Aberdeen?
Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:17 pm
I've just acquired a Sharpe's Scottie 13', lovely rod but also interesting in that, although it is in most respects identical to "The Aberdeen" (rings, reel seat, butt cap, Scottie dog and Impregnated labels, overwhippings on the ferrules etc., number indicating it was the 127th made in August 1976) it has odd features.
It does not have "The Aberdeen" or the length and line weight hand-written on it.
It has a single overwhipping on the lower foot of the stripping ring.
There are red "lining-up" dots on the top ferrule of the middle section and on both tip sections but not on the butt ferrule or its corresponding middle section ferrule.
There is a final coat of varnish short on the butt section whippings, not as smooth as the other sections.
I don't have another with which to compare the ring spacings but the first two are, in my honest opinion, in an odd position in that they don't fall on the same parabolic curve as the other ten. But if they were moved to follow the curve they'd be in very odd positions.
I wonder why. A reject that "escaped"? An apprentice piece? A foreigner? If any of these why the number? None of the above oddities is a reason for wasting a good blank. Mid and tip sections from a different rod? If so, whence the odd butt section?
I have the same situation with a box of Oertling balance weights - same elegant construction, lining, weights but slightly different size to the others and it doesn't have a slot for the tweezers or a number as all the others do. Why?
We may never know. Unless any of you do. About the rod at least.
Mike
It does not have "The Aberdeen" or the length and line weight hand-written on it.
It has a single overwhipping on the lower foot of the stripping ring.
There are red "lining-up" dots on the top ferrule of the middle section and on both tip sections but not on the butt ferrule or its corresponding middle section ferrule.
There is a final coat of varnish short on the butt section whippings, not as smooth as the other sections.
I don't have another with which to compare the ring spacings but the first two are, in my honest opinion, in an odd position in that they don't fall on the same parabolic curve as the other ten. But if they were moved to follow the curve they'd be in very odd positions.
I wonder why. A reject that "escaped"? An apprentice piece? A foreigner? If any of these why the number? None of the above oddities is a reason for wasting a good blank. Mid and tip sections from a different rod? If so, whence the odd butt section?
I have the same situation with a box of Oertling balance weights - same elegant construction, lining, weights but slightly different size to the others and it doesn't have a slot for the tweezers or a number as all the others do. Why?
We may never know. Unless any of you do. About the rod at least.
Mike