Orvis Impregnated Rods ?

[Kenneth]

Which would be really, really sad. I hate it when a core belief gets shaken.

Kenneth

[G-ManBart]

Reading both threads it seems there is one consistent theme between comments on the podcast, people posting here, etc and that would be that something changed to their process in the 1970s. One idea is that they stopped impregnating the rods in the 1970s. Another is that they stopped using Bakelite resin in the 1970s.

The only thing, so far, that makes sense is that the current folks might be confusing the change from Bakelite to a different resin as if it was completely stopping impregnating rods. It's hard to imagine they sold rods for 40+ years marked "Orvis Impregnated" when they were just waxed. I think we would also see a LOT of failed Orvis rods from that period. My guess is someone said "we stopped using Bakelite impregnation in the 1970s" and the listener didn't realize exactly what was said.

I don't feel like doing it, but I've got all of the Orvis catalogs from the time period (70s/80s) and will see if any year in particular changes the description of the process (or just mentions it).

[Caneghost]

It is both funny and sad that two of their people whom they present as "Masters" and "experts" obviously don't know which end is up.

[G-ManBart]

I just went through the catalogs from this era. From 1970 to 1982 the description of the process includes the word "bakelite" (not always capitalized) in every issue except the 1976 which had a lot of commentary about comparisons with graphite. The 1983, 1984 and 1985 catalogs just say the rods are impregnated. Starting in 1986 the term "special resin" is used in the description of the technique. I am missing a few catalogs after that time, but saw "special resin" used in later catalogs as well.

Catalogs certainly aren't proof, but they were using the Bakelite term as late as 1982.

[Greg Reynolds]

Thanks G-Man, I know what a pain it is to go through the catalogs.

[NewUtahCaneAngler]

For those interested, there is a good collection of later Orvis catalogs here: https://splitcaneinfo.com/?page_id=653

They may be European or English as they don't list the prices like they do (at least in the pre-1980 catalogs which I own) in the USA versions.

Cheers,
Joe

[henkverhaar]

Note that 'impregnated' is neither a specific technical term, nor a legally binding process, as such designating something as 'impregnated' can basically mean whatever you want it to mean - hell, even varnishing bamboo will impregnate the material to some (very slight) extent...

Just to elucidate that having 'impregnated' written on the blank, and not actually using the immersion tank resin process developed by Wes Jordan may not necessarily be lying as such...

[G-ManBart]

Note that 'impregnated' is neither a specific technical term, nor a legally binding process, as such designating something as 'impregnated' can basically mean whatever you want it to mean - hell, even varnishing bamboo will impregnate the material to some (very slight) extent...

Just to elucidate that having 'impregnated' written on the blank, and not actually using the immersion tank resin process developed by Wes Jordan may not necessarily be lying as such...

No argument to any of that...and lots of companies have done tricky things like that in the past.

I would have to go back through the catalogs to get more detail, but the bulk of the issues I looked at yesterday had a picture of the immersion tank and a reference to the blanks spending 7 days in the tank so that the resin could penetrate. In many issues that started with the first two pages when you would open the catalog. Get a new catalog, open it up and bam...this is our rod making history, and the process we follow.

There was a very clear change in marketing over time. The earlier issues had a whole page, sometimes two, which described their rod making history, process, etc with pictures and details. Once graphite rods really took off the details got fewer and fewer. I'm sure they just looked at the numbers and realized it wasn't worth writing a two page feature on bamboo process when they weren't making or selling that many any longer.

From a practical perspective, I can see switching to a more modern resin, but I just find it hard to believe they would change the core process significantly. I can't imagine that the impregnation process costs much, and with production/sales dropping significantly there should have been less pressure to get blanks finished, so time would be less of a factor. If it doesn't cost much, and you're not in a hurry, might as well stick to a known formula...but that's clearly just me guessing.

[henkverhaar]

No argument to any of that...and lots of companies have done tricky things like that in the past.
[...]
If it doesn't cost much, and you're not in a hurry, might as well stick to a known formula...but that's clearly just me guessing.

And I'm not even suggesting they are no longer impregnated - my hunch is that some recent statements by Orvis-employed people are just plain wrong, whether intentional or not. I was just commenting that even IF they had stopped using a 'real' impregnation process, continuing to claim that the blanks are impregnated was most likely not 'legally' incorrect... I would expect thought that at some point (late 70s, early 80s, given the fact that instructions for acrylic impregnation of wood for stabilizing were being published at that time) they would've changed from a phenolic ('bakelite') resin to an acrylic resin...

[G-ManBart]

No argument to any of that...and lots of companies have done tricky things like that in the past.
[...]
If it doesn't cost much, and you're not in a hurry, might as well stick to a known formula...but that's clearly just me guessing.

And I'm not even suggesting they are no longer impregnated - my hunch is that some recent statements by Orvis-employed people are just plain wrong, whether intentional or not. I was just commenting that even IF they had stopped using a 'real' impregnation process, continuing to claim that the blanks are impregnated was most likely not 'legally' incorrect... I would expect thought that at some point (late 70s, early 80s, given the fact that instructions for acrylic impregnation of wood for stabilizing were being published at that time) they would've changed from a phenolic ('bakelite') resin to an acrylic resin...

Makes total sense...I should have been more clear that I agree with you

[roycestearns]

I would agree with

I would expect thought that at some point (late 70s, early 80s, given the fact that instructions for acrylic impregnation of wood for stabilizing were being published at that time) they would've changed from a phenolic ('bakelite') resin to an acrylic resin...

The next question is, obviously Shawn is no longer doing a impregnation and since he was trained by Charlie H., when did Charlie stop the process?

[Greg Reynolds]

...The next question is, obviously Shawn is no longer doing a impregnation and since he was trained by Charlie H., when did Charlie stop the process?

Rod maker & forum member Steve Kiley, who reported that Orvis discontinued impregnating rods, made blanks for Orvis from about November 2002 to 2005 or so while the beveler was down. Charles Hisey replaced Ron White in 2006.

I've only actually seen three rods made by Hisey and those were in a display case at the Orvis Store in Manchester in 2018. I thought the color and finish looked different from that of my own rods and those I've seen over the years--very pale and little sheen.


I download almost every photo of an Orvis rod I find on the internet and have been going through rods made since about year 2000. They for the most part have a finish like the rods I saw in the display case.

A rod from Steve Kiley's time:


A Hisey rod from 2015:


I have no idea what the reality is, but I'm starting to think like Royce--Brillion clearly isn't impregnating rods, which means Hisey most likely wasn't. Kiley likely made most or all of the blanks in the years preceding Ron Whites retirement. Could they have stopped impregnating about the time the beveler was down for repairs?

As an aside, why does is take a number of years to have a beveler repaired?

Orvis introduced their new generation of swelled-butt rods, the Spruce Creek, Penn's Creek and Adirondack in 1997. The only old models carried over were the Seven/four and Far & Fine. I'm wondering if these new rods were ever impregnated.

I have my only straw-colored Orvis rod out as I type, a 1978 Battenkill, despite Rosenbauers comments, there is no question that it's an impregnated rod.

I know Renaissance Wax is an excellent product, but I don't see it as a sufficient finish for a bamboo rod. Am I wrong?
https://restorationproduct.com/about/

[henkverhaar]

[...]
I know Renaissance Wax is an excellent product, but I don't see it as a sufficient finish for a bamboo rod. Am I wrong?

No...

[Greg Reynolds]

I was listening to the recent Orvis podcast this morning, in which Tom R. mentioned that Orvis stopped impregnating it’s rods sometime in the late ‘70s, in spite of them continuing to be marketed as such. I was shocked! Is this common knowledge?

If Orvis stopped impregnating rods in the late-1970s, wouldn't they have told customers of their rod blanks & kits that the blanks needed varnished or otherwise protected?

1978:


1980:


1981:


1982:



They may not be currently impregnating rods, but Tom Rosenbauer clearly got time frame of when they stopped wrong.

[roycestearns]

They provided rod varnish in the kit ... I'd love to see the instructions supplied in the kit.

Joe Beelart probably has the best insight to Steve's process and visits to Orvis. I was hanging around Steve's shop after the Orvis work was done, and I know that the Steve's production didn't stop because the beveler was fixed.

[Jamie Bendelius]

FYI: I was in Manchester a year or so ago and was allowed in to the bamboo side of the production facilities. My rapidly failing vision, and probably memory, saw a mill, not a beveler.

[G-ManBart]

A bit of a puzzle for your consideration. I pulled out some of my Orvis rods for a bit of a comparison. All are marked Orvis Impregnated, two are Battenkill grades and two are Madison grades. They all have a very similar color and sheen with just the normal variation we expect of bamboo. The serial numbers are 67673, 82323, 87383 and 91109. That makes them 1972, 1978, 1988 and 2015. They are presented in random order. I'll let you noodle on that a bit and then come back with pictures showing the lineup with the serial numbers.

If these rods are made from a significantly different process or materials I'd be shocked.

[NewUtahCaneAngler]

They provided rod varnish in the kit ... I'd love to see the instructions supplied in the kit.

Just the wraps...

[Eperous]

On page 16 of the Spring 2022 Orvis catalog, it clearly states the rods are impregnated. It seems pretty unlikely they've been lying about this...for any period of time.

I agree with the comment above... some Orvis products might be pricey, but my limited dealings with the company have ALWAYS been first-rate, beyond reproach... they are a class-act, maybe a pricey one, but a class-act, IMO...

Ed

[teter]

I had a 7'6 Adirondack made by Steve Kiley. It was light-colored but definitely marked as impregnated.