Ancient and Modern

Here........

For constructive criticism of this article. I tried hard towrite a 'proper' piece and would really appreciate any feedback, good bad or indifferent, which will helpif I am to continue this series.

I'm also looking for venues and assistance on suchwatersas the Royalty,Trent, and any trout reservoir where a similar 'old vs new' day can be staged. Already have some of the tackle needed, but may be asking to beg, borrow or steal some other items from any of our more generous members.........

Nice comparisons of the gear Kevin but which do you enjoy using most - ancient or modern, or does that differ from one set of gear to another?

Tell us more about how you feel about the gear, not just how you thought it performed. Do you get a bigger thrill from catching on old gear, and if so, why?

<u>UPDATE</u>

Had another pike today on Kermit's Transvestite Brother's other straight brother (but not Kermit) with the black trim. Unfortunately, had to cut the hook point off and in so doing knackered it. Must get darling daughter to bring some more spinning jig heads over from good ol' USA.

Kevin, don't worry that the masses don't post. It means one of two things A) they read, understood and liked all that you wrote and it left them speechless. Or B) it didn't contain any references to crisp flavours, the PAC, or belligerent bailiffs.

Graham, I don't know whether Keving set out to prove the tackle against each other, just to see if old gear could still catch, which it clearly did. However, happen if Kevin had a nice sponsorfrom all those rich tackle companies who'd then give him loads of rods and lures and stuff, he could do a real comparison with all his old rubbish, OOPS - sorry, collectable items.

Get yourself a Shimano Curado and virtually say goodbye to birdies Kevin. And there are some wonderful little baitcasting rods around for about £50.

I'm an old fart, yet I don't handicap myself with ancient tackle. At my age I need all the advantages that modern tackle can give me. And you don't walk about with that dirty big box full of lures do you? Get one of those cheap vests from Millets, put a foam plastic ring around the trebles and become a lot more mobile.

Otherwise an interesting article that should attract debate.

Up to your usual high standard Kevin,although at first I thought you were a doing a bit of a Chris Yates, with your description.

"......as I sat and watched the first fingers of sunlight creeping over the rolling countryside, and tinting the underside of the high cirrus clouds a pale shade of salmon pink." /forum/smilies/sick_smiley.gif

Then you went back to your normal style/forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

I think it is interesting to see old against new. I mean tackle and not the anglers. I don't think it was because there was more of Kevins adventures in the article, but he did seem to be enjoying himself a bit more than his mucker did.

Kev seemed to be working for it, whereas Woody seemed to be stuck in one place and waiting for it to happen. I Could be totally wrong of course.

I don't think this old against new has been attempted on F.M. before has it? It's new and I think it's a great idea. It should make a very interesting feaure.

By the way Kevin, the Trent is a great autumn and winter pike venue.

Get yourself a good selection of spinnerbaits, shads and Creek Chub Pikies about 8 to 10 inches long. And if you are going to use a baitcasting reel, load it with braid, Power Pro is probably the best in 30 kg. It doesn't stretch and you will have fewer birdies believe me.

And you want a stiff rod to fish these lures in the current of the Trent. You will ruin that split cane rod in two casts.

If you have loads of money, get yourself a few Replicants. One pike and the lure is torn to shreds. But pike love them

I don't know about using ancient fishing gear and couldn't say if it was better than the modern gear. However, i have bought an ancient book to read and i can't put it down, written by Benny Ashhurst, so for me i would certainly go for the ancient books over modern.

P.s Kevin supberb as always/forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

Personally i think that about 75% of anglers find a tool box pic of lures boring...........about a dozen is the max i would take and then with just the one rod...2 at a push

If i can't catch on my selection then i didn't do my homework.

But i personally don't like lure fishing for pike for anything other than a distraction/enforced method.

Give me a large bucket of water to keep my pike catching baits in over a toolor freezer box everytime.

Kevin, i think you have the makings of a good angling writer.....but do it from your heart.

There is a void in angling mags for the likes of Eustace and Binyon to name but two and you are in their mould when you do it at your best.

I ain't gonna tell you it's superb mate.........till it is.

It depends what you mean by ancient gear Wendy.

During the latter part of the 19th century, many hooks were actually better than they were 20 years ago, and the hook is one of the most important bits of equipment in angling. However the rest of our tackle is better than it was 50 years ago. Carbon fibre is a whole lot better than split cane, never mind what Mr. Jacobs says.

Its lighter for a start and far more responsive than split cane and other materials ever were, and I can say that because I'm old enough to have used split cane and all the other damned awful stuff of the past, including whole canes, greenheart, lancewood, whalebone, Spanish reed and glass fibre, both solid and hollow.

Kevin mentions comparing reservoir fly tackle with how it was in the 50s and60s. Well quite honestly you would not be able to cast with an Ivens 10 foot split cane "Iron Murderer". It would "murder" your wrist the moment you picked it up at over 1/2 a pound in weight.

Old split cane rods are only fit for decorating your wall as a reminder of the past, not for fishing with,as there is far bettermaterial available today.

Wendy, et al,

Don't listen to Ron because he never really understands the question regarding using vintage tackle.

It is not a case of which is 'best' at all, but rather that is a simpler and more nostalgic method of fishing.

To listen to Ron it would make one believe that back in the 50's and early 60's, when using split cane or built cane rods, that no one could ever catch anything at all, because we were all too tired holding the rod in the first place.

FACT: A Wallis Wizard weighs in at all of 2 ounces heavier than a modern Avon rod of similar design!

Any angler who has a soul, like Kevin, understands the comparison.

Kevin, I enjoyed the first article and hope it goes on to being a long and successful series.

And, if you want any 'proper' rods to test out against their little brothers from the carboniferous period, then, to quote Ron's hero; Drop Me A Line.

Likewise, if you fancy a day on the Royalty, then I never need to be asked twice.

(Geeze, its too early in the morning to take Ron's krap bait!)

It has been attempted before, Kevin.

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news/article/mps/UAN/3735/V/5/SP/

And I have read many old angling books going back to Robert Nobbes and "The Complete Troller".

Old JW Martin, William Bailey, Henry Coxon through to FWK Wallis and **** Walker did not use "vintage tackle" with the idea that by using it it might be "nostalgic" to do so.

They made the very best use of the materials that were available to them. Old Trent Otter was a rod designer and builder of great ability and he wrote many times of trying to achieve power combined with lightness. These people certainly didn't use "Isaak Walton" tackle. Such gear would have been usedfor kindling!

It is only recently that a few anglers have took to using "vintage tackle". What is paradoxical is they are not reviving any ancient tradition. The old ones didn't.

Kevin,

I think confining it to simply ancient v modern tackle may have the danger of making things a little samey.99% of the time, old tackle will be outfished by new tackle.Cane afficionados wouldI suspect, admit that the reason they fish with an old rod is not that it is better, but that they enjoy it more.

What would be more interesting would be to combine old tackle with old methods and baits peculier to the particular venue where you were fishing.Take the Royalty for example;in the late 60s and early seventies before the maggot ban came into force, the standard approach was to pile in maggot by the gallon.Go nowadays the pellet and bolt rig largely rules and you will rarely if ever see an angler using the maggot approach.It would make a nice pieceI think to compare and contrast the different approaches to see if the old method using the tackle of the time could still work. The article would by implication have to refer to the history of the fishery and the development of the fishing styles on the venue concerned which would be of interest in its own right.

If you were to head to the Trent,I am sure Ron would know a old retainer or two who would pre-bait with a thousand lobworms the day before for you and make up your clay balls.Not sure if you can pick up greaves these days though.

A read through some of the classic writers on particular rivers would give you loads of methods/baits to go at.JW Martin on the Trent and Francis Francis or Hobbs on the Thames for example.

Just a thought.

I read quite often that anglers who do notappreciate old tackle have no soul. I do certainly appreciate the old gear and love to look at it from time to time. In looking at it I can understand what these old designers were trying to achieve. And what were they trying to acieve?

What we have today, that's what they were after.

But we should do no more than look atthe old gear. I can imagine trying to play a double figure barbel on the Trent with an ancient Wallis Avon. If it didn't break, at would certainly have a 6 inch set init after that encounter, as indeed many of the old split cane rods of the early 60s did after playing a few decent fish.

My old B James Mk VI Avon looked like a dog leg hole on a golf course when I chucked it out ca 1965.

Old **** Walker burned, that's right he burned many of his old split cane rods in the 70s, because he knew that they were only taking up space and that they were "no good now" - his words.

When Chris Ball visited **** after he moved to Flitwick he noticed several old rod bits in his study. He pickedup ****'s old Mk III and **** said that it was no good now andhad best be chucked out. He of course told Chris he could take it if hewanted it.

Since then, people have been prepared to pay thousands of pounds for some of ****'s old creations.

The nearest thing to chandlers greaves or scratchings today is lunceon meat if you ask me.

Ron, a topic for a different threadI know,but I did not get much sense of Walkers emotional attachment to angling , soul if you wish, fromthe Rickards book. He was extremely practical and efficient for sure, witness his long list of "rules" for his hut.Quite impressive for someone who did not like rules I could not help feeling!This is no criticism of Walker, but perhaps needs to be born in mind if you use him as an examplar of how anglers of old would have viewed the "vintage" tackle movement of today.

I do wonder though if even he, looking on some of the developments in modern angling and indeed modern life, may have hankered back to the golden age he helped instigate and would have regretted disposing of some of his old rods.

I'm not one for making a habit of using old gear, but when I have it's been the thought of what it used to be like to use it when the gear was modern that has been the attraction.

I caught many carp on the MK IV when it was new, and then moved on to glass fibre and then carbon fibre. But it was nice occasionally to pick up the MK IV again and have another session after carp with it. The enjoyment was thinking of all those carp I had caught with it decades ago, and all the carp that other people had caught carp with the same model all those years ago.

It was good to see how that rod bent all the way down to the butt, to feel the cork contracting under my fingers, rather than seeing the bend stop somewhere in the middle of the butt section as most carbon rods do. With a cane rod you can 'feel' the fish more and in some ways it was a more efficient tool than the carbon rod; when playing a fish on a short line for instance, when the rod, rather than the reel,could be allowed to do the work.

It's a fact that part of the pleasure ofusing old gear is an adventure in nostalgia, especially if you used and caught fish on the same old gear in the distant past.

It isn't only about what is best, and what is the most efficient at fish-catching, but about what pleasure it gives the angler.

If you've tried old gear and don't like using it then that's fine, the experience isn't for you. But if you have and it triggered some joy, then go for it, and to hell with what anyone else thinks.

I think that the appeal of vintage tackle ( if it does appeal ) is different for different generations.

I'm 55, raised in North London in grey, post-war austerity. My first fishing rod was a truly horrible wooden (probably ash!!!) thing of eight feet and great weight, only improved on five years later by one of those Japanese split cane combination rods (eight foot fly or five foot spin, just the thing for float-fishing on the Grand Union canal... not).

The tackle shop windows were laden with built-cane beauties, but at such prices that I couldn't even bother to mention to Dad how wonderful they were - or looked (Actually, I probably made his life a misery by mentioning little else ... Sorry, Dad!). And a Mitchell 300 cost a week's pay - Dad's pay, not paper-round money - fat chance!

So thirty-odd years later, when I started to find neglected cane rods at budget prices, I could hardly resist, could I? For my generation, it's deferred gratification's payback time.

For younger anglers, I think the nostalgia is not for their own childhoods, but for a "golden age", when angling was still simple, fun, and more a matter of "being there" than catching; but during which a thinking angler could acheive better results than the copycat herd. They still can, but the bar is higher, for the bolt-rig/hair rig combo is so much more efficient for catching carp than the float-fished maggot was for the roach (then the almost universal target of choice).

A young(ish) angler with a cane rod is surely announcing to the world that he doesn't measure his pleasure with a spring-balance alone, and has twigged that there's more to it than catching fish. Isn't he?

"A young(ish) angler with a cane rod is surely announcing to the world that he doesn't measure his pleasure with a spring-balance alone, and has twigged that there's more to it than catching fish."

I like that.