Difference between CFO and Battenkill reels

[bassman]

I have had an used and sold a few of the Orvis Battenkill reels and considered them a class reel with nice drag, good looks and a fair price, new or used. I have not owned a CFO reel and just looking at pictures in Classified I cannot understand why they should be double or more in price from the Battenkill. What is the difference in the two reels that commands the greater price on one over the other? Is one machined and the other forged? Stamped? Have thought of buying a CFO just to compare but since I don't have a Battenkill right now I'll save my money and just ask the knowledgeable folks on here.

[Kenneth]

Did you mean the "CFO" reel, and not "CFL"?

I'm sitting in the office, quiet day, so I'll take a stab at an answer, at least the way I see it, assuming you were asking about CFO vs Battenkill. I'm sure the real experts will weigh in later.

Like you, I like the Battenkill reels, in all their different iterations, even up to the Large Arbor models in SW sizes.

Yet, for trout fishing, I still prefer the CFO reels. They're not better as a reel, I don't think, but they look better, and I've bought into the whole early-model Hardy-made Screwback mystic, just because they're harder to find and rarer. As I'll never be willing to pay the big bucks required to own a real Bogdan reel, owning an early CFO is as close as I'll ever come to the man himself. Lots to be said for the lore and history, practical considerations aside.

Quite a bit of info out there on the CFO, from the earliest Bogdan cast-metal prototypes to the latest American-made machined models. I think a bit of the price difference is explained by the fact that right from the get-go, Orvis marketed the CFO as a "better" reel than the Battenkill.

Appearance-wise, from the early cast click-pawl reels to the later machined disc-drag models (and back to the retro click-pawl Abel-made ones), the CFO has maintained a rather uniform look, although they were made by Hardy and BFR in the UK, Abel in the U.S., or in Asia.

The Battenkill name has been use for quite a few rather different-looking reels, made by Hardy, Young, BFR, to name a few.

To address your question directly, the price difference is probably explained by relative rarity, marketing and positioning by Orvis, and, in the later years, the fact that while the Battenkill was a cast reel, the CFO was machined, although the latest Battenkill models, both disc-drag and click-pawl are machined, as were the Large Arbor and BBS (Battenkill Barstock) models.

In the end, though, it probably just boils down to what people are willing to pay for what they want, no?

In any case, I feel that all the various Battenkill and CFO models look good on bamboo and are fine reels, so I'm grateful for the choice.

To end, what is a reel discussion without a few photos :-)?

Four click-pawl Battenkill models (L-R OEM: BFR, Hardy, Young, Hardy)




Battenkill Large-Arbor I, first model, R. Sealey Tudor Lightweight 7'


Battenkill Large-Arbor IV, second model, GG The Goodwin 9-1/2'


Battenkill Barstock, Battenkill 8-1/2'


CFO III, Flea, my all-time favorite combo


The first CFO machined disc-drag model, Hardy-made, Stone Cascade 7-1/2'


CFO IV Saltwater, Hardy-made, W&M Water Seal FA 8-1/2'


Kenneth

[novisor12]

The above reply was pretty good. As someone who has owned a bunch of both, cfos are lighter and have tighter tolerances. Overall the CFO is a better reel and I dont think many would argue that.

Early CFOs were made by Hardy, then BFR, then China, then abel. The hardy made ones hold their value better.

I think battenkills were young, then BFR, then China (but I'm really not positive). The BFR click and pawl battenkill models seem to hold their values the best.

[NewUtahCaneAngler]

Let's not forget about the Young made Battenkill reels that superseded the Hardy lightweight series from 1969 - 1973.



Fine reels, which like the CFO can be used LHW or RHW, but IMHO are built a bit rougher and tougher than the CFO. In 1972, when both reels were available, the CFO II, III, IV, V were priced $39.50, 41.50, 43.50, and 45.50, while the Young made Battenkill Flyweight, Featherweight, Lightweight, Lightweight W, and Welterweight were $33.50, 34.50, 35.50, 36.50, and 39.50. The Madison (Medalist) were $15.75 - 19.75 depending upon size.

Kenneth, nice to know that the Flea looks good with a CFO III or CFO II - Here is the Madison version wearing a CFO II


Happy Thanksgiving to All

Joe

[bassman]

Thanks guys, and what a great bunch of pictures. I did mean CFO. Didn't lift my finger high enough on the keyboard. I might look for a CFO one of these days since I've had about everything else in the "reasonable" price range of top line reels come through my hands in the past.

[rsagebrush]

The original CFO reels are cast, mines from 1973 and is still in perfect working condition; designed by Stan Bogdan and produced by Hardy, it really doesn't get any nicer. The Battenkills are certainly just as usable but their not CFO's and neither are the newer ones.

Others' opinions my vary but I love my CFO III, IV, and V, I've had them a long time and have become attached. Orvis hit it out of the park with the original.

[bassman]

Were the ones I see listed for +$200 in Classified made in England by Hardy.

[NewUtahCaneAngler]

Were the ones I see listed for +$200 in Classified made in England by Hardy.

The Hardy made ones have a dome shaped boss - like the St. George reels only smaller. The BFR made ones have a flat boss. The earliest screwbacks did not have a line guard - it was on option for the 1st year, then came standard on the IV and larger. lost of variations, which are well documented.

[Brian K. Shaffer]

CFO = better.. but man - they are so light --- and screwed up in sizes!!

And yes - even the Abel made CFO's are better.

[red 1]

+1 on the Able CFOS, however I still miss my late 80's or early 90's Battinkill. Good heft, well made, sounded great. Wish I never gave it away. Everyone says the CFO's are better. Maybe they are. I am a fan of a little extra heft, and that Battinkill had it all. Sound, click pawl, color, heft, and I may be looking back through rose colored glasses but quality too. Possibly one day I may "borrow" it back.

[davemaine]

I'm going to go against the grain here. I don't think the CFO is a better reel than the BFR Battenkills. Yes, the Battenkill is basically the same design (a copy, for sure), done with some cost-cutting (e.g. stainless line guard vs. nickel silver, simpler porting, etc.). But the ones I've had are equal to CFOs in terms of tolerances and drag smoothness. I think they are also a bit tougher than the original CFOs which are rather fragile and easy to dent.

The CFO is certainly an all-time classic and definitely has the edge on looks. The Hardy mystique is real, too. But in terms of functionality, I think the Battenkill click pawl (the BFR era) is at least the equal of the Hardy made CFO. And at half the price (or less) these days, I'd feel much better banging one around on a serious day of fishing.

One last point: my Battenkill 5/6 actually is a tad heavier than my CFO IV, making it a better balance on my 8' 5weight.

[Loogie]

Bassman, the Battenkill is a citizen watch, the CFO is a Breitling. They both work great, but one is mechanically superior then the other.

[Brooks]

Bassman, the Battenkill is a citizen watch, the CFO is a Breitling. They both work great, but one is mechanically superior then the other.

+1

My personal favorites were the old Hardy hand poured CFO’s and the newer Abel’s.

[joaniebo]

I have "several" CFOs and Battenkills, all made in the UK except a CFOIII that came with a Penn's Creek cane rod that I bought a few years back. One thing that I noticed was that I had trouble fitting the CFOs in some of my rods with slide band reel seats. But a little filing of the CFOs' reel seat "feet" made them fit snugly.

Bob

[bassman]

... But a little filing of the CFOs' reel seat "feet" made them fit snugly.

Bob

OMG, you're one of "those".

[joaniebo]

... But a little filing of the CFOs' reel seat "feet" made them fit snugly.

Bob

OMG, you're one of "those".

Yep, whatever "those" are, I must be one of them!

[bassman]

Geez Bob, I'm always reading never file a reel seat since it destroys the original and loses value. 'Course, if it make it usable for you on the rod you want it on it add a lot value to you then.

[joaniebo]

Geez Bob, I'm always reading never file a reel seat since it destroys the original and loses value. 'Course, if it make it usable for you on the rod you want it on it add a lot value to you then.

Having the CFO reels and not using them would be a waste for this old Bohemian!

[Flyman615]

FWIW, yes, the many different Battenkill-labeled reels made over the years are quite serviceable. But in my view, it's like comparing a Chevy to a BMW with the classic CFO design being the latter.

I've used CFOs since the first year they were offered. I currently have them in sizes II to V with spare spools for each and I've never had a problem with any in the group.

And just two more cents worth--I also like the later CFO Disc (BFR), but did not like the design/execution of the Abel CFO at all.

Scott

[GRASSNGLASS]

New Battenkills are very nice little reels in the small size.

CFO is only reel I've ever had lockup on me after a fall, but Orvis was able to repair it so I could sell it.

I prefer the full frame Hardy reels. The lightweights look good, but give me a Marquis all day long.

Barry