Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

[ibookje]

'Back in those days' (before around 1960) the longer (8.5ft and longer) and heavier (#6 and heavier) rods seems to be the norm.

Why did rod companies still build short (less than 7.5ft) and light (#4 and lighter) rods? Were they merely just fun rods or maybe for youngsters and women?

[Short Tip]

I think there has always been an urge by some fisherfolk to use the lightest tackle possible, for the challenge or just the aesthetic. A quick cruise through early tackle catalogs will show plenty of tiny "Fairy" or "Ultra Light" models, extolling their ability to land large fish, insisting they are "not a toy". I think they may be slightly more popular today, since ultra fast graphite rods hinder delicate presentations, folks are convinced that a lighter line rod is the answer.

[bulldog1935]

Leonard Fairy Catskill No. 39, 8' 2.7 oz - 3wt, c. 1915


as far as why, you can wax a G line just as well as you can wax a D

[Middle Branch]

I've seen ad copy from multiple companies that marketed the same rod to the "discerning, light tackle sportsman" as well as "also great for women and younger fisherman." I would say that a decent portion of the shorter rods were bought for or by women. Which would partially account for the reason why so many short rods from a variety of makers are still found in pretty good condition.
To expect the wifey to cast a 9050 Granger alongside you all day would have been a stretch, especially considering the average stature of people in the early 20th century. Same for youngsters.

[xvigauge]

Just look at Lee Wulff!
Joe

[quashnet]

Exactly, Joe. Competition among men was a strong driver toward smaller rods. Paul H. Young would likely have never created his 6'3" Midge on his own. But a good customer named Herbert D'Sinter came into the Detroit shop in 1953 and argued that Young needed to compete with the new line of smaller Orvis rods. Young made the prototype Midge and gave it to D'Sinter. Then, because he had as customers a group of wealthy Texans who had standing orders to buy examples of any new model that Young might dream up, Young built and sent a batch of Midges to his "wild boys," as he called them. The Texans immediately started splicing custom weight-forward silk lines and began competing with each other to see who could cast the farthest with a Midge. When they reported to Young that they were getting seventy-five-foot casts out of the Midge, Young howled, "That's not what they were made for!" But it was too late. From the mid-1950s onward, writers like Arnold Gingrich promoted the Midge as a tool for a new sort of anglers' competition, to fish fine and far off, so as to see who could accomplish the most by using the least likely tool, as when Gingrich fished for Atlantic salmon with the Midge rod. Women anglers owned and enjoyed Midge rods, but it was the competitive spirit of "boys and their toys" that drove the popularity of this short rod.

[teter]

Five- to six-foot trunk rods were offered by A&I in the 1890s. But the earliest small rod I have seen referred to is not advertised as a travel rod:

In its 1894-95 catalogue, as shown in "Great Fishing Tackle Catalogs of the Golden Age," Montgomery Ward offered the "Baby Brook" fly rod, a 7 1/2-foot 3-oz. model, with this description: "The 'Baby Brook' Fly, the very best 3-piece all hand-made, six-strip, split bamboo, polished orange wood butt, full German silver mountings, first-class in every particular, the equal to if not better than the best rods made by anybody. Each rod, with extra tip, in flannel-lined wood form, with canvas bag." The maker of the rod was not specified, as was common with trade rods. the rod was listed at $25, by far the highest price in the lineup. Other split-bamboo fly rods in the catalogue ranged in price from $1.25 to $16.50.

The name implies that this rod was designed for use in tiny streams, probably for brook trout. Likewise, Leonard's Fairy Catskill, at 8'2", was listed at 2 ounces, and touted as having "killed two hundred (Long Island) trout" over four days with no ill effects. Long Island trout, in that era, would have meant brook trout in spring creeks and narrow rivers like the Connetquot, the Nissequogue and the Carmans.

[kimk]

Quashnet -- much thanks for filling in some gaps of my understanding of this subject.
I might also add that Gingrich was founder/editor of Esquire Magazine and I understand he might have written about the small light weight rods Young built rod a few times. In "The Well Tempered Angler" He writes about the Young rods with the zeal usually reserved for religious revelations.
AgMD

[Trout120-1]

During the end of Jim Payne's tenure his short rods were outselling the longer ( 8ft + ) rods. I once held an ED Payne 6ft fly rod. Beautiful taper and felt like a toy.

[Booman2]

Lee Wulff had huge influence IMO. His Atlantic salmon on a small (about 6 foot) rod and a spool of thread made huge copy and other writers like Al McClane supported it. Even Lew Stoner at Winston built the Leetle Feller to fill the need.

[ibookje]

Wulff's ideas were way later. Times of pre fire Leonard etc. short & light rods were already being made

[Grouse]

Lee Wulff as noted did not invent the ultra-light rod or the short fly rod. He popularized using such fly rods for large fresh water game fish such as the Atlantic Salmon. When most others were using this style of fly rod for small streams with smaller fish, such as eastern brook trout fishing with a short light line Leonard or others, Mr. Wulff went into the wilds and demonstrated these fly rods had greater range of use.

[Booman2]

JB, I think the original question was "before 1960." Lee Wulff was fairly famous for using light tackle (including catching his 10 pound Atlantic Salmon on a reel alone) in the 1940's.

[teter]

Keep in mind that short, lightweight rods do not always take light lines. The 6' and 6'6" Orvis rods that I have seen from the 1950s and 60sare light but marked for six-weight lines, and I think that is what Lee Wulff used for salmon. I think the earlier short rods took lighter lines. The shortest rod I have from the early 1900s is a 7' Montague trade rod. I do not fish it with anything heavier than a 3-weight line.

[Grouse]

From an advertisement in 1920.

Titled: "Hawes Featherweight Fly Rods" The ad continues:

"Dainty and powerful split bamboo rods. Hand made by experts of selected Tonka cane. Perfect action and resiliency gives to the angler a rod of worth and dependability commensurate with his skill. Length 7 to 8 feet. Weights 2 to 2 1/4 ozs. Price $60.00."

I think they were building fly rods 'back then' in light weight and shorter length for the same reasons as today. Perhaps we feel that we are an angler of greater worth with more skill catching a trout with a seven foot three weight than a nine foot six weight. For many these shorter and lighter fly rods have been just a joy to use.

The advertisement seems to be aimed at adult skilled anglers. At that price I will take two.

[ibookje]

What fascinates me is whether theses light rods were bought and fished rather than storing them in the cupboard for 'entertainment'?

[Short Tip]

What fascinates me is whether theses light rods were bought and fished rather than storing them in the cupboard for 'entertainment'?

Based on my experience and observation, most of them were well used.

[teter]

$60 in 1920 would be equal to around $750 today, but I agree, still a bargain for a 7-foot Hawes.

At that price I will take two.

[Booman2]

I don't have my records at my fingertips tonight, but I think Mr. Wulff sold off his Atlantic Salmon lodges in about the late 1940's and was using (at least in part) Farlow's bamboo rods.
Someone with an early Norm Thompson catalog handy may be able to add additional info.

[bulldog1935]

1922 Mills catalog