The Super Wizard, is it less of a rod than a Wizard?

[Kevanf1]

I understand that the Allcocks Super Wizard is a later incarnation of the Wizard, is that correct? Is it, relatively speaking of course, a lesser liked rod than a Wizard? I have a friend (he is actually a member of this forum, hi) who has a Super Wizard but is rather disappointed with it I can't say exactly why but it just doesn't 'feel' right in his hand. I have heard other say this about the Super Wizard.

Any comments?

[Mushy]

No first hand experience, but I've heard that the heavier lined rings make the rod feal a bit heavy in comparison with a standard wizard, I doubt if the tapers are any different but could be wrong.

[Nobby]

John Ollif-Cooper has written extensively about Wizards...he even 'made' a few. He did write that the lined rings of the Super Wizard are too heavy, but then rather contradicted himself by saying the Wizard rod needed two more rings on it.


The Super Wizard name came later, but the rod was always offered with lined rings as an option and also a cork handle, the basic model only having a wooden one. Allcocks made this rod from around 1931 up until 1966, when the Wizard was dropped, but the Super Wizard continued, though possibly only for one more year, after the hostile buy-out by Noris Shakespeare.


It stands to reason that some of those rods will not be as good as others and further, that some of them won't have aged well.



One must remember that the original rod was designed to be fished in the Nottingham style with a centrepin reel mounted below the hand. It therefor has a short handle and if fished the modern way with a fixed spool reel or a centrepin mounted above the hand it's going to feel unbalanced to some.



Allcocks probably recognised this as later rods were quietly given a longer handle.


Not everyone can get on with that short handle, nor does everyone like the through action of such a rod, prefering something with a bit more power in the middle and butt section.

Nevertheless, they hold their prices well and everyone, sooner or later, has to have one. Personally, I prefer a stronger rod, though with a similar through action and stiff whole cane butt...what was once called an Avon rod, though this name got confused with Richard Walker's Mark IV Avon, called a Mark V by some builders, so the original Avon is now perhaps better known as a Traditional Avon, most tending to have a longer handle more suited to modern fishing styles.



It's a bit weird that the Wizard should be so popular today, when no one fishes it the way it was designed for. Even most Wallis casters don't brake the reel with the side of their little finger as the Nottinghsam style dictates.

[Kevanf1]

John Ollif-Cooper has written extensively about Wizards...he even 'made' a few. He did write that the lined rings of the Super Wizard are too heavy, but then rather contradicted himself by saying the Wizard rod needed two more rings on it.

So, possibly there is room for improvement by the individual user/owner of such a rod.

The Super Wizard name came later, but the rod was always offered with lined rings as an option and also a cork handle, the basic model only having a wooden one. Allcocks made this rod from around 1931 up until 1966, when the Wizard was dropped, but the Super Wizard continued, though possibly only for one more year, after the hostile buy-out by Noris Shakespeare.

Now I have learned something here. I was not aware that the originals had a wooden as opposed to cork handle. I had thought the very earliest had a sheet cork handle. I take it these wooden handled models are somewhat rare?

It stands to reason that some of those rods will not be as good as others and further, that some of them won't have aged well.

Ah yes, there have always been the odd 'Friday' rod/reel etc. I have seen this rod though and felt it and it does feel rather nice in the hand. No sets or anything. However, I have not fished with it.... Which makes a big difference of course.

One must remember that the original rod was designed to be fished in the Nottingham style with a centrepin reel mounted below the hand. It therefor has a short handle and if fished the modern way with a fixed spool reel or a centrepin mounted above the hand it's going to feel unbalanced to some.


Allcocks probably recognised this as later rods were quietly given a longer handle.


Not everyone can get on with that short handle, nor does everyone like the through action of such a rod, prefering something with a bit more power in the middle and butt section.

Ah, I'd heard of this lengthening later in the production life of the various Wizards. Add to that the home grown lengthening attempts which left the transfer partially or even completely covered.

Nevertheless, they hold their prices well and everyone, sooner or later, has to have one. Personally, I prefer a stronger rod, though with a similar through action and stiff whole cane butt...what was once called an Avon rod, though this name got confused with Richard Walker's Mark IV Avon, called a Mark V by some builders, so the original Avon is now perhaps better known as a Traditional Avon, most tending to have a longer handle more suited to modern fishing styles.



It's a bit weird that the Wizard should be so popular today, when no one fishes it the way it was designed for. Even most Wallis casters don't brake the reel with the side of their little finger as the Nottinghsam style dictates.

I admit I have watched a few on eBay but always back off when the bidding 'inevitably' goes sky high. I have heard so many conflicting reports about the various Wizards that I shy away. I have a couple of 'Wizard like' rods that I got cheap. I have to absolutely honest and say that I'm not sure if I like the action or not. These rods I have do contain some power (not quite up to carp rod heights) and they do use pretty much the whole length of the rod to work that ability. I also have to admit that I have never even tried the Nottingham style of hand above reel using little finger as the brake. I'm very much of the index finger crowd. I may give it a go

[PerchBasher]

I have both a gold label wizard and a green label “super wizard” and to be honest can’t really tell much difference. I suppose the lined rings on the “super” do add a fraction more weight, but a few slivers of agate can’t weigh that much.

The Wizard is a bit of a marmite rod; you either love it or hate it. I originally bought mine thinking it would be good for trotting. I persevered, but the weight couple with the short handle and the unbalanced feel (for me anyway) made it a non starter. Perhaps that’s me being a wimp or maybe anglers back in the day were made of sterner stuff? Also, the all through, Avon style action means it is not tippy enough to pick up the line quickly and connect with bites at a distance

Rod rests were invented for heavy rods and where the Wizard does come into its own is float fishing or free lining on still waters. The rod is soft enough to enjoy catching small roach, but there’s enough “guts” in the middle to land tench and small to middling carp. I also like it for roaming on smaller rivers where it makes a nice light ledger rod and it’s dealt with chub to three pounds and barbel to five..

As for the short handle, you can deal with this by putting the reel further down the butt. This takes some getting used to, but will make the rod feel better in the hand. An ideal reel for this rod is a swan necked Ambidex, which, being “back heavy” somehow seems to transfer the weight better.

[Nobby]

There's a number of people I know who have altered Wizards, such as John Ollif-Coopers 'black label' Wizard. A longer handle in shive cork, a few more rings and obviously the cane sections chosen were the best he could find ...they all adore them without reservation. I did hear of one alledgedly changing hands for £900!

I've often wondered if playing around with a little weight at the end of the butt might improve the balance of the rod, the 'feel' of it in the hand, parhaps?


I'm fairly sure I recall the text of an Allcock's Guide referring to the later 'swan-necked' Ambidex shape as intended to improve the balance of a rod just as you describe Perchbasher.



I have read that the gold label post-War rods are not thought to be as good as the pre-War ones, and indeed Allcocks refer to a new post-War design...possibly a thicker butt section? .... so it's interesting that they feel the same to you.

Are the lined rings of you earlier rod stand-off rings or are they close to the cane? If the latter I'd think they couldn't weigh much more than stand-off rings which have more metal. Later Super Wizards seem to have been fitted with stand off lined rings...now I can see how they might weigh a bit more....perehaps it was to those that JOC referred to when he said they were too heavy?


The 1936 Guide image here seems to show the rod that became known as the Super Wizard, I think due to the rinmgs indicated:

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7535&p=107375#p107375

Go to the last entry by RodTurner who has managed a far better scan than I did.


Interesting that the 8761sch rod is described as being specially recommended for use with a fixed spool reel.......not with that short handle it shouldn't have been, surely?

I've always presumed that sch stood for 'special cork handle', though the Guide indicates that the normal 8761 rod was available with a cork handle as an option. This suggests that it might be that 'sch' is something to do with the lined rings.

[Beresford]

To echo that which Nobby writes, I wonder if the Super Wizards are considered less good not because they have lined rings but simply because the cane may have been less good by the 1960s.

[PerchBasher]

Hello Nobby

Thanks for the information, - most interesting.

My earlier Wizard does have stand off rings and I suppose that would add a smidgeon to the overall weight. However, I feel the problem (9f that’s the right word) with Wizards is not so much the overall weight but the short handle, which affects the balance, and for me anyway, rules it out for trotting. Some years ago I picked up a 12.5 foot split cane rod of unknown provenance from eBay which has a 36” handle, the longest I’ve ever seen! It looks odd, but balance wise it’s a dream and I can comfortably trot using this rod all day. Another favoured trotting rod is the Chapman 500, but the relatively short length (once the 24” handle is taken into account) means its best suited to smaller rivers and streams.

Counterweighting the butt is a good suggestion and I’ve done this with a hollow glass match rod. This was relatively easy as I simply took the plastic butt cap off, inserted a two ounce lead inside, wedged it tight with some blue tack, sealed with glue and replaced the cap. However doing so on a Wizard may be a little more difficult and I'm not sure my DIY skills are up to it.

Aesthetically the Wizard is a thing of beauty, and for fishing styles where the rod is in the rests between bites I love using it, but especially if it’s a trotting rod you want, there are better cane rods out there, particularly given the silly money that Wizards now command.

[SeanM]

I agree pretty much with what Nobby and Beresford said. I had a (just) post war gold label Wizard which I compared with a green and black label Wizard which had been rebuilt by a friend of mine. My Wizard was definitely crisper in action even with a couple of extra rings fitted, which rather backs up Brersford's view that the reputation probably derived from cane quality rather than the weight of lined rings.

Wizards are heavy old things as can be seen from the following weights courtesy of Mrs M's kitchen scales:

Wizard 14oz
11ft Octofloat (late model) 13oz
Adonis 13oz
11ft Aspindales Avon 11oz
Lucky Strike 10oz
Chapmans 500 12oz
10ft 6in Milwards Floatcraft 10oz

and for comparison:

13ft Shimano Triple X 6oz

Like Perch Basher, I found that the Wizard wan't an easy rod to trot with although it was a lovely rod to play fish on and I eventually sold mine on. Would I buy a Super Wizard? Well yes if one came up at the right price. I suppose the real problem would be sourcing rings if it needed new ones and I would be tempted to use unlined rings.

[Nobby]

I'm surprised a whole cane butt Wizard weighs more than a built cane rod of the same length....must be all that varnish you put on, Sean.



To save any confusion, Sean's rod was a lovely example and wasn't heavily varnished, indeed I thought it felt like a good one, so I'm genuinely surprised it is heavier than an Octofloat.