Horton Bluegrass #7

[GLD56]

Relatively new to reel collecting and have been picking up a few Meeks Hortons Heddon 3 series and recently picked up a Horton BLuegrass #7 online. I was of the impression that it would be a larger reel than a #3 but upon receiving it it appears to be the same size. I'm happy with my purchase but as I said was under the impression that the larger numbers designated a larger reel. Any input appreciated.

[RonG]

The Horton Blue Grass No. 7 is a fairly scarce reel. I saw the one on ebay and it went for a very reasonable price for the buyer.

[Steve]

They made a Blue Grass No. 7 as well?

[Mike N]

Relatively new to reel collecting and have been picking up a few Meeks Hortons Heddon 3 series and recently picked up a Horton BLuegrass #7 online. I was of the impression that it would be a larger reel than a #3 but upon receiving it it appears to be the same size. I'm happy with my purchase but as I said was under the impression that the larger numbers designated a larger reel. Any input appreciated.

I think your reel is a Meek Horton No. 7 sans the “Bluegrass.” To answer your inquiry, generally Kentucky reels start at “0” or “1” and get larger as the model number increases. A No. 3 is usually the most common size as it could be used to fish for many species of fish. A large No. 8 might be used to fish for Tarpon.

The Meek Horton No. 7 carries the Meek name but was made in Connecticut and is an exception to the rule. For some reason it is the same size as a BF Meek & Sons No. 3 etc.

The rarity of your No. 7 is based upon the limited number of years it was made. I believe it does appear in the 1926 Horton catalog. All in all, a great addition to any reel collection.

Mike N.

[wrong99]

Here's the reel in question:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-BLUE-G ... 7675.l2557

[GLD56]

That's it. I am happy with it.

[Bill Muth]

The Horton Meek and Blue Grass No. 7 reels are identical to the corresponding No. 3 reels except that one pillar post has been removed and the others relocated to enhance the fisherman's ability to thumb the spool. The reel first appeared in the 1927 catalog (I have never seen a 1926 Horton catalog) but at least one example has been found that was marked with a 1925 presentation date. Horton advertised the No. 7 reels through the 1940 catalog. The reel you bought went for a very reasonable price and looked like a nice example.

[Mike N]

Nice to see a photo. Great, great reel.




And Bill, the catalog may in fact be 1927 and not 1926. But isn’t the real mystery why it was designated a “No. 7” model by Horton? Any idea?

Thanks.


Mike N

[Bill Muth]

And Bill, the catalog may in fact be 1927 and not 1926. But isn’t the real mystery why it was designated a “No. 7” model by Horton? Any idea?

I'm not sure. As far as I can tell, Horton introduced the No. 7 series before the larger and much, much rarer Horton Meek No. 6. The only known Meek No. 6 ad appeared in a 1931 Marshall Field catalog (credit to Don Champion and Ron Gast for that discovery) and the No. 6 never appeared in the Horton catalogs. If it turns out that the Meek No. 6 development pre-dated the No. 7 series, then the good folks at Horton were simply going up one number with each new Meek / Blue Grass non-level wind reel design. The No. 5 series, which is also a larger model, was in production at the time Horton acquired B.F. Meek & Sons.

I said a lot of nothing in that paragraph, but that's about all I know on this issue.

[joe klaus]

That's it. I am happy with it.

Very nice reel at that price in my opinion. I'm happy for you.

[Mike N]

Shown #3,4,5, 7, 25, and 33/34. As Bill noted, no #6 is shown.

[Ron Mc]

beauty reel - from Mike's nice catalog photos, looks like the 7 may have a slightly narrower spool than the 3

[Bill Muth]

looks like the 7 may have a slightly narrower spool than the 3

It did not have a narrower spool. The dimensions are identical.

[Mike N]

looks like the 7 may have a slightly narrower spool than the 3

It did not have a narrower spool. The dimensions are identical.

Which begs the question of why anyone would buy a No. 7 unless they wanted the two-grasp handle (optional?) as shown or it was priced lower. The realigned pillar posts, as Bill pointed out above, that made it easier to “thumb the spool” might also make a difference to a buyer, I guess. But since all casting reels of that era had to be “thumbed” to some extent to prevent backlash, I don’t get that as a big design bargain.

Do you have an old Horton comparison price list you can post, Bill? Thanks.

Mike N.

[Ed Clark]

They may be identical in size but there is an obvious difference with the click and drag.