At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

The Hardy Reels forum.
User avatar
QuinetteCane
Rudd
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:34 pm
11

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by QuinetteCane »

I too prefer the Ivorine version, it has the recessed line guard to allow for unfettered batting which the hole version doesn't possess.
Are you aware of the cast/riveted foot variation on them Nobby?
I wonder when that difference came about!

User avatar
Nobby
Wild Carp
Posts: 10975
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:40 pm
12
Location: S.W.Surrey
Contact:

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by Nobby »

Yes, it would be fair to say that there are 'three' versions of the reel really. I suppose the simple pressed foot, though not as grand, .... was lighter than the cast one?

As Michael and I discovered last year the centreboss screws are different sizes between the two main versions and therefore not interchangeable.

Also, I have one image in which the copper plug in the centreboss appears to be of a different material and is possibly not copper at all.

Here is an image of the gubbins in what we now know is the later reel:

Image

The cogwheel on the right has a pin butted against its serrations which makes the mechanism click and beneath it is a cam which increases or decreases the tension the spring exerts on the Tufnol shoe brake, thus slowing the reel down or letting it spin more freely. I do wish Hardy had fitted a light spring to pull the shoe away from the spool though.......

The shoe bears against the brass ring below the ratchet cogwheel.

Image


The ratchet mechanism can be seen in the first image, mounted back and to the left.


In the second image you can see the lower surface of the copper plug up through the turret. It bears upon the unique domed centrepin spindle top also visible in the first image.


In the second image, up in the turret again, you can see the spool locking lever at 2 o'clock. Hardy had a little tailsection on the lever that stopped dirt getting into the top of the spool area to some extent and they patented it.

Image


Here is the ivorine scale and later ratchet lever:

Image


And here is what I think must be the last version with a cast foot:

Image


And just for completeness, the first version in the flesh:

Image

The last two images are from the Canadian museum site I mentioned earlier. When I first saw the annotations I thought they were incorrect and only now have learned that they were right all along...... :oops:

I'm now off to re-title all my Conquest images and then I'm going to hide in a dark cupboard all week-end. :Hahaha:


PS. The patent those pesky Canucks refer to is the spool release lever one mentioned above. Granted in 1949 it pre-dates the Conquest by maybe 5 years:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publica ... cale=en_EP#

User avatar
Crucian
Eel
Posts: 2283
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:20 pm
9
Location: Watchet, Somerset.

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by Crucian »

Well done chaps, that's that cleared up then.

Great photo's Nobby.

I too prefer the later version, for the reasons stated by Quinettecane.
Has anyone else had to tighten the rivets on the riveted foot version? both of mine were loose,and not a particularly good fit anyway... surprising on a Hardy reel.

User avatar
QuinetteCane
Rudd
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:34 pm
11

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by QuinetteCane »

Well done once more Nobby, the two versions seen there juxtaposed illustrates well how so much neater the unholed model looks.
I do wonder if the Hardy boardroom considered the holey one leaned too much to
modernity and revamped it to equate more to the Wallis/Triumph standard look?
More so if sales tailed off!
The ivorine dial harks back to my Super Silex which predates the Conquest by decades provable by the makers initials that we know of. The redesign is also much more substantial than first appears and does feel more compact in use.
What a pity the paper trail is so inconclusive.
Not being able to adjust the tensioner with the spool in place is just a bit bonkers tho' !

User avatar
Tomeland
Ruffe
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:40 pm
7

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by Tomeland »

I own both models and looking at other hardy reels it was obvious to me that the hole&wheel version is the later one.
I come to this conclusion because of several things. The earlier, often pre-war reels had brass foot, blackened metal backs, fine alloy drums, and a general sense of better quality and workmanship (not talking about just the Conquest here, but also Eureka and others too.) Often Pre-war reels had curved lettering too.
Post-war reels had straight lettering, painted backs (which often falls off as the poorer quality alloy beneath gets attacked by corrosion), poorer quality metal drums and backs. poorer quality reel feet (no longer brass) and rivetted fittings which were often screwed before.
My pre-war and post-war Eureka reels show these differences, and the different models of Conquest do too.
Post-war Silex Jewel and Superba reels cannot compare with Pre-war Silex models for the same reasons I metion above.
All my own thoughts and opinions, and you are welcome to make of them as you will.

User avatar
Nobby
Wild Carp
Posts: 10975
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:40 pm
12
Location: S.W.Surrey
Contact:

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by Nobby »

Forgive me Tomeland, but if you read through the entire thread you will see that we have now concluded that the wheel-in-the-hole was actually the earlier version, the somewhat antiquated looking and unreliable shoe pad brake and ivorine scale was the later version.

The post by Watermole+ was the deciding one.

User avatar
Lea Dweller
Pike
Posts: 6007
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:58 am
10

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by Lea Dweller »

Well done Nobby, as you say, the Watermole+ contribution was a "clincher". Ironically, having owned both versions at one time, I now have The Powell Conquest, so I have sold them both!! I will be taking it to Romsey, so come and have a look any TFF members that would like to see it!
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall!
Confucius

User avatar
Tomeland
Ruffe
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:40 pm
7

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by Tomeland »

Sorry, nothing is definate in the world of Hardy tackle. Illustrations of reels were often way off or out of date. I am therefore sticking to my opinion about reel quality being the deciding factor. in my honest opinion.
The photo above showing the one with the cast foot which is seperate from the foot mount is typical of pre-war reels and suggests a better quality, so I would class that reel as the earliest version before the simpler one piece foot in brass. Last reels had a poorer quality foot.

User avatar
MGs
Pike
Posts: 6417
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:24 pm
12
Location: Cornwall

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by MGs »

There are reels out there of both types with both types of foot. So that isn't definitive.
Old car owners never die....they just rust away

User avatar
Tomeland
Ruffe
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:40 pm
7

Re: At last..the final answer to Conquest dating!

Post by Tomeland »

MGs wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:27 pm There are reels out there of both types with both types of foot. So that isn't definitive.
Well, I must admit that i have never seen a photo of a 'hole-in-the-front' type with the better two-piece foot... just the simple rivetted one.
If you have such a reel or photo i would be very much obliged to see it.
Last edited by Tomeland on Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Hardy Reels”