Calcutta vs Tonkin

This board is for discussing the repair and restoration of bamboo fly rods, makers discussion and construction techniques relating to same. Examples would be different techniques or methods used by restorationists and makers.

Moderator: Titelines

Post Reply
shoaliedude
Guide
Posts: 292
Joined: 09/19/13 14:28

Calcutta vs Tonkin

#1

Post by shoaliedude »

Has anybody here ever made two identical rods with the same taper - one from Tonkin and one from Calcutta - and performed a vigorous comparison of the plusses and minuses of each?

In reading this board, the general (vast?) consensus is that the switch from Calcutta to Tonkin took place because the latter built a better casting rod. However, Calcutta appears to have remained popular for a number of years after the advent of Tonkin, and appears to have been preferred by many fishermen. I do detect a disjointed, minority opinion here and elsewhere that Tonkin doesn't really make a better rod - but was simply cheaper to buy and cheaper to work. (Though one wonders why the industry didn't merely shift back to Calcutta when the embargo cut off supplies of Tonkin from China).

Does anybody here believe that Calcutta was as good as, or better than, Tonkin for purposes of building a better casting rod?

Has either shown better durability than the other after approximately a century?

(Forgive me if this is a dumb newbie question - I am a dumb newbie!)

bvandeuson
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2222
Joined: 07/31/12 06:21

Re: Calcutta vs Tonkin

#2

Post by bvandeuson »

Based on what I've read, Calcutta cane is somewhat softer than Tonkin, meaning it's more flexible. I believe also cheaper. They are different species of bamboo, and most likely grown under different conditions. I can't speak for the trade in general, but Garrison preferred Tonkin and I'm sure he had access to any that was available.

BB

John Shoff
Guide
Posts: 160
Joined: 02/14/12 11:40

Re: Calcutta vs Tonkin

#3

Post by John Shoff »

I did not consider a side by side comparison but, I have made a few rods with Calcutta. Particularly a Leonard 8' 6 wt and a Garrison 209E 7'8" 5 wt.
Both rods turned out nice but had very soft action (buggy whip type action). I know for a fact that the Calcutta cane I used had very little power fiber maybe 10-15 % of its thickness. So, with the proper heat treating you can make a rod with considerable fast action with Tonkin Bamboo. Utilizing the same heat treatment with Calcutta MAY get you to a medium action rod. Increasing the swell in the butt like a HI Tonka Queen taper may produce an acceptable rod. (both rods were stripped of the hardware and became fuel for my coal furnace and forced me to get aquainted with Andy Royer.I've never looked back.)
JS

User avatar
ewp313
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1889
Joined: 02/26/11 19:00
Location: Keep looking to the stars! / Siempre mira a las estrellas!

Re: Calcutta vs Tonkin

#4

Post by ewp313 »

Everything I have read on the subject points to a war, drought, or some other natural disaster or political unrest. Remember the British were the company wholesaling the stuff. Calcutta cane is a little harder and more time consuming to work with, mainly in the fact that only the lower 5ft of the material in Calcutta is suitable for rod making unlike Tonkin fibers runs the whole length with not issues making little waste.
My thought of why they didn't use Calcutta during the embargo was that the new material Fiberglass was huge, no turning back, certainly easier to use and make with less man hours. Bamboo was waning in popularity, too much labor cost, was not cost effective (Calcutta) because of the waste, and the big one by 1955 no one knew how to work with it/use it anymore.
The last one is improbable but you may have gotten the idea it was harder to work with and not cost effective, coupled with low demand because of new high tech products on the market, killed the old bamboo makers as sure as the embargo.
Another thought, I have a rod builder friend that makes all his rods from local South American cane. There are literally thousands of different types of cane on this planet and more being discovered annually, possibly some other cane may develop as the main cane for rod building in the future, possibly not. I can tell you this, South American cane makes a very nice casting and beautiful rod.
Which is better? Again hard to say most of those old original tapers, (that virtually every taper today is based) will get you a rod with whip like slower action. I like it personally I'm not in a hurry.
All my Varney's, high end round/hex Montague/Chubb's, and all other makers rods, made from Calcutta, cast and fish as designed, after a century or more, beautifully.
Mary Kelly had some interesting things to say on this subject.
Again, most if not all business decisions are tied to the economy's ups and downs and those poised to pull the strings. In the early days of the 20th C. many business theories were hatched which cost many people their jobs then and today, deprived the nation and individuals of some great wealth and products, helped to switch the corporate mind to reflect what we have today, "Maximize the shareholders wealth"! Rather than the old way of "Maximize the stakeholders wealth" in gentler earlier times of corporate thinking.
IMO, Ed

shoaliedude
Guide
Posts: 292
Joined: 09/19/13 14:28

Re: Calcutta vs Tonkin

#5

Post by shoaliedude »

bvandeuson wrote:Based on what I've read, Calcutta cane is somewhat softer than Tonkin, meaning it's more flexible. I believe also cheaper. They are different species of bamboo, and most likely grown under different conditions. I can't speak for the trade in general, but Garrison preferred Tonkin and I'm sure he had access to any that was available.

BB
Not really hung up on "fast." That's kind of why I'm leaving graphite and turning to bamboo. My journeys to the river are a brief escape from the speed of today's life, where I can slow down and smell both the flowers and the bedding fish. During my first experience with my Palakona, I said "Wow this is slow - and I love it."

Then again, I think baseball should be listened to on the radio - not watched on TV.

Is "Palakona" really just a trade name that Hardy uses for Calcutta? Given the British ties to India, one certainly makes that assumption.

User avatar
mer
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 2687
Joined: 03/22/04 19:00
Location: NH

Re: Calcutta vs Tonkin

#6

Post by mer »

Think of it this way, Calcutta physical properties are more like first generation graphites, Tonkin properties more like fourth generation graphite. Identical tapers, the Calcutta would be different, likely a lot slower (bend easier, slower to recover). But if you adjust the taper on the Calcutta you can make it more medium.

The executive summary: taper plus physical properties gives you a rod you want to fish with.

User avatar
Slate Drake 9
Bamboo Fanatic
Posts: 1288
Joined: 07/14/07 18:00

Re: Calcutta vs Tonkin

#7

Post by Slate Drake 9 »

Even though there are less power fibers in Calcutta, does it build as strong of a rod as Tonkin? I have a nice early 1900's Monty I suspect is Calcutta that I've been considering having refinished so I can fish it's lovely slow action. I've been concerned that it may not hold up because it is made from Calcutta.
Fishing with bait is like swearing in church.

Post Reply

Return to “Rod making, restoration, repairs and discussion on those related topics concerning bamboo rods.”