Edward Barder Rods

The Edward Barder Rods forum.
GloucesterOldSpot

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by GloucesterOldSpot »

No - let someone who'd actually appreciate the exquisite varnish job have it. I'd only end up stripping the thing - and re-shaping the cork whilst I'm at it! Lovely blank though, Barbara Cartland-esque outfit notwithstanding.

User avatar
Michael
Tench
Posts: 2754
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:45 pm
12

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by Michael »

The paint strippers working a treat G, you`ll love it soon........

User avatar
Beresford
Sea Trout
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:26 pm
12

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by Beresford »

gloucesteroldspot wrote:The extra foot of length makes a significant difference. Not so much in terms of how far you can reach or cast, but the effect on the rods action. You might assume a rod rated at 1.75lb test would be stiffer than one at 1.5lb test, but that's true only if both are equal length. The longer a rod is, the softer it will feel, regardless of test curve. Thus an eleven foot 1.75lb test rod is more powerful than a ten foot 1.5lb rod, but it will feel if anything a little softer, which makes casting light baits easier. Jack Hilton found this out when he first experimented with glass blanks, and the modern twelve footer in carbon simply extends the principle.

Also, the longer a rod is, the less the reel has to do when playing a fish. A long, progressive through-actioned rod can subdue even quite big fish close-in without any line being taken at all, whereas a short rod has limited capacity to absorb runs without help from the reel.

I have only handled one Barder rod (a Merlin) but I've seen a few others. The Merlin felt superb - very tight and crisp and well balanced - but I really didn't like the OTT finish. I agree that it is unsurpassed craftsmanship, but the thing is a fishing rod, not a work of art. It's not just Edward Barder's rods either - almost all cane rodmakers now aspire to mimic this flawless transparency of varnish (which is presumably demanded by the customer) and use ultrafine Japanese silks to achieve it, but I find it utterly absurd. Give me a rod whipped with sensible thickness thread - something that'll hold a ring on firmly without requiring eight thousand turns to do it - and a simple varnish job sufficient to keep water out, and don't ask me to pay the excess labour charges involved in doing it the hard way.

The blank is the important thing - all the rest is cosmetic. Chapmans will make you a blank which to all intents and purposes is equal to a Barder, and you can make a rod up from it yourself for about a quarter the total outlay (and have the finished article on the bank a lot sooner).

To give some balance, I don't like the modern rod builder's insistence on using epoxy to coat whippings either. It looks ugly and it's a perfect pain to remove if a ring gets damaged. Let's have sensible grade C or D gauge nylon whippings sealed with varnish, the kind of thing that held rings on quite adequately for years, and is easily removed and replaced by the kitchen table rod repairer.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I don't expect many will agree with me!
Thanks for that, I feel a whole lot better as I know I'll never be able to afford a Barder, short of a big, big win on the Premium Bonds. On aesthetics I do like the transparent whippings but I'm not that bothered either way but I hate those deep epoxy whippings on cane. Having put a slight set in my James Avon I sent it off to one of the then leading rod makers to sort out the set, repair a damaged ferrule whipping and rewhip the big agate ring. I was heart broken to see my lovely old rod with these bulbous glossy epoxy whippings when I thought it would come back with 'invisible mending'. In the end I sold it. I like the workmanlike appearance of my Aberdeen Sharpes Carp, no intermediates and that polished deep coloured cane. Barder's view is that impregnated rods are inferior to those of varnished bamboo but I see a lot of vintage Sharps rods in very, very good nick, so either they were so bad they were never used or…

I don't live that far away from Chapmans. May be one day when I have some more reasonable funds available. I suppose it would be considered bad form to have some kind soul measure the taper of their Bishop allowing of course a few thousandths of an inch for the deep varnish.
The Split Cane Splinter Group

User avatar
Snape
Bailiff
Posts: 9982
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:52 am
12
Location: North Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by Snape »

gloucesteroldspot wrote:The extra foot of length makes a significant difference. Not so much in terms of how far you can reach or cast, but the effect on the rods action. You might assume a rod rated at 1.75lb test would be stiffer than one at 1.5lb test, but that's true only if both are equal length. The longer a rod is, the softer it will feel, regardless of test curve. Thus an eleven foot 1.75lb test rod is more powerful than a ten foot 1.5lb rod, but it will feel if anything a little softer, which makes casting light baits easier. Jack Hilton found this out when he first experimented with glass blanks, and the modern twelve footer in carbon simply extends the principle.
Yes. My 11 foot 1lb tc Bishop Avon feels very soft compared to my 10ft Avons.
It handles well though and although I haven't have a big fish on it I think it will cope well with barbel, tench and smaller carp.
“Fishing is much more than fish. It is the great occasion when we may return to the fine simplicity of our forefathers,” Herbert Hoover.
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸ ><((((º>

Cooksey

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by Cooksey »

Hi all, I am fortunate to own the Bishop made by Mr Barder , however due to current time constraints I am unable to discuss the merits of this rod.
If anyone requires further information on the safe use of cane rods given to me by Mr Barder I would gladly photocopy and post.
Regards
Lawrence

GloucesterOldSpot

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by GloucesterOldSpot »

Snape wrote:
gloucesteroldspot wrote:The extra foot of length makes a significant difference. Not so much in terms of how far you can reach or cast, but the effect on the rods action. You might assume a rod rated at 1.75lb test would be stiffer than one at 1.5lb test, but that's true only if both are equal length. The longer a rod is, the softer it will feel, regardless of test curve. Thus an eleven foot 1.75lb test rod is more powerful than a ten foot 1.5lb rod, but it will feel if anything a little softer, which makes casting light baits easier. Jack Hilton found this out when he first experimented with glass blanks, and the modern twelve footer in carbon simply extends the principle.
Yes. My 11 foot 1lb tc Bishop Avon feels very soft compared to my 10ft Avons.
It handles well though and although I haven't have a big fish on it I think it will cope well with barbel, tench and smaller carp.
I'm sure it would - always being mindful of the earlier advice about avoiding strain on the tip. Just because a rod feels soft doesn't mean it lacks power, and an eleven footer will have more power in the butt than a ten footer of equal test curve. My Wizard handles big fish better than the MkIV Avon, by virtue of the extra foot, most of which is effectively at the butt end; this means there's more reach against a given pull, and more capacity to absorb a greater pull. The disadvantage of a Wizard is not the taper so much as the design.

With a soft rod the tip may end up pointing down the line, but that doesn't matter so long as there's something left at the handle end. After all, anglers have routinely caught big barbel, chub and carp on feeder rods without breaking the fine quivertips. I'd sooner take on a big fish with a longish, fairly soft, progressive actioned rod than a stiff poker, providing the fish are close enough to make such a rod viable. An eleven foot rod with a test curve of a pound - such as yours - is probably the ideal all-round rod for small and medium sized fish. My preference for an all-rounder is for something a little heavier at around 1.25lb to be able to cope better with barbel, carp etc and to cast heavier weights, but that's a personal thing.

Short, soft rods are hopeless (ever tried to catch a carp with a Hardy Wanless?) as the rod bottoms out too quickly, and short stiff rods are unpleasant things to play a fish on - you end up playing the fish off the reel.

User avatar
Michael
Tench
Posts: 2754
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:45 pm
12

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by Michael »

Cooksey wrote:Hi all, I am fortunate to own the Bishop made by Mr Barder , however due to current time constraints I am unable to discuss the merits of this rod.
If anyone requires further information on the safe use of cane rods given to me by Mr Barder I would gladly photocopy and post.
Regards
Lawrence

Also when you buy a rod from Edward, he will give you a friendly, getting to know your rod and its limitations lecture. This covers everything from cleaning, its safe use, disassembling a rod joint stuck together, he will cover everything you will need to know.

User avatar
Snape
Bailiff
Posts: 9982
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:52 am
12
Location: North Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by Snape »

gloucesteroldspot wrote:An eleven foot rod with a test curve of a pound - such as yours - is probably the ideal all-round rod for small and medium sized fish. My preference for an all-rounder is for something a little heavier at around 1.25lb to be able to cope better with barbel, carp etc and to cast heavier weights, but that's a personal thing.

Short, soft rods are hopeless (ever tried to catch a carp with a Hardy Wanless?) as the rod bottoms out too quickly, and short stiff rods are unpleasant things to play a fish on - you end up playing the fish off the reel.
It is lovely as a chub and tench rod which is what I use it for. The Merlin is a fantastic all rounder though and at 11ft and 1.25lb tc will handle a double figure barbel and carp. I find I don't use the Barbus Maximus that much as it is 12ft and I mostly fish smaller rivers. It does make a lovely floater fishing rod though and for barbel on bigger rivers. I also have a Carp Crawler which is 8' 3" version of the Bishop. It is a lovely stalking rod and my 12 year son uses it and has caught barbel, double figure carp and pike on it.
As for the Wanless - yes I have caught a barbel on my 6lb Wanless which I love using for chub stalking. It was only a 4lb barbel but I couldn't do anything with it as there was no power in the butt at all. The 9/10 lb Wanless is a different matter and a friend of mine stalked a Redmire 20 with his and it was fine.
Last edited by Snape on Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Fishing is much more than fish. It is the great occasion when we may return to the fine simplicity of our forefathers,” Herbert Hoover.
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸ ><((((º>

User avatar
Snape
Bailiff
Posts: 9982
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:52 am
12
Location: North Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by Snape »

Cooksey wrote:Hi all, I am fortunate to own the Bishop made by Mr Barder , however due to current time constraints I am unable to discuss the merits of this rod.
If anyone requires further information on the safe use of cane rods given to me by Mr Barder I would gladly photocopy and post.
Regards
Lawrence
I previously posted the info on cane rods and advice for care of cane from Edwards brochure here http://www.traditionalfisherman.co.uk/v ... =130&t=383
“Fishing is much more than fish. It is the great occasion when we may return to the fine simplicity of our forefathers,” Herbert Hoover.
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸ ><((((º>

User avatar
Beresford
Sea Trout
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:26 pm
12

Re: Edward Barder Rods

Post by Beresford »

Snape

You seem to have an enviable clutch of Barder creations. Do you know why he dropped the Carp Crawler from his range?
The Split Cane Splinter Group

Post Reply

Return to “Edward Barder Cane Rods”