MKIV pecking order

[Nobby]

Surely the appropriate transfer should read " Built TO ****** " ?




http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=b+jame ... 106&ty=107


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=b+jame ... 29,r:4,s:0


http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=b+jame ... 29,r:3,s:0

[Gurn]

Nobby, according to this gentlemen the rods his family own have a dedication ie." Built for (insert name here)"....and the names of his father,uncle and one unknown other..He has been in the shop a few times now and appears very knowledgable. I get a few more snippets each time he comes in, but, as yet have seen no rods (though I have spoken to someone who has). Whether or not they are what he claims remains a mystery but they are definitely not "Built to endure" rods(I asked him)..As an interesting aside, I have done a bit of online delving and found this link.....
http://www.cane-rods.mistral.co.uk/Cane ... ge0031.htm
See the bottom paragraph, I think this must be the rod whch Paul Cook told me about on TPBTW...the interesting thing here is, that the chap who comes in my shop, is indeed from Leighton Buzzard.

[Nobby]

I yes, I follow Gurn....wrong end of the stick again, sorry.

[Gary Bills]

I sometimes wonder which rod Walker was actually using on the night of September 13th, 1952.. We know that during that eventful year, he was using at least two cane rods - the Mk IV now known as Excalibur and owned by Chris Ball, and the rod called the Fred Belcher rod, now owned by Kevin Clifford, But we also know, now, that contrary to reports at the time, Walker's 1954 common, the 34lb fish, fell to the Mk III - also now owned by Chris Ball. It seems that, with the MK IV already in production, Walker did not wish it to be known that, at least on that occasion, he favoured the MK III over the Mk IV. Did he also favour the Mk III in September, 1952? All the facts given above are in Kevin Clifford's "A History of Carp Fishing", by the way. Now, it is also true that Walker made several landing nets and, on a several occasions he gave away "the net used for Clarissa". The truth is, then, we don't actually know which net was used; nor can we be utterly sure that Excalibur is the rod, despite Walker's assurances. The great man wished to please people, as the net gifts demonstrate; - but in pleasing people he may have altered the truth a little...
My money is on the MK III being the rod used for Clarissa: just a hunch, but one based on the facts given above...

[Gary Bills]

This is what I recall from my reading, and perhaps Chris Ball will correct me if I am in error: but I understand that the MK III was/is a double-built carp rod - ie, cane hexaconal around an hexaconal cane core. Walker went on record to say that the double-built construction added very little extra stiffness, compared to the MK IV, at the expense of adding extra weight...but that did not stop him using the MK III in 1954 - and it's curious, isn't it, that he never gave the MK III away. until Chris asked for it...?

[Davyr]

Hard to imagine one of Chris Yates' intellect using a MKIV Avon to fish for carp of that size, either, but there's just no accounting for eccentricity!

[Nobby]

Returning to Snape's original post:


I read in my JB Walker catalogue that they claim to have supplied cane to Richard Walker for use in his Mark IV rod.


They made this claim for many years, and I guess that means nobody objected. So whose cane were they supplying? Their own, Southwells???


Why would RW go all the way to Hythe for his cane, when Croydon is so much nearer, though both would offer the same sort of postal service, surely...so why go to JB Walker?

[PDuffield]

I've always been a little confused about the 'Mk IV' and how many variants there are in the thickness of the cane. I remenber reading somewhere that after Walker made a rod described as the 'Mk IV carp' that his angling friends expressed an interest in a lighter version for smaller fish such as Barbel, so he reduced the tapers by 10% to create a lighter version and increased the tapers by 10% for a heavier version for larger carp. Of course I may have misunderstood or mis-remembered, but that suggests that there are three versions; Mk IV Avon, Mk IV Carp and S/U Mk IV Carp?

I own two Mk IV's, one marked as a 'Mk. IV', the other which is about one and a half times the thickness at the butt is marked as 'S/U Mk. IV'. Are these the only two variants, or is there another in-between, or heavier? Or have I just got this completely wrong?

Paul

[Snape]

I've always been a little confused about the 'Mk IV' and how many variants there are in the thickness of the cane. I remenber reading somewhere that after Walker made a rod described as the 'Mk IV carp' that his angling friends expressed an interest in a lighter version for smaller fish such as Barbel, so he reduced the tapers by 10% to create a lighter version and increased the tapers by 10% for a heavier version for larger carp. Of course I may have misunderstood or mis-remembered, but that suggests that there are three versions; Mk IV Avon, Mk IV Carp and S/U Mk IV Carp?

I own two Mk IV's, one marked as a 'Mk. IV', the other which is about one and a half times the thickness at the butt is marked as 'S/U Mk. IV'. Are these the only two variants, or is there another in-between, or heavier? Or have I just got this completely wrong?

Paul

I'm not sure Walker made a S/U MKIV as I thought that came later but Chris Ball will be the man who knows. He did make a beefier carp rod - the MKII which was nicknamed the 'whopper stopper'.

[Beresford]

I've always been a little confused about the 'Mk IV' and how many variants there are in the thickness of the cane. I remenber reading somewhere that after Walker made a rod described as the 'Mk IV carp' that his angling friends expressed an interest in a lighter version for smaller fish such as Barbel, so he reduced the tapers by 10% to create a lighter version and increased the tapers by 10% for a heavier version for larger carp. Of course I may have misunderstood or mis-remembered, but that suggests that there are three versions; Mk IV Avon, Mk IV Carp and S/U Mk IV Carp?

I own two Mk IV's, one marked as a 'Mk. IV', the other which is about one and a half times the thickness at the butt is marked as 'S/U Mk. IV'. Are these the only two variants, or is there another in-between, or heavier? Or have I just got this completely wrong?

Paul

In essence the simple answer is something like this:

MkIV Avon 1lb t/c Walker designed after the Carp rod
MkIV Carp 1.5 lbs t/c Walker designed
MkIV Carp S/U 2.25lbs t/c – B. James originated? Walker is said to have not liked the design

However, it gets more complex as lots of MkIVs were built by very many makers to approximate Walkers taper. For example, I have a Sharpes of Aberdeen built Carp rod, made in 1966, it looks like roughly a MkIV but the taper is rather different with less weight in the tip. They never called it a MkIV only 'the Carp' and I've always wondered if they just used a Salmon spinning rod taper.

Walker designed and made the lighter rod, the Avon, which is occasionally called the light carp rod. However, I'm not sure B. James worked exactly to Walker's taper for the MkIV series except in the early days of production. Certainly in later production the rod sold as the MkIV Carp was a 'thicker' rod with a higher theoretical test curve than their early production. 2lbs is often quoted for a late 1960's rod. The very best James MkIV carp I've handled was a late 1950's one, we should have measured the test curve but never did. It was so 'alive' when you put a bend in it and quite unlike every other James MkIV Carp I've handled or fished with.

One thing is clear to me, that no two are totally alike. Today, many of the cane rod builders offer the MkIVs built to Walker's exact taper. I own three MkIV Carps one of them is definitely not to Walker's exact taper but is still a superb rod, of the other two I'm not sure. Both are from the same maker, both were built in the early 1990's, both look to be the same taper but they are distinctly different rods in use, both good but neither stunning but one slightly softer with a more through action than the other which has slightly more backbone in the lower section.

The MkIV Avons that I have used have also all been different. The B. James late 1950's rod I had was definitely more tip heavy than the Oliver's or Hardy versions but that made the James a great rod for casting light baits. I have handled a 'new build' Avon that was built to Walkers exact taper and this rod felt much lighter, more balanced but more fast and tippy than the James version and almost wand like in the hand. If the rod Yates used to land the Bishop was anything like this…