Dickerson 961812

[Walton Lane]

Gentleman, I am trying to get as much info as possible on this rod. I'm new to classic fly rod's, but my preliminary research tells me this is a rare one. I'm interested in having it appraised as well. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Info as follows:

1-Total assembled length is 9'6''
2- 3 piece rod
3- Second tip included
4- First 2 sections are the same length, the tips are slightly shorter than the first two sections, and one tip is slightly shorter than the other by approx 1/2''
5- My personal grade is excellent condition. I would guess it has been used, but cosmetically it appears to be nearly flawless.
6- Only markings are "Dickerson 961812" and "F.N. Blazie 1947".
7- Judging my research, it is the original tube and bag, however both are unmarked.

[BigTJ]

I am far from a Dickerson expert but it looks like the rod has been re wrapped and varnished by an amateur and if so this seriously hurts the value. It should go back to the right person for a re do on the wraps and finish.

The condition also shows signs of being fished hard including a grip that was quite dirty and subsequently cleaned. It’s pretty far from flawless - would call it good used condition but poorly re-wrapped.

The length and weight of the rod hold it back a little too it is one of the less desirable models. Still a great old rod worth some money and worthy of being put right.

I’m not up on Dickerson prices so will leave it to others to give you a number.

[wrong66]

Did Dickerson make rods in that configuration, with the tips so much shorter?
Mark

[BigTJ]

It is a head scratcher. Otherwise it looks correct but the section lengths are unusual.

[Walton Lane]

Yea sorry guys I guess I showed my ass on this one haha. I don’t know much about these rods but I’m trying to learn. I thought it looked pretty good but shows what I know! So would it be beneficial to have the right hand re-finish it? What could it be worth in current condition compared to properly re-done? Thanks guys. I’m grateful for the help.

[BigTJ]

Would you please measure and post the lengths of each section in inches? Are you 100% sure total length is 9” 6”? It looks like the tips are several inches shorter than the butt and mid in the photo.

Do the ferrules fit together snugly or are the tips loose?

[ShenRods]

Just had to double check my records and as suspected even that "Dickerson" signature is not original. A bad redo when compared to an original signature to go along with the poorly done wraps/finish. It looks like both tips are down about 6". This was a trout rod originally.

The male ferrules look very plain and are missing the distinctive tooling I have seen on other Dickerson rods. His ferrules had some distinctive dimensions and characteristics that need to be checked out.

As for the rarity, according to Schaaf's book, there are 5 of them in Dickerson's ledger.

Now that this rod has been bastardized, the value is considerably less than you would anticipate. It needs two tips/scarfs to bring back to full length and a complete rewrap in Dickerson's silks and style. Plus it needs to be gone over by a Dickerson Expert to confirm what is original and what is not. A big project. Even after that, the value may still be dubious due to the length and lack of an original signature. Not a popular length for collectors/fishermen.

Chris

[BigTJ]

should not have stepped into the signature discussion.

[Mainiac]

Dickerson signature and owners name and date are original.

[ShenRods]

You cannot convince me on that one. I will let everyone compare the posted signature to a verified Dickerson Signature on a rod that I had owned. People will see significant differences. It was made to look like one, but there are so many differences in how he wrote his name and even to how he made his 8 in the numbers.



Chris

[wrong66]

Not even close, IMO. Looks like they were "struggling" to make it as close as they could. Very shaky.

[quashnet]

I value maniac's evaluation highly, given his considerable experience with and resources on Dickerson. In addition, it appears that the aberrations in the writing are subtractive, not additive. I believe they are due to scraping away of original ink during a bad refinish, not the addition of ink in a later attempt to rewrite information.

[Mainiac]

withdrawn

[Mainiac]

withdrawn

[Flyman615]

FWIW and considering the Dickersons I have owned and/or seen, I would also agree with Marc (Mainiac).

Scott

[bluesjay]

Hi Guys, Does it look as if someone 'inked over' the original?

Jay Edwards

[Flyman615]

Hi Guys, Does it look as if someone 'inked over' the original?

Jay Edwards

Hey Jay, did you read quashnet's post above? I agree with his assessment.

Scott

[Mainiac]

Here we go. A 761510 from the same era as the 961812. The 761510 was a rod I owned. It was refinished but I saw it beforehand and it was 100% original but had bad varnish melt to the point where the bag had to be cut off around it. Compare the two please.
Dickerson 761510 signature
[url=https://flic.kr/p/RJNEJV][img]http ... .jpg[/img]Dickerson 96

[BigTJ]

It does not look like the original sig was inked over. If you blow up the photo you can see scrape marks. These would be covered over if the sig was inked over.

All the rest of the rod says Dickerson - at least compared to the few I have laid my hands on. For a minute I thought maybe the sig had been doctored but I agree Maniac has it right. Original sig bad refinish.

I hope somebody buys this rod and fixes it up. I would love to try casting it.

[bluesjay]

Hi Guys, I missed the jist, but I see that there must be a faint stain.

Jay Edwards