Why?

0 Kudos

Author	Comment
nwdlj	Why?		Lead	[-]
Posts: 127 11/19/2009 13:51	Tags : None Since its just us "collector's" here that basically determine the valuations that rods get, I have asked myself about why I will put a premium on a rod that still has its original wraps vs one that has been rewrapped with absolutely the proper silk threads in the same exact manner as the original...I see it all the time with a Payne that has "original" wraps and varnish and a Payne that has been restored by someone in the same manner as say maybe Steve Blake who is probably the gold standard of restoration...now I would posit for discussion purposes only that if it wasn't disclosed that Steve did the refinish/rewrap that no one could probably tell the difference...I have to admit to also doing this "subjective" valuation but also will say that its a PITA as I typically want to fish these rods and to have fragile wraps and suspect varnish makes that an impossibility...but to rewrap the rod and put a good coat of varnish on to protect it just knocks the value down significantly...so why do we do this? Is it an ego thing? Is the drop in valuation that much? I had in my hands a stunning very early 8' 3/2 Heddon 120 that Dave Male had restored and stupidly passed on it because I felt that it was too valuable to fish and should be in the hands of a collector...I wish I had that rod back and could fish it like it was meant to be because Dave had not only rewrapped unfishable wraps but also put the proper guides on it to fish it today...it was my own thinking that made me pass as the work was impeccable, there was nothing wrong with the rod and all that was right about it. I am restoring a lot of rods now and am trying as hard as possible to keep original wraps even tho I have the correct, original threads to rewrap them properly in total...and maybe even crazier is that most of the manufacturers back would use different threads according to what they had on hand so there is no absolute standard from what I have seen, variations are actually the standard practice imo. Correct me if i am wrong, I seem to remember a box of threads from I think from the Payne wrapping operation that had several different shades of Payne java brown...so why do we chase our tails in this madness? Is it that we have put bamboo rods into the oil painting category where its the master's hand that is valued and paintings that one can't tell the difference between master and student will command premiums when its verified from whom the painting originated? But bamboo rods aren't art, they are items of utility... The vintage auto industry pays a premium for a period restoration that takes out all the oxidized paint, aged unusable parts and dents and such and it then becomes a very valuable commodity, they even proudly admit to using non original replacement body parts. They pay extra for a vintage car that they can drive around, showing it off...A static non flying example of a P-51 Mustang is about 25% of the value of a flying restoration...its goes on and on with utilitarian items...Why not a beautiful restoration of a bamboo rod commanding as high a price as an original, aged varnish, fragile wraps rod? Particularly if its now usable? Its got to be us that are doing this as I know of no other group who buys these items...so why not bamboo rods? Btw, my apologies if this seems a bit over the top as yes, this is a troll just to see what forum members are willing to write about this subject, kind of in response to the "we've lost our way" where it seemed like a discussion of various viewpoints on germain subjects was desired...another member with whom I have had these types on conversations said I should post the topic...so I guess that I am just trying to stir the pot a bit so to speak, not saying that I am in any way an expert or even taking a stance one way or the other, just hoping for a discourse on how others think about this...dj Last Edited By: nwdlj 11/19/2009 13:54. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
oldtrout		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 136 11/19/2009 16:27	My opinion... because we're obsessive idiots. There is no sane reason for what we do and why we do it. For some reason, we just love rods and no matter how many we've acquired, it's never enough. No offense meant as I can only really speak for myself. I know for me, if I had stopped the insanity with the first bamboo rod I purchased, a W. Powell Golden Signature (two butts of different lengths and two tips, which convert to a 7"6" & 8'6", perfectly suited for 4-6 wt lines), I might be infinitely satisfied. But alas, it seems I'm an addict. At least it's not drugs! But having no experience with drugs that may be an erroneous paradigm. They're fishing tools and need to be fished to be appreciated in totality (IMO). Some are happy to just pull them out now and then to admire for the fine works of art they certainly are, but if the rod doesn't speak to me on the water, it may as well be a painting or sculpture or something to be looked at and admired. I'd rather do that with a Van Gough or a pet rock or the like. For those of you who collect but not fish the rods (and there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion), who are you saving these rods for? Who is better than you are that they should be able to acquire these unfished rods in the future? Life is way too short for that, at least it is for me. I'm a "purger", if there's something I 'm not using then I feel I don't need it and it's gone. Which helps make room for the next useless object I decide I must have. Last Edited By: oldtrout 11/19/2009 17:56. Edited 4 times.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
bdcanefly		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 916 11/19/2009 16:57	I will be the first to admit that I have not fished in over a year... But, I have a few rods that are original that I still will fish. What do you want to hear?? We have to have a 'PRIZE" in collecting. it is the unrestored original. the beter shape the more $$$$$$ it will fetch. To me, I have both I have a Hawes 8' refinished by a "pro" and an Hawes 8'6" unrefinished. you would think the 8' ft rod would be worth more, but I am not sure..... But my saying is and has been... "bamboo rods were made to fish...so fish them!" BDC
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
greendrake ll		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1128 11/19/2009 17:14	I'd say that you both have it nailed.Bamboo rod users and collectors are(for the most part) quirky,anal,obsessive compulsive types that no matter how adapt they are in the rest of their life seem to lose all common sense when it comes to this item.The sad part of it is,most of them cannot see it.They have elevated the rods to icon status. Then there are those of us who realize that after all is said and done,at the end of the day they are a fishing rod.Nothing more,nothing less! No matter what shape they are in or how gussied up and fancy they are,the fact remains the same.They are a fishing rod. I know only a handful of members on this forum personally but I could name which catagory all the members that post on a regular basis would fit in.Being human I could possibly make a mistake but would be willing to bet that I would run a 90% ratio of being correct. Of course I won't name names as I am going to have enough trouble dodging all the rocks that are gonna be thrown as it is. Will
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Peales		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 48 11/19/2009 17:48	Good question here, it will be interesting to see how the responses stack-up. I'm of the opinion that a lot of the aesthetics of a rod are revealed in the silks and the varnish. A lot of the original builders built rods to standards using specific techniques and materials. These variables maybe evolved over time but the guy(s) putting it all together maintained their own unique sensibilities. Those sensibilities can't be duplicated. Original is original, it cannot be duplicated at any cost. There are those restorers who know the twist of the silk and take note of the actual number of wraps and whip-finish details. A restored rod might be identical to the original for 99% of the buyers, but there is that one person-maybe Steve Blake-who could see or sense that something is amiss. We have all seen rods in which the refinish is reported to be first-rate and it isn't anything of the kind. I think this is far more common than a restoration matching or exceeding the original. It won't matter to a trout. But to a collector-some of whom have maybe never caught a trout-it makes all the difference in the world. As a builder; I would like to know that the rod I'm studying is the the original, I don't want to take my lessons from a replica, I would rather have original information. Take it from another point of view; would you want the restoration to exceed the quality of the original silks and finish? Would that utilitarian quality of a Young rod be as charmed or nostalgic if the silks and finish were executed at the level of a Payne? Last Edited By: Peales 11/19/2009 17:59. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Flyman615	Why not?	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3484 11/19/2009 18:27	If I can make a comparison that's been voiced before, there's an axiom in the classic car hobby that goes, "It's only original once." In a nut shell, that's why no matter how good a restoration is, an original rod or car in excellent condition will always be worth more. To most of us, that is. But to take the car analogy one step further, there are classic cars that are indeed labeled as "over restored". That is, the restoration is so well done that it's much better than the condition of the car when it left the factory as new. Again, many times this actually hurts the value in the market place, albeit perhaps not as much as a low quality or amateur restoration. However, that said, there are plenty of rods that are well worth restoring for purposes of fishing or collecting them, IMO. I, for one, cannot understand the rationale behind professing that, "I'll never own a rod that's been restored". OK, but why not? Are you operating a museum? Most of us aren't. Besides, many worthy rods are in need of some TLC to keep them fishable or to prevent them from propping up tomato plants in some non-fisherman's wife's garden. And what's wrong with a little TLC? Regards, Flyman "There are three things in life that people like to stare at: a flowing stream, a crackling fire and a Zamboni clearing the ice."-Charlie Brown Last Edited By: Flyman615 11/20/2009 00:32. Edited 3 times.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
bobbeegee		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3263 11/19/2009 18:29	I'll echo Peales statement that this a good question. The kind, personally, I would like to see more of. Not being a collector, I really can't speak from their perspective but I guess it's like all true collectors, they want their collectibles to be as close to original as possible? Being a fisherman of my rods I'm happy with a good sound sweet casting tool that I enjoy trying to fool a fish with. If I do have a rod refinished or restored I do want it to be recognizable as to wraps, etc. I'm not that concerned that the guides be original, as long as they are appropriate to the rod. A common mans perspective, I guess? bobbyg
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
peacefisher		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 51 11/19/2009 18:35	Another reason restored rods are not worth what originals are is because it is to easy to make repair parts (ferrules/new sections/grips) during the restoration . The restored rod ends up being a percentage of what it was even though no one can tell.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Moucheur		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 48 11/19/2009 19:03	This is a really interesting question. Looking at still other areas, does anyone suppose that restoring the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel diminished its worth? Or that the White House--which was such a wreck during a good part of his tenure in office that Truman spent several years living in Blair House--would be a better symbol of the Presidency if it had been left alone. Maybe the difference is that many things that people want to use as well as preserve need some expert TLC to keep them going. Seems like it's the difference between great rods for fishing and great rods just to gaze at. The result is a pretty good deal for those of us who are unable or unwilling to pay up and up and up for great old rods that we want to fish
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
quashnet		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2888 11/20/2009 00:06 Moderatus Muscae	A great thread, and the comparison between Payne and Young is helpful. Young assembled his early rods from various components and was never hesitant about altering and modifying rods either for positive reasons of creativity and innovation or - influenced by the Depression, war years and hard times - for reasons of necessity. I believe that stringent concerns about restoration would have seemed unnecessarily extreme to him. The top two rods in the photo look original to me. Are they? First rod, PHY Para 17, serial #2226, built very late 1956 or early 1957 by Paul H. Young. Looks original, and is original. Second rod, PHY Para 15, serial #4378, built September 20, 1967 by Bob Summers. Looks original, is not original. Non-original elements include: Rod was originally varnished. Was changed to oil finish by Bob Summers, July 1974. New guides, work by Bob Summers, July 1974. Flaking on ferrule addressed by Bob Summers, July 1974. Rod was originally inked with first owner's name. Now inked with second owner's name (I am third owner). Original rod tube was damaged. Second owner acquired replacement tube. Replacement bag, in Royal Stewart plaid fabric. Second owner did not like PHY Co. standard bags, so had rod bags specially made. Bob Summers repaired the ferrule by removal, making a new disk, soldering the disk in place, and replacing ferrule. This cost $9.50. March 22, 1976. PHY shop ledger lists the reel seat of #4378 as "2-band" but it is a screwlock seat! Seat could have been changed, BUT the ledger entry may be incorrect, because a contemporary of the first owner, who fished with him and who cast this rod many years ago, told me that the screwlock cork seat is indeed original. The third rod? Oh, that's my Martha Marie. You can see that the cork handle is new (the cork in the reel seat is original). Forty-seven years after building the first cork grip, Bob Summers replaced it with this second cork grip. Dimensions are almost exactly the same as the original grip. When the new grip gets some dirt on it, would this change matter to you? Does it matter less since the original builder made the alteration? BTW, when acquired by me in 1990, this rod, built in 1962, had a replacement Lyle Dickerson wire loop hookkeeper, and came in a Lyle Dickerson tube. Apparently Dickerson did not insist on authentic restorations. The fourth rod is an early Driggs. All-original, or modified? You decide! Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of 500 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories, etc. Thank you to all who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Gnome		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2344 11/20/2009 09:32 King of the Gnomes	nwdlj Wrote "But bamboo rods aren't art" Art is in the eye of the beholder and it is sad that a limitation has been put on an object that can achieve utility while being a piece of art at the same time. Jeff
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
mer		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3301 11/20/2009 10:04	My two cents on "bamboo rods aren't art", more or less, since I'm not a "collector" of bamboo fly rods. I just like to fish them, so I don't have any "real" Paynes/PHY's/Gilliums/Garrisons. What is the fundamental reason of "Art"? Most people seem to agree that "Art" is something that evokes a visceral feeling, an emotion in a person; something that is deep inside, something that is different for everyone that beholds a piece of "Art". Can you honestly say that seeing, holding, using a bamboo fly rod doesn't stir something inside of you? Eric Sloane's book, "A Museum of Early American Tools" has a story about a modern art show, at one of those places where people walk around with their nose in the air. One of favorite pieces was a piece of steel that "curved like a bird's wing". When people found out that it was actually an Early American goose wing broad axe, they felt cheated. "How can an old axe head be a work of art"? Graceful lines, a sense of purpose, a sum greater than the individual bits. Hell yes, a bamboo fly rod is art. Even the bluest of blue collar cane; they're just the "poker playing dogs on velvet" type of art. As for the restoration bits, not a collector so I have no opinion on that. Just my opinions, as stated previously if one disagrees or thinks I'm FOS, then just ignore anything I have to say...
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
BlackHillsBill	Our Balancing Act	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3152 11/20/2009 11:39	This thread cuts to the chase--the insolvable dilemma but main business of the forum: collecting to look at, not modifying or "restoring," maintaining originality; or, restoring with TLC because it's the best fishing rod one is likely ever to have in his hands and he will either fish it or break out in hives. It's an excellent thread, nwdlj. As to how go about things, Scott (Flyman615) has the balancing act in better shape than anyone else I know. The matter of the fly rod as art, Jeff, may be analogous to Maris's homerun record--that is, requiring an asterisk in the eyes of some beholders. We all have been told several times over that an Ari 't Hart reel is on display in the Architecture and Design Collection of The Museum of Modern Art in New York and that he works out of a studio in Holland, no doubt better furnished than van Gogh's was, because Hart, after all, is a very accomplished industrial designer. Maybe he has long enough coattails to pull in some rodmakers behind him. Over the years, my wife (who has a great eye) has enhanced our home with a variety of paintings and pots, work by friends in the academic circuit. Some of them are very talented. Consequently the vaule of their work has appreciated so much in our eyes it will never be sold. Mainly that work exists to be looked at--a miraculous thing the entire cosmetics industry has been unable to achieve for its customers. I admit I have a tad more affection for the pots than for the paintings. If push ever came to shove, you see, we could put flowers or my dad's coin collection in them and be assured we were doing our share to balance art with utility. I feel the same way about the sixteen bamboo fly rods I have in a rack next to a Brunswick pool table. They are of course a treat for the eyes and a great distraction for my friend Ron, a very good nine-ball player and fly fisherman. I prefer his nine-ball game when it's suffering from distractions. But I like my rods best when they're being fished and therefore in the milieu that completes them. Even so I'd happily give up my only Hart reel if the sale would help fetch the opportunity to look at van Goghs all day.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
nwdlj	Thanks	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 130 11/20/2009 12:24	thanks to all for answering as it was what I had hoped would come from this very obvious troll...I put in several specific troll statements that I hoped would evoke responses and definitely got some...the "art" comment was very specifically directed to my personal feelings of what happens to me when I get something like these rods in my hand...they do evoke that "art" feeling in me and I have trouble disconnecting from that...as I stated, when I got that Heddon 120 from Dave Male, even tho it was a total rewrap restoration, I had a hard time thinking of just fishing it, it was that pretty an object to me, add in when I looked it up and realized its historical significance, then that shot it down for me just to fish and I felt that it needed to be a collector's rod and told Dave that....and now wish I had it to fish...so this "why?" question is something I wrestle with all the time... Quashnets' response was great as it represents in pictures what I was trying to write about...all of those decisions that have to be made when we deal with these vintage rods, regardless of whether they are PHY's classics or H&I low end rods...thanks for taking the time and effort to post a pictorial response as I enjoyed it and will go back and look over it in detail several times to look at the pics and read about them. I do have this desire to consider these rods as utilitarian and did just that with the Gene Edwards Sprite that I got from a forum member...it still had the plastic on the handle and I had no reservations about taking it off and fishing it this year, so that side of me definitely is there, not to say that the rod wasn't beautiful as it was, it was just able to be fished without any reservation...it competes with the "art" feeling side as I am not a collector per se, I am a flyfisher first and always... I just seem to end up as a collector when it warrants...I fell into a 8' Heddon 35 Featherweight 0F Classic Era, cedar spacer reelseat that I am agonizing over as it needs a full restore with new guides, varnish and such....but that then destroys that its in adequate condition to view as a total original since its all there, guides, writing, handle, bag, tube, etc...so I go back and forth about that one, keep it original only to look at or do a full strip down and restore to be able to fish (you don't come across 8' 0F Featherweights often)...most likely I am going with saving up some bucks and seeing if Dave Male would build me one for me to fish...I did that with AJ on a Payne 204L and am very happy so maybe that is the way to go...It will solve two desires, the first to keep the Model 35 original and the second to fish a Dave Male rod... This subject I would hope shows how I feel about these objects, the utilitarian side and the art side, as I am totally pouring my retirement into this...to me at least, it looks like it depends on what we feel inside ourselves about the object itself as it represents a lot of evocative emotions. When I started posting on this forum, it was about how I had bought a rod because of what I did to my grandfather's rods that I had inherited at age 10...those feelings of guilt definitely helped me to push my purchase price to the level that it ended at...most of my conversations and communications with others that I have met thru the forum, usually get involved with how we both feel about a subject, not necessarily bamboo rods,tomatoes even oddly enough. These rods do definitely have an importance in our lives that transcends pure utilitarian or monetary aspects. I like that we all seem to have this depth of feeling about these rods and passion about both the sport of flyfishing and the craft of bamboo rod making, artful as it is...again, thanks for the responses...Dallas
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
tedgolden		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3084 11/20/2009 13:43 Moderator	I have always felt this is a metaphysical question. Does form trump function? Does beauty supersede utility? I suppose it depends where one is on the food chain, so to speak. May both qualities, beauty and utility, be appreciated equally? If so, is this not the desired state? But is this balance act attainable? I don't think so. But we can come close. Apparently use diminishes beauty as depreciation undoubtedly occurs. Fortunately use enhances the value to the user. What a confused state. I remain clueless. Drew
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
OnlyTrout		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 143 11/20/2009 14:09	After reading much here I am now not quite sure what the question is, but I will add my opinion anyway. If I have missed the mark here I apologize. I think the question was why does restoration to original "master" rods devalue them. I can only say that I think it's because some other hand - other than the original master creator - has touched up the rod. Now I understand that the restoration job may indeed make the rod actually look better than the original, but then it does not look like the original - exactly. Even though restoration should not affect the performance of the rod, still someone other than the creator has altered the rod and maybe way back in the corner of our brains we may ponder that since someone other than the creator has done work on the rod that maybe somehow the performance has been altered - thus the devalued result. If I may ramble on, there is a lot of discussion about master rods being art. Many of you here are far more qualified to speak about this than me. I can only add that I believe that most rod makers do not look at their rods that way - because they can always make another that performance wise and cosmetically can match one that has been destroyed or abused - so it's no big deal. As for myself, I have never wanted to leave a rod or reel on the shelf just to admire because 1) you only go around once so why not enjoy the trip and use the best you have, 2) just admiring these works of "art" and not actually using them leaves an empty feeling in my soul and 3) there has to be better investments out there than this tackle (although I know this is subjective, it can be argued both ways). This thread was very interesting to think about.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
quashnet		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2889 11/20/2009 14:45 Moderatus Muscae	At Rhode Island School of Design, my alma mater, there were many degree programs but eventually it boiled down to being in either the Fine Arts Division or the Design Division, with correspondingly varied emphases on surface appearance and underlying utility. As one who came out of the Design Division I always liked this quote from RISD professor John Howard Benson; in 1950 he wrote: "Art is the imposition of a Mental Image upon Material, by certain Means, for a given End." That gives you a lot of leeway to work with, but it's not as bland as it at first seems, not when you know that Benson's first concern was that the end or purpose of the thing being made should be the first concern of the intelligent artist. He also made a great emphasis on knowing the full usefulness and function of your tools, and on becoming completely familiar with the properties of your working materials, because in his view you can't produce good work if you treat materials without reference to their nature. Perfect work was, for Benson, per fectum - "thoroughly made" was his translation from the Latin. So this is an old-school view, and it lends itself very well to the making and, if necessary, the restoration of bamboo fly rods. This view assumes that the making of a useful object implies use over time by the owner, and so it does not address a collector's insistence on pristine, unused condition. My view is that appropriate restoration can in and of itself be good work. Part of the provenance of a collectible item is built up, over time and through generations, by the documented use of patrons. Thus I see little if any difference in value between my unmodified Para 17 and my modified Para 15. Most people who held the Para 15 would never know about the modifications unless I disclosed them. They are documented with regard to dates and work done, they were all made by the original builder, and they have been seamlessly integrated into the overall appearance and purposefulness of the rod. Restoration not made with these principles in mind would, of course, reduce the standing of a rod with regard to value, usefulness, and appearance. Beyond objects like fly rods or goose wing broad axes, even paintings can have usefulness, and may need restoration. In the 1970s, the Sistine Chapel restoration was very controversial. Critics of restoration said that Michaelangelo had deliberatedly muted his colors with overlaid washes of charcoal and grey pigments. Proponents of restoration said that centuries of soot had hidden Michaelangelo's true intentions. Once restoration had begun, there was no turning back. Do you think it was a good idea? Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of 500 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories, etc. Thank you to all who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Boo.fiberglassflyro...		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 237 11/20/2009 15:13	The rod itself is the tool, like the brush handle is to the painter, the line the paint, and the fly the brush. The water the canvas.....Isn't the art in fishing the rod? The artist the fisher? Last Edited By: Boo 11/20/2009 15:15. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
bobbeegee		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3264 11/20/2009 15:52	Boo wrote: The rod itself is the tool, like the brush handle is to the painter, the line the paint, and the fly the brush. The water the canvas.....Isn't the art in fishing the rod? The artist the fisher? Interesting thought. Never once thought of myself as an artist. Gotta tell my wife so she can get a good belly laugh. Bob
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
BlackHillsBill	Restoration	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3153 11/20/2009 16:04	I know this is waffling, Quash. But I don't think of it as a good or bad idea, rather as a necessary one. Several years ago (I'll never forget) I actually got to stand in the Parthenon, because our course leader knew someone who had pull with one of the architects in charge of the restoration. He told us industrial and vehicular emissions in Athens made restoration not only necessary but urgent. If we wanted to help, he said, we should persuade the Brits to relinquish the "Elgin" marbles for replacement in the restored frieze, making it truly authentic. Restoration of artifacts of the culture which made us who we are, restoration in order to leave some clues for those who come after is always necessary. In the case of classic fly rods, this means they will be able to heft them, waggle them, and cast them as we have. Otherwise they might think we got this way by accident. Boo makes a very good point. The art of the bamboo rod isn't complete until a fisher takes the rod in hand and fishes it. Rodmakers are adamant about that. Last Edited By: BlackHillsBill 11/20/2009 16:13. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Boo.fiberglassflyro...		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 238 11/20/2009 16:13	bobbeegee wrote: Boo wrote: The rod itself is the tool, like the brush handle is to the painter, the line the paint, and the fly the brush. The water the canvas.....Isn't the art in fishing the rod? The artist the fisher? Interesting thought. Never once thought of myself as an artist. Gotta tell my wife so she can get a good belly laugh. Bob Well, it doesn't mean your a Michaelangelo. It depends on your finesse. You may be on par with a 4 year old. But, an artist nonetheless.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Why?

Why?