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

[FiveWeight]

I have one very similar to that one it not exactly the same. I use it every now n then. I use a 7Wt line on it. Seems to give it a little more flex. It works well with a 5 but I like it to bend a little bit more than some. Some of these rods are pretty cool and work real nice. I have an old Fenwick glass too. That is a nice one also. Use it, graphite ain't everything.

 

[bikerfish]

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.

 

[SNJChef]

Let me know what line you find works well with this rod I have the same one in the garage. From my grandfather

 

[moon1284]

tups, you are wrong. there were no 8'6 4 wts in the 60s. there were probably no graphite rods in the 60s either, definitely no graphite h and is. you are also wrong about wf/dt. plenty of rods are labeled for dt and wf lines and the wf is always the heavier of the two. there is no grey area here, you are wrong on both statements. the rod is probably a 7 or 8 wt. those are the weights I'd start out with. with that being said, fish it with whatever line feels best.

 

[shakey]

bikerfish wrote:

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

 

[Six-Gun]

Thanks, shakey and everyone else who has really brought this thread to life. It's very cool to see a lot of the historical info show up that I never really knew. I'm just hoping I've done enough homework to properly date this thing as that seems to be the center of much of the debate.

Regardless, as has been the general theme here, I really need to get it out and try lines in the suggested weight window and just find out what works. At the very least, we've narrowed it down a bit.

I also need to ask: why would a 8'6" fiberglass rod in a 4-weight/5-weight be unthinkable for this time/rod type? I really just don't know enough about this sport yet for it to be obvious. However, this seems to fall in line with my curiosity over why the new, fiberglass offering from Redington - the Butter Stick - appear in what I thought were short lengths.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Gfen, I have to say you have, by far, my favorite avatar.

I'm enjoying the history in this thread. I have an old Shakespeare fiberglass rod that my Pap gave me. I actually started fly fishing with that rod. Maybe I'll get it out and inspect it. I also have the Heddon reel that it was set up with.

 

[boychick]

Sorry, I can't offer any help with the line. But I did love this statement

it was my dad's and I intend on at least giving it the dignity of catching fish with it.

I would fish that rod too.

 

[bikerfish]

shakey wrote:

bikerfish wrote:

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

Ahhhh, gotcha! I like your line, "superior glass"!!!

 

[Six-Gun]

boychick wrote:
Sorry, I can't offer any help with the line. But I did love this statement

it was my dad's and I intend on at least giving it the dignity of catching fish with it.

I would fish that rod too.

Thanks a lot. I don't want to give the impression that my dad has died and passed this down by inheritance. My old man is alive and well, it's just that he has had this rod for years and simply decided it was time to give it to me since it never would get used otherwise. It's high time this old horse saw the track again.

Speaking of which, I'll try to post some pics of the full rod when I get back home. It really is in pretty good shape.

 

[FiveWeight]

shakey wrote:

bikerfish wrote:

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.

 

[FarmerDave]

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.

 

[JeffK]

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.

 

[BrookieChaser]

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.

 

[Six-Gun]

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.

 

[JeffK]

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.