Yuku free message boards

I've built rods for more than 50 years now, considering the original Lamiglas and Herter's glass rods I did in the 50's. The 60's gave me lots of options with Lamiglas aluminum ferrule rods, that were marvelously powerful in comparison to the Wonderods I grew up with in the early 50's. Last spring I looked in an old box out in the shop and found nearly two dozen Lamiglas rods I did back in the beginning ranging in lengths from 4' to a horrible willowy 9' job. When Brother Bill and I fished a bit in late April, he got out a half a dozen Lamiglas rods I had done for him, along with several Fenwick rods he had used back in the 60's. His Wonderod collection was prominent on the wall of his little office in his home in Central Pennsylvania. He was and remains caught up in the whole thing that was our heritage and all began with glass, because we were and remain blue color Western Pennsylvanians. The mainstay for me back then were 6'6" and 7' rods that did well with 4 wt lines and some times 5 wt ones. In the late 70's graphite came along and I pretty much lost track of glass but for some short Fenwick blanks I built and sold in a plastic bag for $49 at the fly shows I did early on. How I could rationalize putting $10 in a blank and another $10 in everything else and feel I was getting paid to build a rod for $29, but, alas, we do what we do. Early 80's found me with Lamiglas pretty much as we know it today - plug ferrules, e glass, nice and light, 3 and 4 wts that were paper thin and cast nicely with the stated lines for shorter distances. 6'6" was my best seller for a long time. I dabbled at that time with some Philipson, Sage and Fisher blanks, with Fisher becoming a mainstay for rods I was able to get close to $200 for. I remember every once in a while Joe Fisher would send me a blank with a white ferrule plug. Tom Morgan will know all about that. Those were fine blanks, with good strong butts and nice soft tips and a nice graduation in between. 7' 4 wts were my best sellers. Then I kind of gave it all up, since Fisher finally went away and my Sage account was generating my all the rod sales I really ever needed and my craft complemented Sage's fine work making for a concert of quality guys just couldn't pass up at prices right at factory level. Just a few years ago, though, maybe ten, as I think about it, I revisited Lamiglas, talked with Mr. Posey and went with some short glass rods again. I had them in 6' through 7' with both three and six piece models in the 7' and 6'6". I've retained them to the present and have expanded just this year to 7'6" in three, six and two models of two piece. I've also expanded those to presentation models that sell for prices the guys are paying for my Sage blank rods. All this in the way of a little history of my experiences for a long time.

Here are my thoughts, given what I've seen from my customers the last few years and input from reading here and thinking back over the many emails I receive daily. First, I think most guys going to glass or back to glass or springing with glass because they want something different, or even buying glass as just another excuse for a new rod, or even perhaps perceiving glass as somehow a cheaper version of cane, is that common with all of them and all their various rationalizations is the feeling or belief or understanding that glass is a nostalgia trout rod for lovely colorful little fellows living in the confines of dark hidden places away from it all. (And all that in one sentence, gracious! and I know better.) Probably much like the threads I posted a week or so ago. They want their rods to be delicate and small and light and fragile and short and everything complementary to the environment they are begging nature to accept them in.

I sold a rod to a long standing friend this spring, who insisted that I fish it for a month or so so it would retain for him the spirit I had experienced with it. He could only envision that being possible with a glass rod, which he suggested was slow and easy and relaxed and would retain the psyche that would be comfortably contained only in a traditional craft and time tested part of our heritage. I did a 7'6" three piece Honey for him. He was more than pleased and has long since added a good bit of his own spirit to it.

Where am I going with all this? My point is that glass seems to be a nostalgia thing. It is an apparent old technology that comes along rather parallel with cane as a return to our beginnings. I think most folks want glass rods for delicate small water trout fishing, primarily. Shorter is probably the most reasonable return to it all. Probably a maximum of 7'6" will be most acceptable with maybe 7' the most popular length. Care must be taken to not muddy the distinction between glass and graphite. Trying to duplicate the power and performance of graphite rods is foolish, in my mind. So longer lengths and heavier line weights that will always probably be bettered by graphite is probably a foolish direction to take. I think, Tom's suggested lengths make good sense, getting up around 8' maximum and perhaps 6wt at the heavy end.

I have absolutely no argument with the guys wanting longer lengths and heavier line weights, recognizing that real glass "converts" will want to be able to do it all with glass. That is probably a reasonable rationalization, but in an absolute practical approach, why push glass into a realm that it will always be disadvantaged in. Graphite is the premier material for length and power. I see no reason to push that envelope when it is always going to be covered better by the superior material. I think cane has recognized its limits, for the most part, and has recognized where to stop. Probably glass could follow the same direction and achieve the same good sound level of reason.

I've enjoyed my 7'6" two piece honey rod this summer in my usual small waters. It performs equally with the short graphite rods I've enjoyed for years, but when I get into my big open meadows with their long slicks and wind swept horizons, my Sage 8'6" Z-axis 5 wt is just so damn much easier to enjoy than the glass rod is. I think for such conditions and situations, that will always be the case. To try and push glass into that realm, at least from a marketing standpoint, is probably always going to be foolish. Hopefully this will be useful to Tom in his future choices.

whrlpool wrote:

---

Oh a little side point about color. given that TM knows way better than me what folks like in cosmetics. Traditional dark brown would say "fiberglass" to me, and I don't think quality blanks need any other color disguise. The color TM has in mind is definitely next on the "says quality" list so that's good, too. Scot, Fenwick, and Lamiglas all had venerable yellows, but I wouldn't be crazy about them in a modern rod. Worst of all are dark black fiberglass blanks, as if disguised to look like graphite. There is no need of a cover-up disguise in a first-class 'glass rod, which can be superior in its intended use than graphite. Odds are that's what we'll get from TM's project.

Thinking back, I think Tom said these are only to be marketed as blanks. That makes a difference when it comes to length and line weight offerings, I would think. I'm thinking probably much of the stuff will probably be done to order anyway, so marketing is not nearly the factor as if you were making a commitment to an inventory of rods. I really had overlooked that in my other post.

On color, I really like the light colors like the Lamiglas Honey. They make light thread colors much more usable. With dark browns and burgundy's you are pretty much stuck with dark thread colors. One thing I've really enjoyed with the Lamiglas blanks is the ability to enjoy a lot of different thread combinations. I've built a lot of burgundy blank rods over the years and am still building them, considering the Sage ZXL series uses the old LL burgundy. Years ago I built a set of three Lamiglas blanks for a customer. They were burgundy blanks. Does anybody remember Lamiglas doing burgundy glass blanks? Those were the only ones I had ever seen. The customer sent the blanks to me. I think there was a 7'6", an 8' and an 8'6" all large diameter glass blanks, very nice stuff as I remember.