The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

I am presently restoring a Hardy 'No1 Allround'.

Having cleaned it down, I was struck by how fine it was in the tip, compared to my 'No2 All-round', and lighter in both the mid and tip sections.

I had always believed the No1 and 2 to be the same rod apart from the ferrules, nickel silver on the No1 and brass on the No2. The No1 being 'Close whipped', a rubber button in place of the usual wooden one, and supplied with an aluminium rod tube. Quite a difference in price too, the No1 being 75/- and the No2 55/-

Measurements of both rods for comparison;

No1 (1938) No2 (1935)

Mid section No1 .336 - .235" No2 .358 - .256"

Tip section No1 .221 - .079" No2 .252 - .132"

Butt section (Whole cane, measured below ferrule) No1 .425" No2 .452"

Ferrules, as expected, are several sizes smaller on the No1, and the cork handle is about 2" longer.

My first thought was that Hardy's had increased the tip sizes due to breakages, as they had with the Mk1 and 2 'Roach perfection' later in the 50's, but I then realised that the lighter rod was in fact the later rod...

The overall quality and particularly the 'feel' of the cane is very different between the two rods, perhaps the no1 had the better cane?

Sorry if I've rambled on a bit, but I find these things fascinating,
Any thoughts?...

Paul,

I have stripped my No3 for a re-whip

And my tip too is fine measured at .222 - 0.77

My rod dates to 1936

I've never seen a Hardy catalogue description of these rods. Are they supposed to be similar in action but different in the standard of finish?

That's a big difference between the No 1 and No 2 tip sections. From your measurements I would have assumed the No 2 to be designed as a heavier/stronger rod but Paul's no.3 obviously has the same tip measurements as the No 1 .
Could the No.2 tip have been replaced at some time or is it definitely original?

Pete

Thanks for your comments chaps.

Paul, that's reassuring, your no3 tip is within a couple of thou', the same as my No1.

Pete, I agree, it's a big difference. It's difficult to be sure, but the No2 tip looks to be the original. Note that the mid section is also heavier.

To really throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I have just measured a later, 1954 'No 1 Wallis Avon'...

Mid section .360 - .271"
Tip section .244 - .109"
Butt (Whole cane) .465"
This makes the 'Avon' mid section similar to the 'No2 Allround', but the tip section considerably lighter!

Confused? me too.

Crucian wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:01 pm Thanks for your comments chaps.

Paul, that's reassuring, your no3 tip is within a couple of thou', the same as my No1.

Pete, I agree, it's a big difference. It's difficult to be sure, but the No2 tip looks to be the original. Note that the mid section is also heavier.

To really throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I have just measured a later, 1954 'No 1 Wallis Avon'...

Mid section .360 - .271"
Tip section .244 - .109"
Butt (Whole cane) .465"
This makes the 'Avon' mid section similar to the 'No2 Allround', but the tip section considerably lighter!

Confused? me too.

My 1954 No. 2 Avon has a steel core through the tip section, which might explain why the cane is thinner?