Meek vs. Horton question

ORCA Online Forum - Feel free to talk or ask about ALL kinds of old tackle here, with an emphasis on old reels!
Post Reply
User avatar
Ron Mc
Star Board Poster
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:49 am
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
Contact:

Meek vs. Horton question

Post by Ron Mc »

Hi guys,
I just picked up a Carter's Patent '04 and '05, Bluegrass Reel No. 33.
BF Meek & Sons, Louisville, Kentucky

What's the difference in age between this reel and a Horton Bluegrass Simplex No. 33?

What year did Horton buy Meek? oops - OK, found it, 1916. (thanks, Phil)

Any other enlightment for me?

thanks
User avatar
Bill Muth
Super Board Poster
Posts: 698
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:38 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by Bill Muth »

Hard to tell the exact difference in age, when Horton bought Meek in 1916 they got the Meek inventory and hired the craftsmen who would move from Louisville to Bristol, so the transition was pretty seamless. The Horton Blue Grass 33 remained in production virtually unchanged until at least 1940 (I have a gap from 1940 to 1947 in my catalog collection, it's not in the 1947 catalog). I'm not sure when Meek started producing that reel. I have a couple different Meek variations but don't how to date one Meek version vs. another.

By the way, if anyone has Horton or Bristol catalogs between 1940 and 1947, I'm seriously in the market!
User avatar
Ron Mc
Star Board Poster
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:49 am
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
Contact:

Post by Ron Mc »

mine has the Cater Pat dates on the face plate, and on the backplate, says
Bluegrass Reel
Made by BF Meek & Sons
Louisville, Kentucky
No. 33

it also doesn't have the riveted thumb-rest that's on the Horton models.
Other than those differences, it's basically the same as (faceplate marks)
Bluegrass
Simplex
No. 33
Horton
User avatar
Ron Mc
Star Board Poster
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:49 am
Location: downtown Bulverde, Texas
Contact:

Post by Ron Mc »

tail plate
Image
face plate
Image
foot - 7 - seems to be a smaller number than usually found on these
Image
Image
Post Reply