is so much more to this man and his craft.

Quashnet- yes I think my tone towards the "poobah" builders I privately had in mind was pointed and probably based more on PMs, scuttlebutt, or other offboard observations. It's not fair to group those with limited yearly outputs all together as some have other priorities or pursuits that quite frankly aren't any of my concern. I am reminded by a recent post on the board asking about the lack of response from one of the more prolific current builders and the reply was that he was continuing his education--unbeknownst to many. How dare he? (file under: sarcasm) Thanks for the gentle reminder that I should keep my negative thoughts in check.

Creg

[Flyman615]

For what it's worth, I met Gary at the Winston shop in San Francisco in 1971 or early 1972. He was in the shop one Saturday "helping out" Doug Merrick even though, as has been noted, he'd been rodmaking on his own for a few years.

Based on one particular later conversation we had about fly reels, I'd have to agree--Gary was about as straight forward as you can get. On yet another occasion I was priveleged to see Gary's substantial library of fishing books (over 2000 titles as I recall) at his home in Richmond, CA.

I've owned a couple of Gary's rods and a few Winstons as well. I would agree with most all the previous observations. I tend to prefer some of the slightly quicker SF Winston actions. That said, Gary's rods were/are strikingly beautiful in terms of cosmetics, that's for sure.

I too will certainly look forward to Joe's book!

Scott

[jz2]

I have owned several howells rods and several winstons - in two cases the matching models.
I prefer the SF winston's over the Howells rods. That said, I currently don't have a single winston rod (other than graphite) and have 2 howells rods. Don't ask how that happened.

[gmflyfish]

I agree with all of the statements. Gary made a limited number of rods and they were made with fishing western rivers. The key for me was Gary was a fisherman first a rod builder second. His rods are as straight as the day they left his shop.

[Oxbow]

cregb, thank you for starting this discussion. While I have owned a couple of Howells in the past, I cannot even begin to add any information that would come close to the depth of the replies here, except to say it was a pleasure to do business with Gary. Actually, I only talked to his mother. Rods were crafted and delivered exactly when she said they would be. Thanks to all who contributed as I found this very interesting.

[Royalpark]

If we put aside the maker's name and valued rods on how they fished and
how they held up to all conditions, wouldn't the value of Orvis rods be double
or triple what they are? I've cast many, and have owned a few of the top
rods, and although they all had their good points, only one jumped right
out at me...a Garrison.