There were 5 reels in production at this time, which I would guess was late 1954, they are not 'marks' or versions' but different reels, made concurrently, to hold different capacities of line.
They are the No.1 reel, the No.2 reel, .... both half bails, and the No.1FP, the No.2FP and the No.3 FP, all full bail reels featuring Ted Young's 'flexible pick-up' ... his idea of a full bail that might get around Hardy's patent on the full bail arm. Hardy were having none of it and made him wait until their wartime extended patent lapsed in September 1954, hence my guess at the date of the leaflet above.
This leaflet gives us some of the early spool part numbers over on the right-hand side and you can see that there is a number 170 there......I confess this isn't clear to me...is it the spool for a No1 Ambidex, perhaps? Perhaps an owner might check?
Below that is the number 259 and this is the most common spool...it's for the No.2FP.
Incidentally, the spool seems to be almost identical to the spool of the No.2 halfbail reel and early No.2FP models have what I think IS the very same spool with the clicker serrations turned off roughly in a lathe!
Lastly is the number 400 for the large capacity No.3 FP reel, which also featured several other new features......a quickly detachable spool( that was held on with a Rapidex release arm spring) and a clutch that didn't need dismantling, .... hence the 'quickly detachable'). This reel also features the first folding handle, which although not illustrated here is mentioned over at the top left as part number 514 515. One of those numbers may mean the huge chrome spring it featured, but when the handle was fitted to the rest of the range it was changed to a tiny little hidden chrome spring, but the crank retained the same cast in serial number.
So next time you see a spool with a number cast into the back surface you'll know what reel it's for.
I would have expected the spools to be interchangeable between reels, but the drawing suggests they need their own dedicated 'line drum bearing' and 'tension unit' as they all have different numbers too, so if you haven't got those too, you might have problems. I had thought a tension unit was a tension unit, but apparently not so.......
