Outdoor Life- 12 vintage reels that changed fishing

[Mike N]

November 2019 article link:

https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/fishi ... w-we-fish/

I only agree with 5-6 of the 11 listed. The others were really just novelties.

[RonG]

A lot of us were fortunate to see Carl White's collection when ORCA held its convention in Branson, MO. The article was interesting and got most of the facts right. Anyway, I always like looking at photos of old reels. The article does put the spotlight on these classics. Who knows, it may stimulate someone's interest and get them to join ORCA.

[Stef Duma]

I liked the article but Ustonson did not invent the multiplying reel. It was a few years before he started.

I also am of the opinion he did not make reels but rather bought them in from ?

Possibly Heywood.

[1badf350]

The Penn model K with star drag should be on that list.

[Ray Hencken]

November 2019 article link:

https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/fishi ... w-we-fish/

I only agree with 5-6 of the 11 listed. The others were really just novelties.

I'm curious Mike, which of those reels do you consider just novelties?

[Jim Schottenham]

The Penn model K with star drag should be on that list.

Since there are only 11 reels listed in this article of "12" reels, I guess the reader can insert any reel they choose to be #12.

[Steve]

Since there are only 11 reels listed in this article of "12" reels...

Yeah, the counting is as accurate as the histories.
And I like this:

Though the fly reel never caught on among the fishing public...

But it changed fishing!

[john elder]

....and so the term "arguably" was invented

[reeltackle]

In all fairness to the author, I don't think he said the 12 (11) "MOST" awesome reels that changed the way we fished. If he had thrown in the word "MOST", I think we would have a legitimate beef with the author and a trip to the woodshed would not be out of the question. I can see arguments for almost all the reels he threw in his list as reels that changed the way we fish, and most are, pardon the trite expression, awesome. But do all of his choices deserve to own the title of one of the 12/11 "most" awesome ....... I say no, but now that's whole other topic thread for sure.

Now his research on the other hand ...... he might have done his homework a little better on the history's of some of the reels. I will take one example to task -

The 12/0 Coxe reel ... where to begin.....

First of all the picture is of a 14/0 Bronson Coxe cradle, a far cry from a Los Angeles 12/0 Coxe reel.

I don't believe that Zane Grey ever caught a black marlin off the coast of Australia with one of Coxe's 12/0 reels. Grey did not venture to Australia until July of 1936 and by that time had moved on to Hardy and Kovalovsky reels for big game fishing.

Grey did use hickory rods but not with two sets of opposing guides when fishing big reels. Grey only fished big game rods, including the rods he used with his Coxe 12/0 reel, with guides on one side of the rod. Come to think of it, I've seen a ton of Zane Grey fishing photos and I don't think I have ever seen him fishing with a rod with guides on both sides.

When Coxe made the his 12/0 "Zane Grey" model reel the price was not $1000.00 it was $750.00, still, a handsome price to pay for a reel. Once Bronson took over the company the price dropped dramatically to $300.00 for the 12/0CW (wide), $250 for the 12/0CR (regular), and $200.00 for the 12/0 OCN (narrow). I believe that $300 for the most expensive Bronson 12/0 Coxe reels is certainly a far cry from the authors reputed $1000.00 price tag for the reel during the depression years. I have no idea where he got his info, and I don't mean to sound cruel but ..... its almost like he made some of it up.

[kyreels]

I bet the author submitted 12 reels and the editor cut one to fit the print requirement, but who knows. It would be a more interesting discussion if he did say the Top 12 reels that changed fishing by a certain date (maybe 1973 on the authors list). We should start that discussion somewhere.

[Paul M]

I love the reel pictures. The Ustonson specimen at the museum that is pictured in the article is actually a Ustonson & Peters that I wish was on my shelf regardless of whether or not it’s a trade reel.

I guess Zebco CFSR’s on display at the museum weren’t old or glamorous enough to make the cut but perhaps they should have given their easy to use design that expanded the popularity of sport fishing.

[Eric J]

I would add the Shakespeare Style C and Marhoff (of course) but also Stan Bogdan’s Orvis CFO, Ari Hart’s F series, The Ross Reel.
But his list is pretty awesome as promised.

[Mike N]

I'm curious Mike, which of those reels do you consider just novelties?

Defining “novelty” as something originally purchased because of its newness or uniqueness, rather than its practicality, the extraordinarily fragile Fowler Gem and the overly-complicated first model Illingworth are the two most obvious. And (sorry, Jim S), while it’s a beautiful and historic reel, I can’t imagine the effort of lining and using the Billinghurst (or any other side mount reel for that matter) was ever really worth it in a practical sense. Love the history and the aesthetics, but those three reels were novelties.

By comparison, the Orvis 1874 patent model was so practical it was sold in essentially its original, simple form for 40 years. The Snyder and Meek multipliers really did change the way Americans fished for bass and freshwater game fish. Those three reels were practical.

Let the debate begin, lol.
Mike N.

[Midway Tommy D]

And I like this:

Though the fly reel never caught on among the fishing public...

But it changed fishing!

Steve,
I think that was a mental or grammatical foo-pah. I'm pretty sure he meant Fowler's Gem, not fly reels in general. If he did mean "all" fly reels he needs to go back to grade school.

I'm totally confused as to why the Lew's Speed Spool (it really doesn't deserve to be listed) is included rather than the ABU Record 5000.

Mike,
I have no idea how you can reject credence to the Illingworth. Do you actually know anyone that doesn't, at least occasionally, use a fixed spool/threadline, i.e. open face spinning reel? I know I sure don't.

[Mike N]

Tommy,

The post-WW II Mitchell reel was the practical design that popularized the spinning reel. Illingworth may have been first in 1905, but 25 years later one just does not see a bunch of 1930s photos of fishermen posing with their Illingworth. Why? It lacked a full bale and the pick-up was sketchy.

[Steve]

I'm pretty sure he meant Fowler's Gem

I knew that, Tom. The quote came from the Fowler paragraph. No foo-pah.

The post-WW II Mitchell reel was the practical design that popularized the spinning reel

Please note that the article is about "fishing," not "American fishing." Although the first Illingworth was not the first fixed-spool reel, nor was it manufactured for very long, it spawned the development and manufacture of many, many spinning reels in Merrie Olde for decades before spinning reel use arrived in the U.S. It revolutionized fishing. Having a full bail is a nice convenience, but, as pointed out, Hardy offered them by the early 1930s.

While we're at it, there's a good argument - since all of these choices are arguable - for including the Chesterman and/or Loomis automatic reel. Whether or not you are a fan of automatic reels, a lot of fisherpersons have used them for a long, long time. Not awesome, I guess.

And why not throw in the equally non-awesome Kopf freespool reel? Clutches had been around for a while, but Kopf's simple device was copied and adapted for at least four decades, as freespool casting became the norm.

[Midway Tommy D]

Please note that the article is about "fishing," not "American fishing." Although the first Illingworth was not the first fixed-spool reel, nor was it manufactured for very long, it spawned the development and manufacture of many, many spinning reels in Merrie Olde for decades before spinning reel use arrived in the U.S. It revolutionized fishing. Having a full bail is a nice convenience, but, as pointed out, Hardy offered them by the early 1930s.

That's right along my line of thinking. Mitchell really didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there other than a bass-ackward spinning rotor and, eventually, Garcia US importation & promotion. Nearly every spinning reel maker switched to or offered a full bail when the Hardy patent expired.

[Mike N]

“That's right along my line of thinking. Mitchell really didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there other than a bass-ackward spinning rotor and, eventually, Garcia US importation & promotion. Nearly every spinning reel maker switched to or offered a full bail when the Hardy patent expired.”

********
Well, one industry website begs to differ:

“Its exclusive eight-gear drive made the Mitchell 300 one of the most powerful and durable spinning reels ever. Over 25 million Mitchell 300 reels have been sold since 1948 [to 2001.] Nearly two thirds of the fishing reels sold in America are spinning reels, due largely in part to the advent of the Mitchell 300.”

Fishingworld.com

[wrong99]

Like Tommy said, it was about marketing and promotion. Genius marketing and promotion. It was my first fishing reel, which a lot of people can say. Well-made, with probably a staggering percentage still working.

[Midway Tommy D]

“That's right along my line of thinking. Mitchell really didn't bring anything to the table that wasn't already there other than a bass-ackward spinning rotor and, eventually, Garcia US importation & promotion. Nearly every spinning reel maker switched to or offered a full bail when the Hardy patent expired.”

********
Well, one industry website begs to differ:

“Its exclusive eight-gear drive made the Mitchell 300 one of the most powerful and durable spinning reels ever. Over 25 million Mitchell 300 reels have been sold since 1948 [to 2001.] Nearly two thirds of the fishing reels sold in America are spinning reels, due largely in part to the advent of the Mitchell 300.”

Fishingworld.com

Well, Mike, what better "differ"ence of opinion to have than with someone who has no idea what they are writing about.

As Paul Harvey used to say, here's "The Rest of that Story":

"Mitchell 300 --- The History

(11/20/2001 - ) The world's first spinning reel was invented in 1948 by Maurice Jacquenim, a young engineer from the Avre Valley in France. It was named the Mitchell 300. Jacquenim had begun working on a tool to be used for fishing in 1946, at the request of his brother. For two years he worked and researched to produce a reel which was not only a container to hold line, but also a tool which could cast a lure a great distance with precision, and recover the line without tangling. At that time, such a reel was only a dream, as casting and tangling problems left something to be desired in the "revolving spool" reels of the time.
After two years of research, trial and error, and engineering creativity way ahead of its time, the Mitchell 300 was born. Jacquenim's creation was an extreme departure from conventional reel mechanics and appearance. It literally changed the way anglers fished. Anglers could cast many times further than before, line and lure retrieval was dramatically enhanced . . . the Mitchell 300 allowed more people to enjoy fishing and become more successful in catching fish. It forged the path of fishing as we know it today. The Mitchell 300 grew to such popularity that more people began to fish because of it. The user friendliness of the Mitchell 300 brought more people into the sport of fishing.

The Mitchell 300 has gone through various evolutions since 1948. All the way from development of left-hand models, to cosmetic and material component changes. Its exclusive eight-gear drive made the Mitchell 300 one of the most powerful and durable spinning reels ever. Over 25 million Mitchell 300 reels have been sold since 1948.

Nearly two thirds of the fishing reels sold in America are spinning reels, due largely in part to the advent of the Mitchell 300. The Mitchell Company has grown to be one of the world's leading suppliers and innovators of spinning reel technology and design. Now after 53 years of research Mitchell is ready to do it again. In 2001 Mitchell introduces the smoother, lighter, stronger Mitchell 300X, "The New Legend." The new Mitchell 300X exemplifies Mitchell's heritage of innovation with advanced patented technology to make fishing easier and more enjoyable."


The very first line speaks for itself as to the credibility & validity of the author's knowledge, unless, that is, he/she disregarded all fixed spool open face style spinning reels as spinning reels (I can think of well over 75 according to Ben's research) prior to the Mitchell 300 . "Arguably " Grain of salt comes to mind regarding this dude's write-up .

[Jim Schottenham]

Let the debate begin, lol.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

OK, let's start with this one:

I can’t imagine the effort of lining and using the Billinghurst (or any other side mount reel for that matter) was ever really worth it in a practical sense.

The Billinghurst was indeed practical for the reasons outlined in the patent - one of the most notable was the ability to dry the lines without the need for removing them after a day's fishing - unlike the the Kentucky reels or imported brass winches that were available at the time. Forget to strip and dry your line after a day's fishing and after a few days your line may have been ruined. Another practical feature was the rapid line retrieval that didn't require gears. The large arbor allowed for quickly bringing in line even if you hooked a large fish that took your line down to the knot connecting it to the arbor. Not so with either of the aforementioned reels. I'm not sure what "effort" you might be referring to, but spooling the Billinghurst was no more, and perhaps less so, taxing to tie a line on and spool up than its contemporaries.

Next, let's look at this one:

....those three reels were novelties.

By comparison, the Orvis 1874 patent model was so practical it was sold in essentially its original, simple form for 40 years.

If longevity is a criteria to be used against calling a reel a novelty, the Billinghurst matches that of the 1874 patent Orvis reel - 40 years of the same basic design. After William passed in 1880, as we now know, James Ratcliffe acquired the rights to continue the manufacture of the reels - with one or two minor changes - 19 rings making up the spool vs. 20, and a small round line guide vs. William's elongated line guide. No need to futz with what was working so well (an argument could be made that the Orvis reel went through more changes than the Billinghurst design). Starting in 1859, and still finding the Billinghurst Safety reel offered for sale in the 1903 Clark & Horrocks catalogs, we have 40 plus years of anglers using what was a very practical tool. With many of America's best anglers and casters using and endorsing the Billinghurst reel for many years, it seems to me to be a fair assessment that it was not just a novelty - at least not in the second half of the 19th century.

And the last point I'll make relates to this:

the extraordinarily fragile Fowler Gem and the overly-complicated first model Illingworth are the two most obvious

I agree that the rubber Fowler reel was indeed fragile, but Charles F. thought enough of the hard rubber material to mention it numerous times in his own patent submission (with Fowler introducing his reel in 1872, Orvis had close to two years to experiment with the substance). So I guess he didn't think of it as a novelty at the time - though we haven't found one yet - but you just never know, it could exist.

Clearly, we all have our own opinions as to the reels on the list. But I think calling the Billinghurst reel and its kind a novelty is an injustice.

[Steve]

...what better "differ"ence of opinion to have than with someone who has no idea what they are writing about.

Now, Tommy, don't forget what Confucius said: "If it's on the Internet, it must be true!" That means that what was written in that FishingWorld.com column must be true. But here is something else from the Internet, from https://mitchell-collectors-internation ... story.html:
Maurice Jacquemin:
"Maurice Jacquemin had to cope with many requirements for the design of this reel. Mr. Pons, being an engineer himself, interfaced with Maurice on many of the design changes. To avoid line being captured between the underlying windings, turning speed of the rotor had to be different from the speed of the vertical movement of the spool. Therefore, extra gears were installed into an egg-shaped housing. The spool had a instant-release button on top, which allowed easy removal and replacement. A multi-stop anti-reverse device (a knurled button on the sideplate) was present on the very first model. The reel was fitted with a collapsible handle and the wooden handle knob was the same used on the first C.A.P. and Pecos models. The half bail arm-mechanism was the same as the one used on C.A.P. and Pecos models. Jacquemin had to use a half bail-arm: Hardy jealously kept their patent on the full bail arm until it expired in 1954. (my italics) The finish was a very decent satin black (on a red minium priming-coat). An application for a first patent was deposited on July 28, 1948 and the patent was granted on May 24, 1950 under number 969.584."

Recently, physicists have provided a bit of evidence that a parallel universe may exist. We may have stumbled across it here.

[Midway Tommy D]

Now, Tommy, don't forget what Confucius said: "If it's on the Internet, it must be true!" That means that what was written in that FishingWorld.com column must be true.

[Mike N]

Now, Tommy, don't forget what Confucius said: "If it's on the Internet, it must be true!" That means that what was written in that FishingWorld.com column must be true.

Steve and Tommy:

Please let us all know what portions of this short quote I posted from that “internet source” you factually disagree with and cite your source material:


“1.) its exclusive eight-gear drive made the Mitchell 300 one of the most powerful and durable spinning reels ever.

2.) Over 25 million Mitchell 300 reels have been sold since 1948 [to 2001.]

3.) Nearly two thirds of the fishing reels sold in America are spinning reels, due largely in part to the advent of the Mitchell 300.”

Can’t wait to see your rebuttal sources for these three, so educate us.

Mike N

[Steve]

Don't get your bowels in an uproar, Mike. It was the FW.com column that Tommy and I have issues with. The fact that you chose to use it as a source is no concern of ours. It was probably written by a Mitchell rep.

As long as you're asking, your #2 quote is merely braggadocio, and the #3 quote is just the author's unsupported opinion. What kinds of "sources" can refute those? We did, however, show a source that refutes your own immortal words: "It lacked a full bale and the pick-up was sketchy" was part of your argument against the inclusion of the Illingworth. The over-hyped 300 had to wait for years before it could grow its own full "bale." No doubt its original finger pick-up also was "sketchy."