Reel Sizes ...

[reelsmith.]

I have three fly reels in my collection marked with the #3 on the foot: a JVH, EVH and a Slote. All are 2.5" in diameter.

Are all fly reels with the #3 (or 1, 2, 4, etc ?) all the same size ?

If so, who decided this ?

Numbering and size seems to also be consistent in KY reels and ball handle reels. I'd imagine its the same with big game reels. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Was there a higher power that decided the size markings ..some sort of trade organization ?

Or was it decided by whoever began numbering reels first and then others simple followed along ?

I've long been curious about this.

Dean.

[Ron Mc]

Dean,
It's going to be a 19th century convention, and I'd be leaning on JVH picking up where Meek and Milam began on Kentucky multipliers
I checked the 1909 Mills catalog on googlebooks.
Every single-action reel is marked in yards, except one salmon fly reel listed as No. 4

[reelsmith.]

I've noticed the JVH catalogs list reels by yards, yet his reels are always marked with size numbers.

The size numbers are not listed in the catalogs.

Odd.

Dean.

[Ron Mc]

I just checked the only JVH multiplier I own - the foot is stamped 2.
Comparable size Pflueger Bond, of course a bit later reel, is foot-stamped 100.
The nickel JVH is also shown in the Mills catalog listed by yardage and no number.

The only other reels they list by a number + yardage are the JVH-made salt reel, 1=200yd, 1/0=250yd...5/0=500yd.

[Nick in NY]

Bit different with big game...14-0 Penn both with 7” side plates but different spool widths. Hofe 16-0 with a 8 1/4” side plate and spool width of about 4 1/2” 20-0 with a 6” side plate. Then Kovalovsky average 16-0 side plates 7 5/8” and 5 1/2” spool BUT a 18-0 with a side plate of 8 1/2” and a spool width of 5 1/2”. Form I maker to another different side plates and different spool width.

[Mike N]

The interesting oddity for me has always been that the smallest (“00” or No.1) to larger sizes (a No. 6, for instance) in Kentucky reel are numbered in the exact opposite way that JVH and NY reels are sized, where a No. 5 is a tiny reel. Why?

Also, a quick check of some old Lang’s catalogs lists three slightly different “No. 3” JVH trout reels, each with a different diameter...2-1/4” and 2-3/8” and 2-1/2.” There is a “No. 1” JVH reel being offered right now on eBay where the description says “ The diameter, excluding pillars is about 2 5/8.”


Mike N.

[reelsmith.]

My experience with JVH and EVH fly reels is whether round or raised pillar, the size and diameter (including the pillars are) ...

#5 = 2"
#4 = 2/18"
#3-1/2= 2-1/4"
#3 = 2-1/2"
#2 = 2-3/4"
#1 = 3"

Dean.

[Mike N]

My experience with JVH and EVH fly reels is whether round or raised pillar, the size and diameter (including the pillars are) ...

#5 = 2"
#4 = 2/18"
#3-1/2= 2-1/4"
#3 = 2-1/2"
#2 = 2-3/4"
#1 = 3"

Dean.

Thanks, Dean. So let’s compare, smallest to largest.

New York (Vom Hofe)............................Kentucky (Meek/Milam)

#5 = 2" diameter....................................#1 = 1-5/8” diameter
#4 = 2/18"..............................................#2 = 1-3/4” diameter
#3-1/2= 2-1/4".......................................#3 = 2” diameter
#3 = 2-1/2"............................................#4 = 2-1/4” diameter
#2 = 2-3/4".............................................#5 = 2-1/2” diameter
#1 = 3"...................................................#6 = 2-3/4” diameter

[RonG]

That's an interesting comparison.

[Ray Hencken]

JVH catalog information listing which is consistent for each round model fly reel reel.
Dia. Disk..........2in.....2 1/8"in....2 1/4"in....2 1/2"in.....2 3/4" in...3in......4in..... 4 1/4in....4 1/2"
No..................105......104..........103 1/2.......103.............102..........101....144/0...145/0......146/0
Yards............... 40.......60...........80............100...........150..........200

Note that the last number in the model number corresponds to the number found on the reel foot. Each model reel had its own model number. eg 075, 105, 95, 115, 175, etc.

Raised pillar model fly reels and the Perforated NS/HR fly reel.
Dia. Disk ..........2 1/4"......2 3/4"....3 1/8'....3 5/8"....4 1/4"
No. ..................123..........122.......123.......12 2/0.....12 4/0
Yards................100.........150.......200

The numbering on the round fly reels is also the same for the casting reels.

[Steve]

Warrin catalog ca. 1855:


Pre-"& Son" FVH:

[reelsmith.]

Thanks Mike, Ray and Steve.

Steve, I wonder how those numbers match up to diameters ?

Ray, It's interesting that JVH did not include the pillars in his measurements on RP reels, as we usually do. Note the #3 round reel at 2.5" and the #3 RP reel at 2.25". I have always considered the #3 RP reel to be the same size as the round reel, as I have always included the pillars.

Okay, so back to my initial question ...who started numbering the sizes ?

I'm just spit balling here ...

Until Steve added the post above I had thought with early ball-handle and S-handle reels it was likely a vom Hofe who began the size numbers. However, it seems they might have adopted Warrin's numbering ...or did they both adopt someone else's numbering ?

With fly reels I think it plausible the vom Hofe's may have been first using number sizes. I have seen fly reels that I could not positively ID as vom Hofe ...in fact, I'm sure some were not, that bore a number size, leading me to believe others adopted the numbering system. But who developed it ?

As Mike has shown, the numbering system on KY style reels was completely different, but was used by a number of makers such a Meek, Milam, Deally, Sage, Gayle, Talbot and I'm sure I'm forgetting some. My guess here is Meek came up with the size numbers since they seemed to have done so first ...you KY reel guys will know better. Your thoughts ?

And what about big game reels? vom Hofe was prolific there as well.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Thanks.

Dean.

[kyreels]

I think that J.F. and B.F. Meek started the sizing of Ky Reels using numbers 1-6. Most of the diameters are shown in Fishing Reel Makers of Kentucky by Vernon & Stewart. We could inventory them to compare to the ones attributed above.

[Mike N]

Numbered sizing of vintage Kentucky vs New York reels is really a difficult thing for a new collector to get his/her mind around. Why did the New York makers number their reels the opposite way from their Kentucky counterparts, especially since plenty of Northern retailers sold both styles? Nowadays a “uniform standards commission” would put the kibosh on such practices.

Just when you think you’ve seen the smallest or largest Kentucky reel, along comes someone with a Sage “00” or a Meek No. 11.

Then we move into the 1/0 New York reels, not to mention an A. Kovalovsky 16/0 Type I “Standard Model” Big Game Reel.

Are stamps on the bottom of a reel foot just parts numbering or line capacity in yards or.....

It’s amazing we have not discussed this issue in-depth before that I recall, but when even a top collector like Dean has enough questions to start this thread, it shows a little back and forth might be enlightening.

Mike N.

[Steve]

especially since plenty of Northern retailers sold both styles?

Not until almost a half-century or so after J.F. & B.F. standardized their reel sizes and began numbering them. (What an epiphany! "Let's use numbers to associate with reel sizes so we don't have to describe them as 2 1/8"-diameter and such.") By the time those Northern retailers were selling Ky reels, the much-feared opposite numbering system was already being used by the infernal Yankees. M&M made an estimated 700 reels, not quite enough to supply plenty of Northern retailers.

we have not discussed this issue in-depth before that I recall

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1536&p=5833&hilit=numbering#p5833
My guess is that the earliest NY makers focused on making reels large enough to handle larger fish in the waters around NY. As the businesses grew, they expanded their lines to include smaller reels to satisfy the wealthier folks who could afford guided fishing trips in the wilderness. Their size numbering could easily have started with their largest, most common models. The later "/0" designations would have been necessary to avoid screwing up the system they already used. And let's not forget that not everyone adopted the system during the 19th century.