How 'bout a lesson from some of you historians . . .

0 Kudos

Author	Comment
lstshkr	How 'bout a lesson from some of you historians . . .		Lead	[-]
Posts: 321 10/28/2009 01:21	Tags : None One of the things that has intrigued and perplexed me the past few years is the existence of those really small fly reels that pop up every once-in-a-while. I have used a few "smaller" reels, but none smaller than 2.5" - it's all I can do to get a 4wt line on them with a smidgen of backing (I have owned a Golden West 60 and am currently using a Montague 80 on my lightest rod). One of my project reels is a 2.25" (1.75" spool) reel that needs a new side fabricated, but even if I complete this project, I have no idea what I'd use the reel for. I have also seen reels that were only 1.5" in diameter and can't even come close to imagining how they would be used. I'm assuming that tastes, styles of fishing, and lines have changed, but man, those reels are small! So that leads me to my question: What sort of rod and reel setups did fly fishermen of a century ago use that would accommodate these reels? What types of rods and lines would have been suitable for those really small reels? Have any of you used a setup with the tiny reels? What type of fishing might have been done with those really small reels? Just some late night wondering. Any responses will most certainly expand my knowledge, so feel free to chime in! Thanks, Dean D "I used to be clueless, but I've turned that situation around 360 degrees."
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
FWdB		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 585 10/28/2009 06:57	I'm no expert or historian, but one plausible theory about those very tiny reels is that they're most likely apprentice pieces. Logically that theory fails if there's a known production run of those reels or a documented catalogue listing. I also think that even in the distant past some people preferred to fish with light tackle. Knowing that traditional silk lines have a smaller diameter that equally "weighted" modern plastic lines, one didn't need the size reel one needs nowadays for basically the same kind of fishing. The smallest reel I personally use is a new LHW 2 5/8 inch Hardy Perfect. I use it with ultralight rods (bamboo and graphite) and a 2wt line. Wilfred The Lowlands Of Holland
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
BobS		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1154 10/28/2009 06:59	Can't help on history but can tell you how I use small reels, now. I have three under 2.5" diameter, all Godfreys: an original Bi-Metal 212, a Westminster 232, and a Heritage Bi 35. I fish these with 2-3wt lines on rods from a 6' 1 1/2 oz Leonard 37ACM to a 2 1/2+ oz 38 (with others in between). There's no problem with line capacity and the rod/reel size proportions look good to me. These combinations are for (usually) short casts on small-to-medium streams, for trout generally in the 8 - 14" range.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ray Hencken	Small reels	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 190 10/28/2009 07:57	Early horsehair and silk lines had a much smaller diameter than today's modern lines and therefore reels could be smaller in diameter and still hold sufficient line. Today, most of us use backing on our reels but I'm guessing, with the exception of salmon, steelhead, and saltwater anglers, we have never had a fish take us into the backing. The purpose of the backing is to fill up the spool for the fly line.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
bulldog1935		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 7573 10/28/2009 13:48 Bulldog1935	Ray has the answer: 60 yds of silk is pretty small stuff the rods are never obsolete - the marketing is.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Larry Swearingen		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 427 10/28/2009 13:50	And ..............ya didn't need a heavy line to toss bait ! Larry Swearingen Fort Wayne, IN New Hoosier
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
mr flymph		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 231 10/28/2009 14:11	Ray Hencken wrote: but I'm guessing, with the exception of salmon, steelhead, and saltwater anglers, we have never had a fish take us into the backing. The purpose of the backing is to fill up the spool for the fly line. Oh Ray I must disagree. While fishing the Missouri this past August, every one of those big brown trout I caught took me into the backing, and usually in about 2 seconds! I will admit that was a first for me.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ray Hencken		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 191 10/29/2009 09:49	Assuming that you were fishing with a 90' fly line and had 30' of line off the reel when those fish started to run, they pulled off 60 ft of line in 2 sec., they were swimming away at about 20.5 miles per hour! 60ft x 1mile x 3600sec. =20.45 miles/hr. 2 sec x 5280 ft x 1 hr
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
mr flymph		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 233 10/29/2009 10:14	I would estimate it at more like 35 MPH! or, may be time stood still. Nevertheless, I was easily into the backing on several fish and I wasn't the only one. It's not uncommon at all for a trout or bass to take you into the backing. These ain't no little brook trout. Last Edited By: mr flymph 10/29/2009 10:20. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
alpom		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 346 10/29/2009 15:08	i use 25/8 perfect with Thebault 15 Meter #5 line and ~80 backing. 49 feet + leader gives me more casting distance that i need
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
lstshkr		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 324 10/29/2009 16:28	After reading these replies, I guess I can see the logic in how the small reels are used. I have never gotten into the backing on any of my rods, and on my most successful day of fishing, I barely got into the line! I was fishing pocket water in Rocky Mountain National Park, and I'm pretty sure I didn't even do a backcast (everything was roll casting). The only times I have had most of my line out have been when I strip the line to float a fly downstream. And to add to the small reel experience, I just got a little Golden West 80 yd reel to restore (I'll post that later). But I still am curious about those 1 1/2 inch reels. Dean D "I used to be clueless, but I've turned that situation around 360 degrees."
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
WW		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 15 10/29/2009 20:44	lstshkr wrote: But I still am curious about those 1 1/2 inch reels. Panfish...
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
lstshkr		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 325 10/29/2009 22:36	WW wrote: Panfish... Ahhhh . . . Makes sense. "I used to be clueless, but I've turned that situation around 360 degrees."
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
FWdB		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 592 10/30/2009 03:58	I've always wondered about the rods that these reels were used with. Fly rods that, especially in those days, would be described as "ultralight" are very rare (much more than the reels) as far as I know. Could be that reels have much more chance to survive than a little bamboo wand. Wilfred The Lowlands Of Holland
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Short Tip		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1310 10/30/2009 12:15 Moderator	At the time many of these tiny reels were made, they weren't really "fly reels" - they were just "reels", for bait fishing, etc. The modern "baitcasting" or "Kentucky" reel was just coming into use and quite expensive at first. The early winches saw all sorts of use, and are still found today with cuttyhunk or similar line on them. "When all the rods and a lot of reels, lines, leader boxes, et cetera, had been sold, the gang paid at the cashier's window for what they'd bought and then made a bee line for the rug room to test their rods. I put mine together, tested it for a moment or so, and then started to show it to men I knew. Not a man was interested in my rod. They all, without a single exception, tried to get me to look at theirs. Extraordinary, how self centered most men are. Have you noticed it? "
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
bulldog1935		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 7586 10/30/2009 13:01 Bulldog1935	Good point, Paul, then there was an on-going debate about reel position in front or in back of the handle, and up or down on the rod. Doc Henshall stated that the correct way to use a baitcaster was reel up during the cast for thumbing the spool, then drop the reel to the bottom side and reel "backwards" to retrieve. the rods are never obsolete - the marketing is.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ray Hencken		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 192 10/30/2009 15:37	mr flymph wrote: I would estimate it at more like 35 MPH! or, may be time stood still. Nevertheless, I was easily into the backing on several fish and I wasn't the only one. It's not uncommon at all for a trout or bass to take you into the backing. These ain't no little brook trout. I wasn't refering to little brook trout! While fishing in Montana and Idaho, I have hooked and landed wild rainbow trout to 23" (5 lbs.) and wild browns to 27" (8 lbs.) and have never had any of those fish take me into the backing and I was wade fishing not fishing in a drift boat or on a pontoon boat. Check the math, those fish certainly were not swimming at 35 m.p.h. As far as bass are concerned (I assume you are referring to largemouth or smallmouth black bass) , they typically swim in short bursts of 20-35 feet and don't take off in sustained runs of 60 feet or longer. Striped bass on the other hand are likely to take off on a long run after being hooked. Especially those that weigh in double digits.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
mr flymph		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 236 10/30/2009 16:15	Actually, I think it was more like 45 MPH! C'mon Ray, lighten up! 2 seconds was just a figure of speech! I didn't pull out a stop watch and time it, my knees were shaking too bad! Whether or not a trout has taken you into the backing should probably be the subject of another thread. Maybe I'll start one.....
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
kimk		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 692 10/30/2009 21:10	I believe that Short Tip is on the mark with this one. E.R. Hewitt was one of the early champions of the dry fly and his "Telling on the Trout" did not come out until 1926. Previous to Hewitt and a few of his contemporaries, fly fishing was usually wet flies, fished downstream with a long rod. The same rod was also used to fish any form of likely bait, crickets, earthworms, shiners, crayfish. This ecumenical attitude toward all forms of fishing can be seen in Bergmans "Trout" as late as the mid 30's. In Buzzacoti's "The Complete American & Canadian Sportsmans Encyclopaedia of Valuable Instruction" Revised 1913, the section on "Surface or Fly Fishing" is devoted exclusivly to the use of live baits such as grass hoppers, beetles "or insect of some kind". The section on "Artificial Fly Fishing or Casting" deals only with wet flies and recomends " a light, single action, click reel, and 50 to 75 yards of silk casting line" . The instructions for fishing begin "unreel about 20 feet of line, toss your flies gently into the stream and let them float down with the current." Nowhere are dry flies mentioned. AgMD
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
pcg		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3486 10/31/2009 09:43 Admin	The popularity of dry fly rods actually began about 1912-1916. A number of makers started crafting short rods, including Divine, Leonard, Edwards & Hawes. These (typically) 7-footers were solely designed for dry fly casting. But the existence of the short rods does not necessarily justify the tiny reels. Historically, an interesting side note is that when these 7-footers began appearing, many traditionalists considered them "women's rods." And indeed, it was not uncommon for well-to-do sports to take along their daughters or wives for an afternoon of fishing. The short rods were perfect, as they were proportionally lighter. Think of Theodore Gordon, one of the first proponents of dry fly fishing. His rods were 10- to 12-footers. He was still fishing these one-handed poles long after the short rods had made their sensational appearance. Is it possible that the diminutive reels were children's reels, made in small batches for youngsters? One of these coupled with a 5 or 6-foot rod would be a super starter kit. One of us is crazy in fishing and forget time. And the other take part only in the party at night. --Yoshikazu Fujioka
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Short Tip		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1316 11/01/2009 17:46 Moderator	I think you guys are overthinking this a little........ These weren't even necessarily used on fly rods. They were just line holders to be strapped to any rod available. Not used for casting, just to store the line and have a little extra for "the big one". Similar models in metal and plastic are still sold today for crappie and ice fishermen. There are a lot more little reels around than there are 7 foot rods built between 1912 and 1916. I think the dry fly revolution was mainly a change in rod action, it did lead to some shorter length rods but the greatest number of rods sold were in the 8-9 foot range, just like today. I'm not aware of any retailer or manufacturer marketing a "children's reel", but what do I know? "When all the rods and a lot of reels, lines, leader boxes, et cetera, had been sold, the gang paid at the cashier's window for what they'd bought and then made a bee line for the rug room to test their rods. I put mine together, tested it for a moment or so, and then started to show it to men I knew. Not a man was interested in my rod. They all, without a single exception, tried to get me to look at theirs. Extraordinary, how self centered most men are. Have you noticed it? "
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

How 'bout a lesson from some of you historians . . .

How 'bout a lesson from some of you historians . . .