Ambidex Mk 4 Stripdown

[Champ]

I wish! The images are all lifted from other places. The way I see it is that if I don't assemble them together a lot of our angling history will be lost and the knowledge with them.

Hi Nobby.With regard to your quote i am in total agreement.There is a site which i have lost that started to do the same.I think that you may know of it the person is called Adrian perhaps?.There werent any new additions when i last looked a few months ago.It had the makings of a great reference site and had some very good pictures of rods.Am i on the right track?.

[SeanM]

Thanks Nobby. I'd already realised that, but for some reason the edit facility wasn't working and I couldn't point out the error. Mark's fixed it and there's now a note on the post.

I'm pretty sure the reel is a Mk 4 as Mark has posted pics of his and they are identical. Maybe it's a late version? Is there a way of telling which version an Ambidex is without looking at a photo?

[Nobby]

Well my Photobucket link has images of some genuine Youngs Ambidex literature,Sean... so that's a help with some identification. But Moley on TPBTW is the most knowledeable feller on these reels...and a lot more.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the Mark 4 appeared in several different guises using both the early bodyshells.

Hi Champ, Adrian's site at inthenetuk hasn't had any updates since January 2010. He's got a lot on his plate at the moment and I fear it'll be some time before he will do any more to it, sadly. Saving any images one might find for another time can do no harm, though.


I'm also slowly building up an set of images of Aspindales products, but the model numbering system is proving hard to follow with 891's, 891B's, 892's and Aeros of many types. Adrian was kind enough to give me an ultra rare 894B two piece 12 foot float rod, sadly the hollow built tip section is firewood, but what an 'easy', through, action!

Amazingly Chapmans still list a replacement tip, but it is expensive and not hollow-built, so it might change the rod considerably. Fragile things, it's not surprising that Paul Cook feels unable to work on them anymore if they are set...and they always are.

[Mark]

It definitely looks like a Young’s Ambidex MK 4 to me Sean, there were two types of the Young’s Ambidex Mk 4 and the only difference was in the spool. The type 1 had a two piece spool and the type 2 is a one piece spool. If you can put some pictures up of the spool I should be able to say which it is for sure.

Please note that many of the Ambidex reels had interchangeable parts like Nobby has pointed out, so you could make up a reel that was never sold as a complete unit.

The only other Ambidex MK 4 that I can think of was made by Young’s but sold as an Allcock version called the Duco B, this had the same components but the reel was painted black.

[Nobby]

Er, actually I was pointing out that due to differing spool depths many Ambidex parts don't fit other models.

It seems the Mark 4 was made with both the early 'humpback' body shell and the later one without the 'hump'. So far all the images I have saved, and the illustration on the Youngs literature, too, show a Mark 4 with a hump back only. Perhaps Sean has found something rare there....?

[Mark]

Nobby , as far as I know the last Ambidex reels manufactured with a hump back were the Mk 3 reels painted gold. I’m sure the Mk 4 reel was never manufactured with a hump back and they had blue bodies only, apart from the black Duco B made for Allcock. Which of your pictures is the early Mk 4 Nobby.

[SeanM]

Ah, it was Moley. I'll dig out his post now I know who it was (must be my age!).

It's one piece, metal and painted blue:

[Nobby]

Mark, I have this picture lifted from an eBay sale, listed as a Mark4 and......






also the image from the Young's literature itself showing a two piece bale arm, Mark 4 with a 'humpback' body......





From Young's own literature, it seems the reels didn't have a Mark whatever put on them until the Mark5. Can anyone tell me the purpose of the chrome 'thumb grip' on the shaft of the reel in the first photo?

Incidentally, you can enlarge the shots a little by hovering over them and clicking 'Zoom-In' at the top right.

[Mark]

Nobby the reel in the picture is a Mark 3 Ambidex, it would look like the Ebay listing was incorrect, don’t believe everything you read on Ebay, I once saw a No. 1 listed as a No. 2.

On the literature I can’t see where it states it as a MK 4, unless I have missed something.

Your correct is saying that it wasn’t until the Mk 5 that they stated the MK number on the reels but the they did state No. 1 and No. 2 respectively on some of the Mk 1 and Mk 2 reels.

[GloucesterOldSpot]

I defy anyone to penetrate the Ambidex numbering system. The photo of Nobby's two posts above is not a number 3 as the handle is wrong and the drag knob is the detachable type, not the fixed one that (if the outer ring is turned a few degrees anticlockwise) removes the spool and drag knob as a single unit. I think the reel shown above was known as the No2 FP.

Then you get the confusion between the terms 'number' and 'mark'. There were number six and mark six versions which were completely different. At least the Deluxe and Match versions were pretty clear!