fishingrod

Rod Guides & wrapping

An original ring and keeper and the wrappings are pictured here: http://www.oldrods.com/images/chubb-lancewd-3.jpg According to the author of that page, “Ring and keeper guides (a.k.a. floppy rings, hanging rings, folding rings) appeared around 1850.”

Pritchard guides, patented 1859, are really too new, and many other kinds are post-war. For a chart on mostly post-war styles, see http://www.oldrods.com/tips-guides.htm

According to http://vfish.net/silkrecon2.htm , “with [later 19th century] snake guides came the ability to ‘shoot’ line,” which wasn’t practical with the “miniscule flip-ring guides.”

Spacing and construction are also based on http://www.oldrods.com/norris-chapter-XVII.htm The American Angler's Book by Thaddeus Norris, 1864: “The ring-keepers are wrapped in the same way; but the manner of doing this can be better explained by examining the way in which the rings are put on any rod from a tackle-store. The same may be said of the wire loop through which the line passes at the end of the tip. Before putting on the rings, the rod should be joined together, getting it as nearly straight as possible, and marking the places for the rings. It may then be taken apart, and the rings put on each piece separately. On a tip four feet long, there should be about seven rings, beginning five or six inches from the small end, and increasing the distance between them as you near the larger end. Four rings are enough for the middle piece, and one or two for the butt. Small rings made of very light wire should be used for the tips, and instead of the ordinary clumsy ring-keepers sold at tackle-stores, it is better to cut from very thin sheet-brass, strips not more than the thirty-second part of an inch wide, and of convenient length - say six or eight inches long: these are more easily handled, the surplus length of the strip being nipped off after wrapping, and used for the next ring.”

I did all wrapping with silk thread, and then the whole thing was varnished with spar varnish. I would have preferred to mix and use natural spar varnish from a period formula, but substituted modern spar varnish, when I couldn’t find the real thing in quantities small enough to make it economically practical to purchase the ounce or two that I needed.

Rod Ferrules

Mine are screw joints which came with the pole, and I re-glued them and tightened them so there’s no “click” when casting. They’re not like the typical slide-together ferrules of the period as pictured here: http://www.oldrods.com/ferrules.htm or here: http://www.oldrods.com/clues.htm

However, screw joints are mentioned in “Vade-mecum of fly-fishing for trout,” GPR Pulman, American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, March 1842, as follows:

“As to the mode of joining them, we deem the common plan far preferable to that of screw-ferrules, which render the rod heavy, and, what is far worse, are apt to get out of repair.”

They’re also mentioned for the 1800-1850 period at http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/18001850.htm as follows:

“Much ingenuity was applied to finding a solution to this problem, and variety of joints were in use by the nineteenth century: a female brass socket taking a wood male end, brass female socket accepting brass-coated male end, and screw joints. The quest would not end until it became possible to manufacture strong thin-walled suction joints.”

Line

I used a new-old-stock non-tapered braided silk line which had never been dressed. One problem I ran into was figuring out what to dress it with, if anything. Most modern instructions on caring for silk line emphasize its use in dry-fly fishing, where the goal is to treat the silk line to prevent it from sinking—not as much of an issue when you’re wet-fly fishing. I finally decided to treat it with linseed oil only.

The following is from “Vade-mecum of fly-fishing for trout,” GPR Pulman, American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, March 1842:

“The silk line too readily imbibes the wear, by which it becomes over heavy, and remains long wet, which causes it to rot speedily. On the other hand, the hair line is in general too light, and therefore not adapted for throwing against the wind; it is, also, from not being sufficiently pliable, apt to kink in using. [The author recommends a mix of both]... For ordinary trouting twenty-five yards of line are sufficient... It is not, we think, generally known that nothing rots horse-hair sooner than oil, which liquid is sometimes applied to lines under the mistaken notion that it has qualities of an opposite nature...”

The following is from:

http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/18001850.htm

“The majority of lines were made of a mix of silk and horsehair, but plaited silk lines were coming onto the market. The plaited line was an important development, because it was the first step on the way to water-proof, rot-resistant fly lines. The best lines were plaited from silk, and were thinner and stronger than their twisted counterparts, being available in lengths of eighty or a hundred yards. There was another, important development. Silkworm gut "casts" (or leaders, as we would call them,) were beginning to displace horsehair.”

According to http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/victoria.htm

“The use of horsehair lines began to die out after the 1860's and 70's, although the material still had its adherents many decades later. The difficulty of making long lines out of horsehair was a key factor in hastening its end. No longer did fishermen use thirty or forty yard lengths of line and hang on like grim death when they hooked a salmon; the development of the check, high capacity single-action reels, backing line and the acceptance of tapered fly lines meant that they could cast a long way and allow a fish to run. The braided silk fly lines had such a huge advantage over level horsehair that no angler who had tried silk once would ever go back to the traditional materials. Silk could be cast further, mended, and generally controlled so completely that it revolutionised fly fishing.”

----

For the leader and snelling the hooks, I used new-old-stock silkworm gut, connected with loops. The gut that I got was 10 lb test, but I think it would be better to use a lighter weight and build up the leader by knotting more sections together as needed. More on silk gut in general is found here: http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/silkworm.htm

The following is from “Vade-mecum of fly-fishing for trout,” GPR Pulman, American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, March 1842:

“The lowermost part of the line, we mean that to which the flies are attached, is made of gut, and bears the several names of collar, foot-line, casting-line, and gut-link. It is composed of a series of lengths of silk-worm gut, which should be of good quality, and not, as it often is, the coarsest and worst... There will occur few cases in which more than four yards or less than two yards of gut will be required... At the point is to be fastened the stretcher--as the foremost fly is termed--by means of a knot, the same as that by which the lengths of gut forming the collar are joined. This is called the old angler's, or the slip-knot... As to the mode of fastening the drop-fly, the modern neat and simple plan of inserting the gut to which it is attached within the slip-knot of the collar should, and doubtless soon will, supersede the clumsy and inconvenient loop. Many anglers are in the habit of using more than three flies at a time, a practice which we by no means uphold... Instead of connecting the line and collar by means of loops, as is almost universally done... “

Rod Handle & Reel Seat

I’m least happy with the reel seat. Functionally, it works perfectly—the reel snaps on solidly and can be released just as quickly--but it looks clunky and ugly.

Here are photos of some originals: http://www.oldrods.com/markings/1860-70s-reel-seats.jpgIf the reel had a plate, typically the reel seat had one fixed ring. You placed one end of the reel plate under it, and there was a sliding ring, which you then slid over the other end of the reel base.

The ones in the photo at the above link are wooden rods, but I’ve not been able to find an early photo of a reel seat on a bamboo rod. According to Fish and Fishing of the United States and British Provinces of North America, 1859, the rod “should be composed of hickory, lancewood, or bamboo, with a solid butt of ash, at the extreme lower end of which should be attached a simple clicker reel with a balance handle…”

Originally, I was going to add a hardwood butt, but I discovered that the end of the bamboo was exactly the right size for the rings to hold the reel on. It was too good an opportunity to pass up, but I needed to reinforce the bamboo, since its walls are thinner and more susceptible to wearing through than hardwood. So with absolutely no historical basis, I decided to reinforce the bamboo with wrapped silk reinforced with glue and varnished, and mount the rings directly on the bamboo butt.

Because there doesn’t seem to be an emphasis on a separate hand-grip—on most rods not even a metal band to indicate the start of the rod itself—I didn’t wrap the handle area or do anything to differentiate it from the rest of the rod. According to http://www.oldrods.com/clues.htm “Wedding bands appeared on wooden rods to mark the top of the hand grip area after the Civil War,” though I’ve seen one pre-war image of a “wedding band” above the hand-grip area.

Reel

The following site contains some basic information on period reels: http://www.antiquefishingreels.info/FAQgeneral.htm

The reel I have is an original, if not actually from the period then in the same style of the period. It’s a plain (non-multiplier, no click) brass plate-foot reel. The screws on it are handmade, indicating an early origin. It’s unmarked, but similar to a British Haywood reel. There’s an illustration of an 1843 reel at http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/18001850.htm which is the same style. Also from that site:

“By the 1830's the plate-foot reel [like I have] was in fierce competition with the clamp foot winch, the spike foot having had its day….Reels were still small by comparison with modern reels; typically no more than an inch or so in diameter and the same in width. There was no reason for them to be any bigger; lines were thin, there being no distinction between the running line and fly line. Apart from the development of the multiplier, reel design had barely altered since Walton's day and early nineteenth century reels were almost wantonly inadequate: the wide drum, narrow diameter reel continued to dominate the market.”

One quick way to identify many antique reels on the market today as post-war, is the raised-pillar design of the common Hendryx reels. http://www2.bitstream.net/~esoren/hendryx.html

“Vade-mecum of fly-fishing for trout,” GPR Pulman, American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, March 1842, discusses the advantages of a “common reel” without a multiplier, click or stop, as follows:

“While some are staunch advocates for the sommon sort, others on the contrary, esteem the multiplier as the ne plus ultra of improvement. Some there are, too, who like the addition of the clik; others, censuring this, approve very much of the stop; both which, in our opinion, are superfluous. The chief advantage urged in favor of the multiplying reel is the velocity with which it winds up the line; now, if under all circumstances, it would wind with equal facility, its superiority would be unquestionable; but it does not--it is with difficulty made to revolve at all when a fish pulls, or a weight is attached ot the end of a long line... The common real is objected to from the slowness with which it turns. Notwithstanding this, we almost prefer the simple movement, even on the old plan, to the complex multiplier... The reel should be fixed to the rod about three inches from the butt end, and in a direct line with the rings...”

Rod materials

Probably the most typical material for a rod would be a solid wood, like hickory or lancewood. However, the cost of those originals is very expensive, and I didn’t have the time to season and make one myself, so I started with a vintage bamboo rod, plain except for screw ferrules.

From http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/18001850.htm : “Early nineteenth century rods weren't much different from their predecessors, the best being made from ash, hickory and lancewood; with Calcutta bamboo being substituted for lancewood if it could be found of good enough quality. With the exception of lancewood and bamboo, these materials had been the mainstay of rod building for two centuries, and they were to remain so for another thirty years.”

----

“Willow, hickory, and bamboo cane, or lancewood, are, in our opinion, the only species of wood that should enter into the construction of a fly-rod...” (From “Vade-mecum of fly-fishing for trout,” GPR Pulman, American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, March 1842)

----

“…while in the act of unsplicing his bamboo fishing pole…” (p. 75, The Warwick Woodlands; or, Things as They Were There Twenty Years Ago, Frank Forester [Henry William Herbert], Philadelphia, T.B. Peterson, 1850)

----

“It should be composed of hickory, lancewood, or bamboo, with a solid butt of ash,…” ( From Frank Forester, Fish and Fishing of the United States and British Provinces of North America, 1859)

My research into mid-19th century fly fishing started when Abby Walker asked me to provide a reason for the civilians to have fresh trout at the Davis Run portion of the 2005 Battle of McDowell Virginia reenactment. We were portraying a group that was camped historically along a trout stream in May. I’d been wanting to do the research and get the gear for a Blackwater Chronicle type of fishing impression, so I asked her if I could go for equipment that was more typical of the middle class than lower class, and she agreed.

A revolution in the fly-fishing world was already starting to occur even in the 1860s, but the changes wouldn’t fully overtake the older techniques until a couple more decades had passed. So I based my equipment on the older, typical way of the first half of the 19th century.

The main elements were: wet fly fishing with soft hackle flies downstream, using a comparatively heavy and long pole, often casting two-handed, without false casting, for relatively short distances (well under 25 yards) without much shooting of line.

The results pictured on this page are my first attempt at researching and reproducing something that would pass for period fishing equipment.

Hank Trent

hanktrent@voyager.net

Fly Wallet

I’ve not been able to find an example of a fly wallet definitely dated to the mid 19th century, though the basic style of wallet is similar to other types from the period (money wallets, surgical instrument pocket cases). The wallet I made was roughly based on the following image of an undated one, and is leather with fulled black wool broadcloth (rather than felt) pages, since that’s what I had scraps of. Note: Unfortunately, the following links no longer work.

http://www.sportfishingmuseum.ca/fishing/collection

/index.cfm?depth=SI&item=M002144&

museum=1&search=wallet

Other examples (showing outside only)

http://www.sportfishingmuseum.ca/fishing/collection

/index.cfm?depth=SI&item=M002137&

museum=1&search=wallet

http://www.sportfishingmuseum.ca/fishing/collection

/index.cfm?depth=SI&item=M002147&

museum=1&search=wallet

“Vade-mecum of fly-fishing for trout,” GPR Pulman, American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, March 1842, mentions a pocket in the “fly-book” for storing the gut leader: “At the conclusion of every fishing excursion, the collar [leader] should be evenly coiled over the extended fingers, and deposited in the pocket of the fly-book…”

Wet Fly Fishing and Casting

I decided that dry fly fishing was too new for what I wanted to do, and so practiced downstream wet-fly casting, by necessity doing it two-handed with the heavy pole. For a general discussion of the wet vs. dry fly transition, see:

http://freespace.virgin.net/fly.shop/history.htm (scroll down to the “dry fly” section)

http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/dryfly.htm

Following is a description of casting, from p. 139, Athletic Sports for Boys, 1866, at http://name.umdl.umich.edu/afl3769 :

“Fly fishing is the perfection of fishing, especially with the artificial fly. You use a stout rod, from ten to twelve feet long; your reel has on from thirty to fifty yards of fine silk, grass, or hair line, with a yard long leader, and your fly or flies set on very fine gut. Cast your line with the fly before you, and do it so dexterously that the fly will fall lightly on the water, and as little line with it as possible. This dexterity can only be acquired by practice. Your line should be about half as long again as your rod, though as you acquire skill, and want to cast at some likely looking hole a distance, you lengthen it. If you see a fish rise at a natural fly, throw a yard or so above him, so as to let your fly float to him naturally. Fish, when you can, down the stream. In throwing the fly, a most important point, raise the arm well up, without laboring with the body; send the fly both backward and forward, by a sudden spring of the wrist. Do not draw the fly too near, or you lose your purchase for sending it back, and therefore require an extra sweep in the air before you can get it into play again. If, after sending it back, you make the counterspring too soon, you will crack off your tail-fly; if a moment too late, your line will fall in the water in a heavy and slovenly manner. The knack of catching the proper time is what you want to learn, and that can only be done by a little careful practice. When a skillful fisherman makes his cast, the extreme end of the casting-line reaches the water first, and this is as it should be; and when it is so, the line falls lightly and almost unperceived upon the water.”

Hooks

I used blued hooks in shapes close to period illustrations, with the eyes cut off, and a silkworm gut snelled on. There’s a general discussion of the history of hooks here: http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/hooks.htm including the following passage, which I found to be all too true:

“Until the late nineteenth century, the vast majority of hooks were "blind" (i.e. they lacked an eye.)… The classical method of attaching a fly to gut was, of course, to whip the fly onto the gut. Gut was liable to wear just in front of the end of the hook, rendering the fly useless. After even short periods of storage, gut had a strong tendency to shrink or rot, resulting in the loss of the fly. Both gut and horsehair shared a common problem in that flies tied to them were hard to store, on account of the ‘spare’ loop of line left to allow the fly to be attached to the cast.”

Hook styles mentioned by “Vade-mecum of fly-fishing for trout,” GPR Pulman, American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, March 1842 are:

“sneck-bend, Redditch, Limerick... Kendal Kirby-bend... Numbers 2, 3, and 4, Kendal, or 9, 10, 11 Redditch, are the most useful sizes; smaller we never use.”

The following is from http://www.frontrangeanglers.com/newsletter/june04/hookhistory.htm

“If old hooks were finished at all, they were blued. The practice began to die out in the last quarter on the nineteenth century, at which time hooks were being finished by coating them in enamel (usually black, but red, green, blue and yellow were available from Allcock & Co. of Redditch in the 1880s) or in a few cases, such as H. S. Hall's post 1885 hooks, by bronzing. The major problem with bluing was that hooks treated that way rusted very easily. For a short time there was a vogue for silver and even goldplating hooks, but the expense and the flashiness of the finished product were sufficient to ensure that it didn't catch on.”