Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 (3)


Re: Old rod: what line weight do I use on it?

Joined:
2008/5/29 15:28
From Lititz/Huntingdon
Posts: 930
Offline
Quote:

shakey wrote:
Quote:

bikerfish wrote:
Quote:

gfen wrote:
There are no 8'6" fiberglass rods in the 1960s. Period. There aren't gonna be any 5wt rods, either, in that length, either.
.


????
no 8'6"???
I have 6 or 7 in that length.


i think he meant to say 8'6" FOUR weights.

anyway HI is one of my favorite brands.most of the hype against them is based on a few lines in a geirich book.

which i like because that keeps the prices down!

to the op,beautiful rod,prob a six ,but in the superior glass that can mean it could work from 5-7.

go fish the heck out of it.a six in glass is not too heavy because it fights like a four




Well stated Shakey. I almost always take it with on a trip as a 3rd back up. HI stuff is always low in cost and although it stinks to break one. Hit yard sales and flea markets and pick up another one or two. I said in another post here on the thread that I have a Fenwick also. That one there is a sweet little piece of glass too. I think I got my HI for $7.00 or so.

Posted on: 2013/9/20 10:24
_________________
Do'n It Right On The Wrong Side Of Town

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZif22PVohg

The four most effective weapons for taking anothers possessions:
4) knife
3) gun
2) lawyer
1) politician


Re: Old rod: what line weight do I use on it?

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18108
Offline
Tups, I still don't think the 130 has anything do to with line weight. Even that site that you provided had discussions about how those early fiberglass rods didn't have any weight designation.

As far as 1308 1/2 goes, I believe the numbering was carried over from bamboo rods. A couple manufacturers used similar numbers. In fact, I believe H-I even sold one called a Lucky Strike which was 8 foot and labeled 1308. It wasn't a 4 weight.

Heddon might have had similar numbering.

I have an old Shakespeare Spring Brook with model number A-1362 B. Actually made by South Bend. It is every bit of an 8 weight although one could possibly get by with a 7DT. The "B" stands for bass weight. Owned another Springbrook 1362 (no B) and it cast about the same. Both very heavy 9 foot rods.

But if the guy has a 5 wt line, then starting with a 5 weight would be fine. However, since he never fished those old rods, he might not have any idea of the feel. I picked 6 because I figured it wouldn't be any heavier than that, and likely heavier.

It's just my opinion so I could be wrong. I tried to find info on what the numbers meant in the model but was unsuccessful. They likely mean something, but I found nothing to indicate what they mean.

BTW, I love the old H-I stuff.

Posted on: 2013/9/20 10:37
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Old rod: what line weight do I use on it?

Joined:
2006/9/11 11:30
Posts: 579
Offline
Just looked up some stuff and the 1308 1/2 appears in the 1955 catalog as the Lucky Strike and cost $8.50, which is at the low end of the scale. It is listed as "light action", but that could mean 6 wt. I don't think 4 wt rods became common/available until the late 60's early 70's. The 1200 6' 9" Queen Elizabeth rod HI rod cost $20 and some people claim it is a 4 wt. A 5 wt rod was a light rod in the mid 60's - unless you sprung for a high end cane rod. This is why some of us old timers chuckle when we hear someone claim you need a 2 or 3 wt to fish tricos or small streams since people did those things successfully before the current light rods were available.

In 1955 the line rating system wasn't in place. The number is just a product number, although the 8 1/2 probably stands for 8 1/2 feet long since that is how the standard product appear to be numbered; the high end rods don't seem to follow that though.


Posted on: 2013/9/20 20:47


Re: Old rod: what line weight do I use on it?

Joined:
2013/8/6 21:44
Posts: 841
Offline
Quote:

JeffK wrote:
A 5 wt rod was a light rod in the mid 60's - unless you sprung for a high end cane rod. This is why some of us old timers chuckle when we hear someone claim you need a 2 or 3 wt to fish tricos or small streams since people did those things successfully before the current light rods were available.



I find this an interesting statement. I don't consider my 3wt a necessity at all, it's more of a specialized tool to make my fishing more enjoyable to me. I've done everything I do with my 3wt with my 5wt before I had said 3wt. That includes dry flies down to size 24.

Posted on: 2013/9/20 21:31


Re: Old rod: what line weight do I use on it?

Joined:
2013/7/30 17:16
From Fairborn, OH
Posts: 295
Offline
Wow - thank you, JeffK! That's extremely cool info. If it's anywhere near as old as that, I'm incredibly taken by how well it has stood the test of time. I was curious if this was a Lucky Strike model because all of the other example with similar model numbers were, but I could never find one that was an exact match identified as such.

Also, I attached a couple more pics of the rod taken from a wider angle along with a closeup of one of the guides. The hardware appears very much intact.

Attach file:



jpg  Horrocks-Ibbitson Lucky Strike - wide angle.jpg (118.00 KB)
9144_523cfe75c3f65.jpg 500X750 px

jpg  Horrocks-Ibbitson Lucky Strike - guide.jpg (76.97 KB)
9144_523cfe8010b9d.jpg 500X750 px

Posted on: 2013/9/20 22:04


Re: Old rod: what line weight do I use on it?

Joined:
2006/9/11 11:30
Posts: 579
Offline
I didn't look close enough. I think that is a rod from the early 60's. I think the thermoweld process came about then (HI was great with marketing stuff) and the mylar underwraps with a spiral thread wrap on the guide wraps are an early 60's style. BTW, Utica is one of the lines of HI rods; HI was in Utica, NY.

Rod looks to be in very good shape. With their slow actions, I find the old glass rods relaxing to cast. Although, for long casts into wind you can't beat a modern graphite rod.

Posted on: 2013/9/21 9:53



« 1 2 (3)



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com