Thomas (TEJJR), we're seeing a pattern here that keeps repeating itself. You continuously make statements of fact based on little or no evidence. When knowledgeable people try to correct you, you circle back with more non-evidence to continue trying to prove your theories and opinions. You're frustrating the people that have spent years seriously researching these subjects. I offer a few examples and some possible explanations for your continued marching into a brick wall.
TEJJR wrote:some models were "better" than others. I did not say "all" of these were made at Pelham
Thomas, you DID say ALL of the higher quality rods were made in Pelham - repeatedly. And you state as fact that the Montague City shop was tooled for “another thing”.
01/23/20 you wrote:An unknown number of these, but a fraction, were the high-end rods crafted in Pelham by E.P. Bartlett.
and,
01/27/20 you wrote:...a third Montague production facility in Pelham, MA. It was there that the higher-quality/value Montague rods were produced - understandably in lower numbers.
and,
02/24/20 you wrote:My research points to the fact that ALL the higher quality Montague rods, including what he refers to as the "super-Montagues" were produced in Pelham. Montague City was tooled for another thing.
and,
In your AFF article you wrote: the higher-priced items brought to market by Montague in the next decades continued to be produced at the Amethyst Brook factory
and,
In your AFF article under the photo of the Montague City factory you wrote: The former Montague City Rod Company factory in Montague City, Massachusetts. This is where the company mass-produced its less expensive bamboo rods.”
You also stated the following as fact without sufficient validation:
In your AFF article you wrote:This recently surfaced Eugene P. Bartlett split-cane rod was manufactured in Pelham sometime between 1878 and 1889. It is… apparently the “Best Light Fly” model listed in the 1878 catalog.
Later you acknowledged that you had no proof as to when it was built, or whether it was built in Pelham. You also admitted that this rod did not match the illustration of the "Best Light Fly" model in the catalog you mentioned. So, actually, it is apparent that the rod does not match the description of the "Best Light Fly" model in that catalog. It would have been prudent if you would have compared the rod to the illustration before you published the results as fact.
Another indication that you haven't spent much time (compared to others) researching the companies you're writing about:
you wrote:I used my early 1950s Sewell Dutton Angler's Choice 6' "Seaweed" model, crafted here in the Pioneer Valley using cane and machinery from the defunct Amherst Fishing Rod Company.
Your Seaweed model Angler’s Choice rod was NOT built on AFRC equipment or with AFRC cane. Sewell Dunton was the treasurer for The Montague Rod and Reel Company, and upon their closure in 1955, he acquired rod making machinery, rod blanks, rod-making hardware and a huge supply of Tonkin cane from the Montague shop, not the AFRC shop.
Thomas, are you wondering why your comments are being met with such skepticism and opposition?
Are you wondering why nobody is taking your side or coming to your rescue?
you wrote:The issue it seems to me is that there is no conclusive evidence here.
The issue is not, “that there is no conclusive evidence here.”
The issue is that there is no conclusive evidence here, yet you repeatedly state your ideas, theories and opinions as facts.
Some possible contributors to this issue are:
on 1/21/19 you wrote: - I'm new to fly-fishing and collecting
and, In your AFF article you wrote:The AFRC’s original building is located two doors away from me in South Amherst
Since you live in the area, maybe there’s a hint of local pride influencing your theories and opinions???
When you first contacted me, you mentioned that you had an article scheduled to be published in AFF. You acknowledged, "its clear you are the 'go-to guy' for all-things Montague", yet you didn't ask for my help, for my opinion, or for me to review your article before publication.
Apparently you didn't run your article by any of the people that are well educated in Montague history. For the most part, you used 20, 40, 60 and 100 year old documents to build your story without regard to what's been discovered in the past 20 years. If you had reached out, you would have found out that a lot of relevant information has been discovered, shared, published and discussed since A.J. Campbell wrote his book over 20 years ago. Many inaccuracies in the references that you based your article on have been revealed and corrected, and some of the holes have been filled in.
I have no problem with you having and expressing your theories and opinions. These should be the basis for more research to produce conclusive evidence. The issue I (and many others) have is that you have repeatedly stated your theories as facts, though you admit "there is no conclusive evidence". At some point you ventured from trying to be a historian to becoming a storyteller of a tale “based on a true story”, where you fill in the blanks based on your theories and opinions, and not on facts. Your story has become part fact, part conjecture and part fiction. It may sound good. It may be logical. But it’s not good, accurate history. Most of the community on this Forum are interested and dedicated to discovering, preserving and sharing real, accurate history - myself included.
As far as I can tell, you’re not thinking or writing like a historian. You’re thinking and writing as a storyteller that lives near Pelham, MA (and full of local pride) that wants to prove to everyone that the Pelham rod factory produced "
ALL the higher quality Montague rods", had many other exemplary attributes that can't be proven at this time, and that the Amherst Fishing Rod Company was making the best rods on the market during their few years of production.
I’ll agree that the Pelham rod factory was exceptional for its time, and that it most likely produced some very high quality rods, and maybe some of the best quality rods made by Montague. But to stretch the story to fit your preconceived conclusions isn’t working well without conclusive evidence. Your dogged continuance along this track has spread quite a bit of grief among serious historians and has resulted in the loss of most of your credibility.
All that said, I mean no disrespect to you, and I applaud the effort you've put into your research. Keep digging for the truth and you might find the proof you need to convert some of your opinions and theories into fact some day.
. . . Rex
The Monty Man