Antique Abbey & Imbrie

This is the board to ask about the identity, or for an appraisal, of a rod. Please use the outline as explained on the board. If there is a makers name, list that in the subject line. Make sure you include the length, number of sections, any identifying markings and the general condition. Adding photographs is always helpful!

Moderator: TheMontyMan

User avatar
teter
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 4916
Joined: 12/21/04 19:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#41

Post by teter »

I love this stuff!

User avatar
Kenneth
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1550
Joined: 02/17/10 19:00
Location: Rome, Italy

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#42

Post by Kenneth »

teter wrote:I love this stuff!
I agree, Lon!

Apart from a smattering of information gathered from this book and that, I knew next to nothing about the rod and the various makers under discussion, but after reading this thread, and following all the leads, I now know a little more, fascinating stuff.

Talk about this being the "Classic Fly Rod Forum" indeed!

Happy 2019 to all,
Kenneth

User avatar
cwfly
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3012
Joined: 02/24/06 19:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#43

Post by cwfly »

Old Creel wrote:I will add some thoughts here that may or may not help. I have a rod like the one posted as well as two more. The Pritchard that was mentioned and another A&I that has the "X" on the rails. I first was leaning toward Pritchard as the maker but then found a marked Malleson and looked at the ferrules. The other issue is the eight strip construction. Did Malleson make eight strip rods or did they use others?





Image
Old Creel, That's a lovely Malleson and well marked. He seems proud of his bow patent. You ask a great question that do not know the answer to. The Malleson ads that I have read refer to hexagonal rods with his "registered" patent ferrules. I don't know, for example, if the eight strip rods have Malleson serrated patent ferrules or if they were only made for hexagonal rods.

Charlie

User avatar
BruceHandley
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1831
Joined: 03/22/04 19:00
Location: Cadyville, NY

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#44

Post by BruceHandley »

What a nice change of pace to see a post on antique rods for a change. I stopped adding anything about old rods a while ago as I didn't think there was much interest in same.
I'd like to clear up a few things that were mentioned in some of the above posts.
In the rod that I posted on 1/20/14 (thank you Charlie) I should have said that the rod was attributed to Mitchell by "others". I don't think its a Mitchell, I still have this rod and don't know who made it. In fact if someone out there has any idea as to maker I'd be pleased to here it. I can tell you this, I used great care when the rod was restored, its now as it was orig. and by the way the rod has the little "X"s on the reel seat.
I only have one Mitchell in snakewood and it has the correct sliding ring on the reel seat. This reel seat looks nothing like the rod that was posted on 1/20/14.
As to the A&I catalog dated 1899, that had to do with a Landman 8 strip with a one piece grip and reel seat assm. with the 1881 pat. date. This grip/reel seat is made as one formed unit, its not rubber but something like plastic(which it isn't). I can also tell you that there is nothing under that grip/reel seat but cane, no "filler" of any kind. While restoring this rod I removed the grip/reel seat and found it to be molded as a unit.
I'm not sure how this fits into the current post, which is great to see, but I thought I should clear up a few points on the old one.
Bruce

User avatar
2dabacking
Master Guide
Posts: 867
Joined: 07/29/10 18:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#45

Post by 2dabacking »

Old Creel and Charlie, Both excellent points regarding the eight-strip and ferrules. I don't remember seeing an 8-strip marked Malleson, and I also wonder if he would have used his best ferrule on a rounded 8-strip rod.
Image

Additional pieces of information, both cuts from 1877:
Image

Image

Lastly, with regard to the Prichard Bros. rod, I was unable to locate an 1875 city directory, but it appears that the Pritchard's were located at 89 Fulton St. by 1876. Thus, the 94 Fulton St. address was used prior to 1876.

User avatar
cwfly
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3012
Joined: 02/24/06 19:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#46

Post by cwfly »

Thanks for chiming in, Bruce and a Happy New Year. I knew that you would not have thought that rod to be a Mitchell, and it's a beauty. I'm certain your work was faithful to the original.
Joel, thanks for those cuts.
Sitting around and letting my mind wander, it wandered to this possibility. Maybe they are not X's.
Imagehost image

jeffkn1
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06/08/05 18:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#47

Post by jeffkn1 »

BruceHandley wrote: In the rod that I posted on 1/20/14...I should have said that the rod was attributed to Mitchell by "others". I don't think its a Mitchell, I still have this rod and don't know who made it.
Bruce
The x-rail rods have been a tough one to attribute even after years of discussions. The long A&I Best butt caps bore a resemblance to the style of Mitchell Sr., In casual conversation with Jerry Girard it was suggested (and by whom I don't recall), that perhaps Mitchell had a hand in making these, particularly in light of the seats' handmade construction. We really had little else to go by. It was as much a case of asking who made hand-manufactured NS seats in the 1880's as anything. Did Leonard make this? No. Landman? No.Prichard? We had no marked Prichards at the time of the discussion, so no. Mitchell? M-a-a-a-ay-b-e. Hand-made seat, long cap seen on some Mitchells. In the words of the great Judy Tenuta, "It could happen." That isn't exactly hardcore, down in the dirt historical research but without artifacts or archives (rods or records}, the underpinnings of this rod attribution stuff rely heavily on something bordering on smoke & mirrors. So, "Mitchell" wasn't definitive but it was the best guess we had at the time and that would have to do until a better explanation came along. Since that discussion began years ago, a few more rods with X-rail seats have surfaced, frustratingly unmarked as to maker in every single case until the recent Prichard and Malleson examples.

Then comes the Prichard example that Tom Kerr showed us in his book. It's a rod that made some of us collectors of old rods swoon a little bit, for its rarity and tastiness if for no other reasons. We've seen a kazillion rods with Prichard grips and sliding bands, how come they never put their name on any of them? As far as I'm concerned, and this is my expressed opinion only here, it's because the Prichard Brothers didn't actually do that much rod making. We've found are the A&I rods made by the Landman factory with Prichard handle or sliding band or both. The Brothers didn't do most of those those A&I's because those rods all seem to have Landman ferrules and I have no reason to think that JGL sold the Prichards ferrules. On top of that, Landman had a genuine rod factory. And the Prichards? They had a shop that may have included an area devoted to the production of flies and assorted bait rigs and snelled hooks. They were more often referred to as 'tackle makers' rather than rod makers. My opinion regarding the scope of their manufacturing differs somewhat from Tom's but that's what makes for horse races. That marked Prichard fly rod is still a stunner, even if an anomaly. And even if (!!!!!!) it could have been largely created by someone other than the Prichards. Singular examples are a be-atch, because they raise more questions than they answer.

Then there's the Malleson presence, one that lasted intermittently a couple of decades or more. Records I saw many years back showed that Malleson partnered with Conroy at least twice, and stipulated from the beginning to last only for periods of 4 years (or was it 3?) each time. That was an eye-opener for me. It never occurred to me that they would decide to go into business with the stipulation that it would only exist for a short period but it was written up that way and that's what they did. Malleson stayed busy though, producing enough variation over the years to make a living. His work began in the 1870's hand-made era and ended in the mass-production period that led up to the turn of the century. Most of his work seems to have been (there's that wording of mine again) trade rods. There's an article I saved from the archive of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle that describes a Brooklyn rod making factory that was shipping 100K rods annually. The article went into detail about how the materials were sourced and how the rods were made, how many people were employed, and so on. It's columns of information, yet the individual being quoted is never identified by the reporter, and the make of the rod is inexplicably left out. I can only conclude that it was the last Malleson factory. After all those years of production, even reaching 100K per annum, how many marked Malleson rods can we point to? Not a bunch. One thing about the x-rails that's consistent: they're hand-formed, rather than machine formed. Even the latest Malleson-stamped example, one with a drawn cup for a butt cap, has hand-formed rails. It's an odd mix of parts to me in that it includes a butt cap, made by machine to lend uniformity and lower cost, coupled with hand-formed antique-y rails. What's with that? I'll have to look at Joel's marked Malleson to see what the rails on that are like. I know his example has a drawn butt cap, one that is thus far unique to Malleson. It would help to reinforce the idea that x-rails are unique to Malleson-built rods as well, and that Malleson may have provided hardware for that corker of a rod, the marked Prichard.
In regard to the patented ferrules alluded to in Malleson advertising, they appear to be the same as the ones that HH Kiffe advertised, and I think Kiffe's were likely Reed's patent ferrules.

Here are details of a rounded A&I Best from the collection of the late Jay Vargas. The ferrules on this one don't appear to be the patented ones. The butt section is 8 strip and I still need to count the strips on the mid. The tip may be non-original since it's lancewood or similar: it has no nodes.


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Last edited by jeffkn1 on 07/20/19 13:42, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cwfly
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3012
Joined: 02/24/06 19:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#48

Post by cwfly »

Thanks Jeff. Not many of us left to join in and I am reminded of the Brooklyn factory.
I do miss A. J. and Dave Howell. They would have enjoyed this.

Imagescreen grab

User avatar
BruceHandley
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1831
Joined: 03/22/04 19:00
Location: Cadyville, NY

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#49

Post by BruceHandley »

Charlie,
I just looked at those X marked rails with a good lens. They sit on a raised rectangle and there is no sign of a connection between the legs of the X. In fact the X's look to be hand struck as the center of the X is off (one to the other) in their location on the rectangle. Now that may sound strange, that it would be hand work, but then the reel seat is, so perhaps.
Bruce

User avatar
roycestearns
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1826
Joined: 06/10/08 18:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#50

Post by roycestearns »

I'm listening/reading CF and BH discuss this and I just want to make reservations to get to Tim Pond or even the Norman Rockwell/whatever it was called cafe.

Just when you think you know something ... boom ya know nothing.
Mitchell? M-a-a-a-ay-b-e. Hand-made seat, long cap seen on some Mitchells. In the words of the great Judy Tenuta, "It could happen." That isn't exactly hardcore, down in the dirt historical research but without artifacts or archives (rods or records}, the underpinnings of this rod attribution stuff rely heavily on something bordering on smoke & mirrors. So, "Mitchell" wasn't definitive but it was the best guess we had at the time and that would have to do until a better explanation came along. Since that discussion began years ago, a few more rods with X-rail seats have surfaced, frustratingly unmarked as to maker in every single case until the recent Prichard and Malleson examples.
Carry on ... us lessers are enthralled.

User avatar
2dabacking
Master Guide
Posts: 867
Joined: 07/29/10 18:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#51

Post by 2dabacking »

Charlie, Bruce, Thanks for the reply to my question. My thought was that the "x" was a machinist mark for material to be removed, or an area for further customization. I also asked because it would open up the possibility that the rails, if the "x" were removed, show up on many more marked rods. I will have to compare the dimensions of the different styles of rails.

Jeff's mention of HH Kiffe also reminded me to look at a Kiffe rod and catalog. Many of those rods are attributed to Malleson, but technically they are Montagues. With the number of companies absorbed into Montague, there are surely rods with a mix of components from different factories.

User avatar
2dabacking
Master Guide
Posts: 867
Joined: 07/29/10 18:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#52

Post by 2dabacking »

jeffkn1 wrote:Then comes the Prichard example that Tom Kerr showed us in his book. It's a rod that made some of us collectors of old rods swoon a little bit, for its rarity and tastiness if for no other reasons. We've seen a kazillion rods with Prichard grips and sliding bands, how come they never put their name on any of them? As far as I'm concerned, and this is my expressed opinion only here, it's because the Prichard Brothers didn't actually do that much rod making. We've found are the A&I rods made by the Landman factory with Prichard handle or sliding band or both. The Brothers didn't do most of those those A&I's because those rods all seem to have Landman ferrules and I have no reason to think that JGL sold the Prichards ferrules. On top of that, Landman had a genuine rod factory. And the Prichards? They had a shop that may have included an area devoted to the production of flies and assorted bait rigs and snelled hooks. They were more often referred to as 'tackle makers' rather than rod makers. My opinion regarding the scope of their manufacturing differs somewhat from Tom's but that's what makes for horse races. That marked Prichard fly rod is still a stunner, even if an anomaly. And even if (!!!!!!) it could have been largely created by someone other than the Prichards. Singular examples are a be-atch, because they raise more questions than they answer.

Then there's the Malleson presence, one that lasted intermittently a couple of decades or more. Records I saw many years back showed that Malleson partnered with Conroy at least twice, and stipulated from the beginning to last only for periods of 4 years (or was it 3?) each time. That was an eye-opener for me. It never occurred to me that they would decide to go into business with the stipulation that it would only exist for a short period but it was written up that way and that's what they did. Malleson stayed busy though, producing enough variation over the years to make a living. His work began in the 1870's hand-made era and ended in the mass-production period that led up to the turn of the century. Most of his work seems to have been (there's that wording of mine again) trade rods. There's an article I saved from the archive of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle that describes a Brooklyn rod making factory that was shipping 100K rods annually. The article went into detail about how the materials were sourced and how the rods were made, how many people were employed, and so on. It's columns of information, yet the individual being quoted is never identified by the reporter, and the make of the rod is inexplicably left out. I can only conclude that it was the last Malleson factory. After all those years of production, even reaching 100K per annum, how many marked Malleson rods can we point to? Not a bunch. One thing about the x-rails that's consistent: they're hand-formed, rather than machine formed. Even the latest Malleson-stamped example, one with a drawn cup for a butt cap, has hand-formed rails. It's an odd mix of parts to me in that it includes a butt cap, made by machine to lend uniformity and lower cost, coupled with hand-formed antique-y rails. What's with that? I'll have to look at Joel's marked Malleson to see what the rails on that are like. I know his example has a drawn butt cap, one that is thus far unique to Malleson. It would help to reinforce the idea that x-rails are unique to Malleson-built rods as well, and that Malleson may have provided hardware for that corker of a rod, the marked Prichard.
In regard to the patented ferrules alluded to in Malleson advertising, they appear to be the same as the ones that HH Kiffe advertised, and I think Kiffe's were likely Reed's patent ferrules.

Here are details of a rounded A&I Best from the collection of the late Jay Vargas. The ferrules on this one don't appear to be the patented ones. The butt section is 8 strip and I still need to count the strips on the mid. The tip may be non-original since it's lancewood or similar: it has no nodes.


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Jeff, Thanks for adding another rod to the mix. I remember that rod, and Bob's rod with "x" marked rails, from our discussion about nine months ago.

You and others have seen more Landman rods than I have, so I am curious, why rule out Landman? Are there known examples of his earliest work? Like Malleson, there aren't many marked examples (considering tenure in the business). I might even have a Landman in the same form case as show with the A&I Best rods above.

With regard to some of your Prichard questions, I believe it has to do with when they were making rods. How many rods were maker marked prior to 1870? Like most of their contemporaries, they were not marking rods. There were obviously a few exceptions (e.g., Norris, Murphy, Wm. Mitchell - even these were late '60s and beyond), but how many marked Conroy's are there (three of which I am aware - one even has a rounded butt cap just like a later Malleson). Another reason why there may be so few marked Prichard rods is because they were made for the trade - though I doubt the output was great. I'd bet the Prichards did far better licensing patents. Just my view. (There was an article in one early magazine describing a Prichard rod being wrapped like a barber's pole. I believe it was made for one of the 1850's Exhibitions in Europe, but never sent to the show.)

I have a few marked Malleson rods, as well as rods with sculpted rails. I'll see if I can look them over this week.
Last edited by 2dabacking on 12/31/18 13:15, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gnome
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3997
Joined: 12/23/04 19:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#53

Post by Gnome »

Joel and all,
I have one of these Best 8 strips and will get pictures this weekend when the display is set up in Denver. And as far as makers marking their rods why where the American makers so far behind the British in signing their rods??? I have well over 30 examples of clearly marked rods that are all pre civil war including the George Burgess which is one of the few Amercan made and marked that is contemporary with the English makers. This has been a great thread and that heavy welt is a marker for some of Mallesons work. At least going by my marked Mallesons which include All of their known markings as of now.

User avatar
cwfly
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3012
Joined: 02/24/06 19:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#54

Post by cwfly »

better detail:

Image

Image

Image

headwaters
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3232
Joined: 12/23/10 19:00
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#55

Post by headwaters »

One of the best threads in a while! It reminds me of the old days. Thanks, Guys! I hope it can continue.

User avatar
2dabacking
Master Guide
Posts: 867
Joined: 07/29/10 18:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#56

Post by 2dabacking »

Thanks, Jeff, and thanks for the Burgess reminder. The lack of markings on Pre-Civil War American rods is another one of those mysteries, difficult for those of us who enjoy this period in history.

Charlie, Thanks for the details on the rails. I would only be guessing as to what any of those file marks (for lack of better terminology) represent. Ease of material removal? Better way to secure reel? Maker mark? Decoration?

Looking at these rails, it looks like another "x" woulda/coulda been placed between the two sets of hash marks where material has been removed. Also, I don't know if this has any significant bearing on ID, but the rails on Charlie's rod have double hash marks, whereas the A&I Best rods have single hash marks.

Flipping through the A&I catalogs again, I noticed a couple of rods which bear resemblance to rods also being sold by Conroy & Bissett in 1884. In particular, the Holberton rod (Wakeman Holberton was an employee with Abbey & Imbrie.) was sold by both firms in 1884. Below is a clip showing the Holberton rod from both C&B and A&I. Might this show that A&I was selling Malleson rods? Did A&I sell any reels by Malleson?

Image

NewUtahCaneAngler
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2381
Joined: 01/22/17 17:05
Location: Utah

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#57

Post by NewUtahCaneAngler »

2dabacking wrote:To me, this seems more complicated than just looking at the ferrules. The reel seat seems to show up on various rods. In addition, there are more than a couple versions of the reel seat rails.

One marked example, as I mentioned above, is the Prichard Bros. rod, formerly owned by Tom Kerr and sold at the 2016 Crossroads' auction. This rod has the "x" marked rails, and it is marked "Prichard Bros. / Makers / 94 Fulton St. / N.Y."

Here is the link: https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/44 ... ip-fly-rod

By the way, what do the ferrules on Bambookill's rod look like?

I have also always wondered: What is the purpose of those little "x" marks?
Not sure if this is relevant to this discussion, but 94 Fulton St. Was also E. Vom Hoff's address

User avatar
cwfly
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3012
Joined: 02/24/06 19:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#58

Post by cwfly »

2dabacking wrote:
Did A&I sell any reels by Malleson?
I can find nothing that would indicate that A&I sold Malleson reels.

jeffkn1
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06/08/05 18:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#59

Post by jeffkn1 »

And for yet more A&I Best silliness, I offer this example. Take a guess. I can add one more photo later.


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
2dabacking
Master Guide
Posts: 867
Joined: 07/29/10 18:00

Re: Antique Abbey & Imbrie

#60

Post by 2dabacking »

Thanks, Charlie. I don't know reels, but I was hoping it might help with a Malleson connection if reels were also sold by A&I. I was surprised to see a Fowler reel sold by A&I.

Post Reply

Return to “Appraisals & Identification of Bamboo Fly Rods”