Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

This board is for discussing the collecting of bamboo fly rods, both classic and modern. Remember that respect and civility is the goal of this board.

Moderator: TheMontyMan

User avatar
Sparquero
Master Guide
Posts: 713
Joined: 01/17/07 19:00
Location: Canada

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#21

Post by Sparquero »

bulldog1935 wrote:1922 Mills catalog

Do you have a copy from that catalog with the regular Catskill rods (8' 6" to 9' 6")?
____________________________________
The past is never far.....

User avatar
bulldog1935
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 8709
Joined: 12/20/04 19:00
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
Contact:

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#22

Post by bulldog1935 »

google books, and this one lets you cut and link the page
https://books.google.com/books?id=DUsLA ... &q&f=false

User avatar
ibookje
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 5054
Joined: 12/23/04 19:00
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#23

Post by ibookje »

Thanks for the picture Ron!

Didn't expect the light rods to be made for catching large fish rather than delicate brookie fishing in small mountain streams as we tend to use ultra light rods.

User avatar
bulldog1935
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 8709
Joined: 12/20/04 19:00
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
Contact:

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#24

Post by bulldog1935 »

here's a tailwater day of swinging wet flies - these two are 18" (the exact net opening) - I was prepared to drop the rod and pull the hook if needed.
Image
Image
did catch normal-sized trout, as well :hat

User avatar
kimk
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1096
Joined: 12/20/04 19:00
Location: SW Vt.

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#25

Post by kimk »

I have one of the Norm Thompson/Farlow Wulff Midge Rods. At 6' 2 oz, I expected it might cast a light line but it was terrible with any line I tried. Then I bought a 1968 edition of Norm Thompson's Anglers Guide. There I found this rod was sold with a 7wt Wulff line. I tried it with a 7 wt and it was waaay too squirley. I now fish it with a 6 wt line and you can feel it flex all the way down into the corks. I did land a 27 inch LL Salmon with it and as Wulff proposed it did fight the fish easier than an 8 foot rod. This Midge Rod was clearly meant to handle anything, even Salmon. A nice rod, it needs the wild looking whole arm cast you will see in the Wulff videos. Mending line with such a short stick is not easy though.
AgMD

SalmoNewf
Guide
Posts: 213
Joined: 05/17/13 06:50

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#26

Post by SalmoNewf »

From "The Compleat Lee Wulff", page 45:

"For my 2 ounce and 2 3/8 ounce two-piece fly rods I use an HDF taper." In other words a WF-6 line.

User avatar
JohnMD1022
Master Guide
Posts: 379
Joined: 10/02/09 18:00
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#27

Post by JohnMD1022 »

Booman2 wrote:
07/24/17 21:35
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.
Indeed. I no longer have the catalogs, but there were several models with the crown jewel being the “
Lee Wulff Ultimate Midge” a 5’ 10 1/4” at a bit under 2 oz.

In Farlow trim, the same rod was called simply the “Ultimate”. I had one of these for some 50 years, but recently gave it to Mike Watriss of the Great Feathers is fly shop.

User avatar
Flykuni3
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3290
Joined: 12/21/11 14:11
Location: California

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#28

Post by Flykuni3 »

You guys know I'm a small stream, short bamboo sort of guy, and I think the ask back then was precisely what I seek today: fun and a challenge fishing for smaller trout in small places with a well-designed short bamboo rod. (This is a hunch on my part.) The old 9' or 8 1/2' for 6 wt rod can never do on the tiny waters, and I'd bet the old rodmakers were asked all the time for shorter, lighter sticks that would be fun. And how many jointed up two top sections and gave them a flex, or were fooling around with parts and made themselves a banty? Re Lee Wulff, sure we know he fished them short for big fish, but I recall reading how he'd get one season out of a rod. In other words, and sorry if you're a big fan of his, he actually abused and misused the rods. I for one would feel like a damned criminal if I fished even a "common Orvis" into oblivion. Imho.

3creeks
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1300
Joined: 08/28/16 00:19
Location: South Bay of So. Cal

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#29

Post by 3creeks »

D- I can't imagine going to Piru or the East fork with a 7.5' rod, can you? Most of the fish are so small you'd never feel them on the other end of rods that long!

User avatar
Flykuni3
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3290
Joined: 12/21/11 14:11
Location: California

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#30

Post by Flykuni3 »

Yeah am now down to 6’—6 1/2’ these days if I go at all (drought has been terrible).

User avatar
Seabowisha Salmo T
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1330
Joined: 01/15/07 19:00

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#31

Post by Seabowisha Salmo T »

Flykuni3 wrote:
09/18/22 16:03
You guys know I'm a small stream, short bamboo sort of guy, and I think the ask back then was precisely what I seek today: fun and a challenge fishing for smaller trout in small places with a well-designed short bamboo rod. (This is a hunch on my part.) The old 9' or 8 1/2' for 6 wt rod can never do on the tiny waters, and I'd bet the old rodmakers were asked all the time for shorter, lighter sticks that would be fun. And how many jointed up two top sections and gave them a flex, or were fooling around with parts and made themselves a banty? Re Lee Wulff, sure we know he fished them short for big fish, but I recall reading how he'd get one season out of a rod. In other words, and sorry if you're a big fan of his, he actually abused and misused the rods. I for one would feel like a damned criminal if I fished even a "common Orvis" into oblivion. Imho.
hello; fly - kuni
there is a (posterior) for every saddle and a saddle for every (posterior)."abridged"

regards, jim w

User avatar
Flykuni3
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3290
Joined: 12/21/11 14:11
Location: California

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#32

Post by Flykuni3 »

What? Yr post is like ee cummings.

User avatar
Seabowisha Salmo T
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1330
Joined: 01/15/07 19:00

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#33

Post by Seabowisha Salmo T »

Flykuni3 wrote:
09/19/22 14:11
What? Yr post is like ee cummings.
Flykuni3;
somewhere, i think it was sparse who recounted a very private even secret conversation between mills grandfather and grandson at the beaverkill. an apocryphal story similar to ritz's bicycle accident. a few days, or weeks, later, they arrived with a strange bundle which contained a leonard - mills ten foot fly rod butt and a ten foot fly rod tip fitted with a custom set of step down ferrules. there, allegedly was born the six foot eight inch fly rod. may be, may be not. . . .
regards, jim w

User avatar
Flykuni3
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 3290
Joined: 12/21/11 14:11
Location: California

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#34

Post by Flykuni3 »

Oh okay...the short rod creeps in on little cat feet.

User avatar
Seabowisha Salmo T
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1330
Joined: 01/15/07 19:00

Re: Why were (ultra) light rods built back then?

#35

Post by Seabowisha Salmo T »

Flykuni3 wrote:
09/19/22 22:26
Oh okay...the short rod creeps in on little cat feet.
yes, i suspect sometime in the 17th century some angler broke a fourteen foot pole - rod - in half and the short rod idea was planted in his her brain. the horsehair line would have been attached to the pole - rod.

regards, jim w

Post Reply

Return to “Collecting Bamboo Fly Rods”