''Still they were lovely old rods. Please do not fish with it. Such a rod should be displayed on your wall.''
Ron - can I suggest you take the perjorative 'were' out of that sentence? They still are lovely old rods! I use mine all the time. And, before anyone accuses me of being a traditionalist, can I point out that I started fishing at the age of ten in the early 1980's, using fibreglass rods. I graduated to carbon when I could afford them, then went back to glass after I found carbon rods not only broke very easily, but felt wrong as well - flimsy and lifeless (subjective statement I know, but that's my opinion). Then, about fifteen years ago, I discovered split cane. Nowadays I use glass and cane rods more or less equally, but my favourite is still the old cane Avon. So much then for my preferences. Now we come to the nub of the matter.
To suggest that such a rod should not be used seems a trifle dismissive; it makes me wonder what reasons you could have for making that statement. I can think of - and answer - two. Firstly, that the rod may be considered as a valuable piece of angling history; secondly, because a ten foot length of split cane is an outdated and inadequate tool for 21st Century angling.
I'll answer the latter first; no it jolly well isn't! Fishing is essentially the same now as it was all those years ago. Only we anglers have changed, in our attitudes and approach to the sport. A chub in a river today behaves in much the same way as it did in Walker's time, or Waltons come to that.
Now, I do not wish to imply that these old cane rods are better than their modern counterparts; far from it. There are many excellent rods available today which, relatively speaking, are cheaper and more functional than ever before. What I do say is this: you can catch that chub with a fifty year old MkIV Avon just as well.
Of course, if the rod in question is in poor condition - damaged in some way, or the rings are corroded and falling off - then it will probably not function terribly well, but you can say the same about any rod. Age alone does not imply decrepitude.
The other reason - that of historical (and possibly monetary) value - can be discounted by considering the number of MkIV's and Avons made; if the rod in question were a Walker-built example that's fair enough. If it was one of the earliest B James models which Walker signed himself (as opposed to the transfer signature), then yes. Either way, put it in a glass case. Better still, give it to the ACA or some other angling body, perhaps to form part of a future exhibition of angling history. But if, as I suspect, it is a standard production model, then it is merely one of a considerable number of such rods. They cannot all become museum pieces.
These rods were originally built with one purpose in mind; to catch fish. Let them continue to do so, until they cease to be of any use at all. If the rings are rusty - replace them. If the whippings are frayed - replace them. If the ferrule is loose - replace it. There's no true value in tatty originality.
