Salmon Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I wonder if at the present day there are to many names in the tackle making industry,*
I remember the days when there was about three major tackle makers ,you went into the shop and it was Hardy, Bruce & Walker or Daiwa these names were household names and you couldn't go wrong picking any one of them. *Now the choice is so great especially with fly lines that you don't know where to start. Does anyone think it was better when you didn't have so much choice and just got on with it. Now with the crunch coming we may have the choice made for us .
** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Holtie.*
 

· Banned
Joined
·
4,893 Posts
More choice the better I say. It keeps pricing keener, the quality higher, and helps allow us to buy exactly what suits us.

I have rods from Loomis, Mackenzie, Guideline, Hardy, Loop and Airflo. And reels from Danielsson, Hardy, Loop, Teton, Ross and Snowbee.

All were bought for specific applications or combinations. All are in regular use and I'm happy with them all.

How can choice possibly be a bad thing, (unless you're as indecisive as my last couple of girlfriends)?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
12,129 Posts
Its the same with everything. Years ago you went into a shop to buy a humble pair of wellies you had a choice of black or green! Now there are shelves lined with different brands, different colours, neoprene, rubber, rubber lined with neoprene and all manner of different soles and again, most likely made in China!

What suits one person may not suit another, but its good to have the choice and find something that you like and suits your requirements and you'll enjoy using rather than just choosing a tool to do a job!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
Choice is good if there is a point to it.
I struggle to see a real point, from a purely fishing perspective, in the amount of choice that we have nowadays. Modern anglers seem convinced that a change of tackle, rather than a change of approach, will bring them more fish (I have been in this conundrum myself).
In my opinion, less tackle choice forces more effort on technique.
We used to catch plenty of fish on a tan floater, a kelly green intermediate, a wetcel II, and a fast sinker, with a range of different fly weights. I'm not saying that advances in tackle are never a good thing, just that they can sometimes be a bad thing and force anglers concentration and effort in the wrong direction.
Looking at some other recent threads it would appear that with choice has come a reduction in quality and an increase in price.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,111 Posts
the tackle trade

Pure fact is there is too much gear on the market,
too many brands,
too many rod and reels and everything else out there.

it is one of the most over-sold trades in UK.

lots of people have in the past launched yet another item that was just
another "me too" product but cheaper, usually losing quality and reliabilty.............................................................
cheaper is very rarely better.

very few have new ideas,
(for example such as the one Springer DID to launch a UK made range of new modern actioned rod)
if he had just tried to import yet another cheap rod from the many Far East factories there are to buy from he will not have had the great interest in the (Century) idea he had.

there is very little of the 3 i's about now-
invention
investment
innovation

and now some of the brands that did bring us that in the past are suffering too sorry to see.

LG
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,548 Posts
More choice encourages manufacturers to up their game and prevents monopolisation of the market.

It also probably encourages more research into the production of tackle.

However, I am horrified at some of the prices of top end rods, with the "Taking the Piss" award going to Loomis and their NRX range. £750 for a single hander and £1200 for a double hander....sorry, but that's stretching credibility to the limit, particularly in global downturn.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
I believe that the number of tackle makers may have been even more years ago than there are now.

I have copied a section out of a web site ( Tackle Makers ) which shows an example of this, and this list is just about Aberdeen!!! As you will see only one of the list below is still in business and I don't believe they make their own rods anymore.

Saying this I must put my hand up as a bit of a tackle tart, similar to Crispin.... :eek:

Thomas Redford pre 1820 1822
William Gordon pre 1821 1832
Alexander Munro pre 1821 1847
John Gellatly pre 1824 1828
Charles Playfair 1821 1955
John Lyell 1832 1879
David Falconer c 1837
John Smith c 1837
James Straton 1836 1851
Thomas Thomson 1837 1884
Willam Brown 1836 2000
David Henderson 1846 1870
Ludovic G. Sandison 1846 1884
John Henderson 1851 1874
David Duguid 1854 1920
George Gordon 1854 1863
Robert Wilson 1864 1881
Miss M'Gregor 1865 1872
William Roy 1866 1882
George Henderson 1870 1871
William Garden 1870 1967
Alex Adams 1872 1873
William Milne 1873 1922
J & G Gordon 1875 1889
William M'Leod 1876 1880
John Robertson 1880 1893
Alex Davidson 1880 1893
John Ritchie 1882 1891
Lewis Stewart 1888 1890
William Calder 1891 1923
James Nicol 1892 1894
J.W. Laing 1895 1898
Alex Martin 1895 1966
G.M. MacKay 1901 1909
James W. Ewen 1901 1915
Symon & Co. 1907 1908
Ernest Calder 1915 1958
JS Sharpe 1920 1971
James Watson 1923 1957
Jim Somers 1958 Current
Smith & Somers 1964 1970
John Dickson 1967 1985
Blacklaws, Kincardine O Neil Not Aberdeen
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
I think the level of 'research' is all too often overplayed in the marketing strategies of manufacturers. Does anybody actually believe that the rods that snap and the reels that fall apart have been suitably researched? I'm afraid that the field research is all too often carried out by the customers who buy the first production model in any range, despite all the marketing from a bulls backend.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
I have often thought about the huge amount of tackle which is on the market, all designed to do the same thing. And then, lo and behold it's all re-designed and upgraded next year to be even better. Of course this is why you pay so much for the item you buy, it pays for all the unsold units that tight wads like me buy in the sales or on flea bay. Lord knows what happens to all the unsold stuff!

SP8
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
I think the level of 'research' is all too often overplayed in the marketing strategies of manufacturers. Does anybody actually believe that the rods that snap and the reels that fall apart have been suitably researched? I'm afraid that the field research is all too often carried out by the customers who buy the first production model in any range, despite all the marketing from a bulls backend.
I have yet to come across a manufacturer in the salmon or trout market that researches how the rod a rod fundamentally works, with respect to the material interaction- excluding Harrison's who actually do but their core industry is coarse.

There are a few Coarse manufacturers who actually do, yet don't make a song and dance about R&D, and at a lower price point- I'm working on non linear analysis simulation for one currently.

Your typically buying a rod that has had some destructive testing that is ballpark to empirical data from previous rods, and it's been used by anglers in the field.

The material technology is 50 years old, the factories know what they are doing, but it's not tolerant of defects- which will always occur with the "human" component in manufacture.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
I have often thought about the huge amount of tackle which is on the market, all designed to do the same thing. And then, lo and behold it's all re-designed and upgraded next year to be even better. Of course this is why you pay so much for the item you buy, it pays for all the unsold units that tight wads like me buy in the sales or on flea bay. Lord knows what happens to all the unsold stuff!

SP8
How would the company survive if they didn't introduce new products? You need to generate sales to keep afloat, then crucially return on the investment, otherwise it's not viable.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,759 Posts
More choice encourages manufacturers to up their game and prevents monopolisation of the market.

It also probably encourages more research into the production of tackle.

However, I am horrified at some of the prices of top end rods, with the "Taking the Piss" award going to Loomis and their NRX range. £750 for a single hander and £1200 for a double hander....sorry, but that's stretching credibility to the limit, particularly in global downturn.
spot on and the finish to that rod is crap ;)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
The amount of tackle on the market will ultimately be determined by how much is bought. I suspect that in these tough times many manufaturers are suffering and not all will survive, so choice may reduce. There are a lot of companies producing Salmon gear of varying prices and standards and the market place looks very crowded, particuarly in mid range prices.

However, competition should also push innovation, even though many "innovations" are sales gimmicks. Despite this, I would argue that there have been impovements in tackle over the past ten years.

£1,200 does appear a mad price for a rod, but marketeers know that there is a consumer out there who will pay that because it is the highest price.

There are also "fashions" in fishing tackle. There was a big vogue for US rods, but this seems to have waned. Personally I would like to see Hardys come back into fashion just because it is one of the great British names in fly fishing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
The material technology is 50 years old, the factories know what they are doing, but it's not tolerant of defects- which will always occur with the "human" component in manufacture.
This is surely the point though. A little research will let most people know the cost of manufacturing and distributing a rod. We are then told for the most expensive rods that the extra cost is for the R&D:confused:
Too many rods are simply not robust enough for the price tag nowadays and if the same model consistently snaps in the field it can't be put down to defects and would surely be a design error.
I doubt very much that the material technology today is the same as it was 50 years ago.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
I doubt very much that the material technology today is the same as it was 50 years ago.
It was developed for the Aerospace industry and cascaded down as implementation costs reduced. Your still reinforcing a polymer with carbon.

Cloth modulus will differ to spec as will the polymer, but it's still a stiff polymer.

Take glass as an example, you can use it as an I Beam in construction structurally. It's failing is its tolerance to defects-it's not very.. Laminate it-reducing its propensity to cracking, and you can use it as you would steel- see one of Glasgow Uni's engineering buildings.

Similarly, one you crack the polymer it's only going to do one thing.

Add that characteristic, to the application- bending a rod in use- and your going to accentuate any defects, manufacturing or from impact.

Interesting on design flaws, the best know "banger" was designed well, the blank wasn't layed up correctly, with one RF wrap missing. Then follows a 50% failure rate.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top