Orvis Impregnated Rods ?

[G-ManBart]

Okay, I'll post the follow up to my post above...the rods, from left to right in the first picture are 1978, 2015, 1988 and then 1972 serial numbers. Same color, same sheen, but 43 years difference in age. Here's the original image, then one showing the lower half of the rods and then one with serial numbers together. I had to move the 1856 to get the serial numbers to line up since it's a 3-piece rod. I never noticed the graphics were opposite on that rod!

[NewUtahCaneAngler]

GMan, that cane on the 1856 looks very similar to a Wright & McGill Premier that I once owned, but is now owned by a well know Granger fan and forum member. Very high-end (looking) cane. Since I’m not a rodmaker, I’m basing this solely on looks.

Cheers,
Joe

[Caneghost]

I just acquired a little Madison made in 1981-82 at the Catskill Gathering, and it is lighter cane like the photos above. It looks like an impregnated finish, not the older dark Bakelite brown, but similar in color to a pair of seventies vintage T&T impregnated rods I have.

I cannot imagine the past Orvis makers since the seventies turning out unfinished rods. The press on Brillion makes me suspicious, as it does nothing to indicate he has any significant experience in making bamboo rods, so I could certainly see him saying about anything due to the lack of experience and knowledge as to the history of Orvis rodmaking. If he is as inexperienced as the lack of a rodmaking resume suggests, it is not completely implausible to believ that he has been "just waxing them". This is quite a quandary.

I would easily be able to believe that the current marketing department would be out of touch with reality, but not for fifty years. I looked at the pages from the 1981 and 1982 catalogs online, and the rods look just like mine, lighter cane, and the press still talks about seven days in the impregnating tanks with Bakelite resin.

When I got my T&T's, I asked Rick Robbins if he knew anything about the details of T&T's impregnating, as he had a long, close relationship with Tom Maxwell. He knew they were doing it, but told me he and Tom never really discussed it more than in passing, so he did not know their materials or methods. Again, my '81/'82 Madison looks very similar in finish to my T&T's.

Someone mentioned formaldehyde to me, so I assume it is an ingredient in the Bakelite resins. Do any makers out there know if a less toxic formulation of a "Bakelite resin" exists? Could a chemical formula change be at the heart of the light versus dark rods? I could imagine the rod shop foreman making a safety oriented change and not advising the ad men about the technical aspects.

[roycestearns]

NUCaneAngler- thanks for the instruction manual.

Does anyone know how to get a hold of Charlie Hise? Since Charlie taught Shawn, he would have shown the current finish process to Shawn.

One other thought, it would be interesting to seal the ends of a glued up stick, wax the power fiber/outside and weigh the strip. Subject the strip to high humidity area for a couple of days and weigh the strip again. Maybe we assume we have to seal the power fiber side ... wasn't the impregnation process just filling the empty cells so they couldn't take on moisture? or was it really sealing everything so no moisture could penetrate?

[wctc1]

Hi Royce: Thanks for your PM. Here's something for the board from my post to you. I check the board several times a week, but haven't had much to say. Like you, I much appreciated the wrapping instructions. Anyway:

Steve Kiley made butts and mid's for Orvis for about 3 years, or a little more. I spent many, many hours working on Orvis blanks except for thread stripping and sanding. I wanted to say I had a hand in making Orvis rods so I pestered Steve for shop time {we lived 3 miles apart}, which he freely granted since his son was growing up. Mainly I ran the mill and the two bevelers, plus helped Steve glue. Steve did the splitting.

I don't remember Steve traveling back to Orvis, but maybe he did. I remember taking care of his cats for about a week once. Quite the forgettable experience since I ended up in the ER with cat allergies. But maybe the trip was to see his mother, just can't remember.

Steve did not impregnate rods for Orvis.. I vaguely remember the reason was Orvis wanted to impregnate at the factory to make sure the butts and mid's matched the tips. I also vaguely remember Steve holding back some honey colored sections so Orvis could match them up with honey tips at their shop.

The reason Steve was dropped from making sections was that he asked for a full year's order so he could plan his work and ordering. When upper management found out that large purchase order was in process, that was it for Steve except for work-in-progress. That's when Orvis fixed their mill.

Anyway Steve experimented a lot and had success in many rod making areas. About the time of the Orvis orders he and Mike Brooks developed a process that turned out a pleasing rod. I think he may have sent a sample back to Orvis for inspection. They talked about patenting the process but didn't because of cost. Someone should contact Mike if he's not still aboard for more info. Steve got a lot of orders for impregnated rods.

Hope this helps. I spent a lot of time in Steve's shop. For example, on one 3 steelhead rod order I kept careful track of my time. I spent 84 hours on those 3 rods. Under Steve's tutelage, I made several rods for myself from splitting through sanding, but since I couldn't wrap well {old broken fingers} I never finished them. Since Steve inspected them along the way, he finished and sold them. Miss Steve.

[Greg Reynolds]

I just acquired a little Madison made in 1981-82 at the Catskill Gathering, and it is lighter cane like the photos above. It looks like an impregnated finish, not the older dark Bakelite brown, but similar in color to a pair of seventies vintage T&T impregnated rods I have...

...I would easily be able to believe that the current marketing department would be out of touch with reality, but not for fifty years. I looked at the pages from the 1981 and 1982 catalogs online, and the rods look just like mine, lighter cane, and the press still talks about seven days in the impregnating tanks with Bakelite resin.

... Could a chemical formula change be at the heart of the light versus dark rods? I could imagine the rod shop foreman making a safety oriented change and not advising the ad men about the technical aspects.

See the concurrent "Orvis Rod Maker Interview" thread that instigated this discussion:
viewtopic.php?t=144924&start=20

Post #25 will answer some of your questions on Orvis rod color, which has little to do with impregnation. The information comes from Orvis.

[G-ManBart]

Hi Royce: Thanks for your PM. Here's something for the board from my post to you. I check the board several times a week, but haven't had much to say. Like you, I much appreciated the wrapping instructions. Anyway:

Steve Kiley made butts and mid's for Orvis for about 3 years, or a little more. I spent many, many hours working on Orvis blanks except for thread stripping and sanding. I wanted to say I had a hand in making Orvis rods so I pestered Steve for shop time {we lived 3 miles apart}, which he freely granted since his son was growing up. Mainly I ran the mill and the two bevelers, plus helped Steve glue. Steve did the splitting.

I don't remember Steve traveling back to Orvis, but maybe he did. I remember taking care of his cats for about a week once. Quite the forgettable experience since I ended up in the ER with cat allergies. But maybe the trip was to see his mother, just can't remember.

Steve did not impregnate rods for Orvis.. I vaguely remember the reason was Orvis wanted to impregnate at the factory to make sure the butts and mid's matched the tips. I also vaguely remember Steve holding back some honey colored sections so Orvis could match them up with honey tips at their shop.

The reason Steve was dropped from making sections was that he asked for a full year's order so he could plan his work and ordering. When upper management found out that large purchase order was in process, that was it for Steve except for work-in-progress. That's when Orvis fixed their mill.

Anyway Steve experimented a lot and had success in many rod making areas. About the time of the Orvis orders he and Mike Brooks developed a process that turned out a pleasing rod. I think he may have sent a sample back to Orvis for inspection. They talked about patenting the process but didn't because of cost. Someone should contact Mike if he's not still aboard for more info. Steve got a lot of orders for impregnated rods.

Hope this helps. I spent a lot of time in Steve's shop. For example, on one 3 steelhead rod order I kept careful track of my time. I spent 84 hours on those 3 rods. Under Steve's tutelage, I made several rods for myself from splitting through sanding, but since I couldn't wrap well {old broken fingers} I never finished them. Since Steve inspected them along the way, he finished and sold them. Miss Steve.

Thanks for this insight....great stuff!

[Greg Reynolds]

...Steve experimented a lot and had success in many rod making areas. About the time of the Orvis orders, he and Mike Brooks developed a process that turned out a pleasing rod. I think he may have sent a sample back to Orvis for inspection. They talked about patenting the process but didn't because of cost. Someone should contact Mike if he's not still aboard for more info. Steve got a lot of orders for impregnated rods.

This is interesting Joe. Makes me wonder if Orvis is using Steve & Mike's process.

I keep a file of copy & pastes from the forum and elsewhere on Steve's work for Orvis. Your post will go in it.

[Greg Reynolds]

...The reason Steve was dropped from making sections was that he asked for a full year's order so he could plan his work and ordering. When upper management found out that large purchase order was in process, that was it for Steve except for work-in-progress. That's when Orvis fixed their mill.

This gave me clarity. I couldn't understand why it took Orvis 3 years or so years to have the mill rebuilt. They never intended to fix it...

[henkverhaar]

Someone mentioned formaldehyde to me, so I assume it is an ingredient in the Bakelite resins. Do any makers out there know if a less toxic formulation of a "Bakelite resin" exists? Could a chemical formula change be at the heart of the light versus dark rods? I could imagine the rod shop foreman making a safety oriented change and not advising the ad men about the technical aspects.

THere's nothing particularly toxic about bakelite. Bakelites are phenol-formaldehyde resins - polymers; and actually the resins used to impregnate wood should not be identified as 'bakelite' as bakelite is a name that should designate a cured resin with filler (like bakelite phones or ashtrays or radios), not just a resin - unfortunately in later years the bakelite company started offering different resins under 'bakelite XXXX' denominations, with XXXX being numbers - the original Wes Jordan patent identifies the impregnation resin as well as the glue used to glue up the splines into blanks by their full product names and numbers.

Resorcinol adhesive likewise is a formaldehyde-resorcinol (with or without phenol) resin. And cascamite and Urac (and their likes) are formaldehyde-urea resins. And there are formaldehyde-melamine resins (used among others to make 'melamine' tableware - in fact a melamine-impregnated paper composite).

These resins are formaldehyde-X copolymers, in the simplest form a continuous chain of alternating formaldehyde and X chains, in which the formaldehyde units no longer even carry the aldehyde functions, are tightly bound, and not volatile any more.

All these resins are supplied as partially cured polymer (oligomer) form, precured to such an extent that they are still soluble, and can be made into a liquid glue or impregnation solution. In use they are then cured to final full (hard) polymer form.

Some formaldehyde resins - primarily the urea-formaldehyde types - can hydrolyse under constant wet conditions. This is the main cause of formaldehyde releases from particle board - which is almost always manufactured with UF glues. This only happens if the particle board is wet for extended times - which happens easily since particle board, once wet, will retain water for a long time. Not an issue with (properly varnished) bamboo. Additionally in earlier times cheap particle board would be manufactured with cheap UF glues, which were formulated with excess formaldehyde (which makes for faster and simpler precuring). These days there are hardly any excess-formaldehyde glues still available, and the formaldehyde release from particle board has reduced significantly.

So:
a] the glues and resins in the form we use them present no formaldehyde hazard, and
b] the risk of cured bamboo releasing formaldehyde over their lifetime, either from glue or from impregnation, is negligible, given the way it is handled (and the tiny amount of resin that is present in the first place).

[roycestearns]

THere's nothing particularly toxic about bakelite. Bakelites are phenol-formaldehyde resins - polymers; and actually the resins used to impregnate wood should not be identified as 'bakelite' as bakelite is a name that should designate a cured resin with filler (like bakelite phones or ashtrays or radios), not just a resin - unfortunately in later years the bakelite company started offering different resins under 'bakelite XXXX' denominations, with XXXX being numbers - the original Wes Jordan patent identifies the impregnation resin as well as the glue used to glue up the splines into blanks by their full product names and numbers.....

Thanks for all of that, an excellent explanation.