The rod is in extraordinarily good condition. All the furrells are tight, with no knocking. The rings are shiny and the whippings and varnish are tip top. Makes a lovely and most welcome change from the duds I have ended up with lately, with floppy tips that don't spring back when bent.
![Chuckle :Chuckle:](./images/smilies/icon_chuckle.gif)
The rod is 10 feet 9 inches long. The tip section looks short, but then it does on a lot of full length Sealeys. Whether or not it is missing a inch or not the tip seems fine enough and the action still looks good.
![Image](http://i57.tinypic.com/289lgm0.jpg)
![Image](http://i57.tinypic.com/2m3sltv.jpg)
![Image](http://i57.tinypic.com/xn9mk0.jpg)
![Image](http://i58.tinypic.com/23tmtma.jpg)
There is one thing that is puzzling me though. I have been looking at threads on the forum (as I always do when I get something new) and other Sealey Supreme rods seem to have a different configuration. They seem to have a whole cane butt, a middle of whole cane with a spliced bit of built cane at the top of the section and then a built cane tip.
As can be seen in the last picture mine is different though. Mine has a whole cane butt / whole cane middle / built cane tip configuration.
Is this because the rod is mislabeled, or is it to do with the age of the two? Did they change the configuration after so long?
I'm very pleased with it, regardless.
![Sun :Sun:](./images/smilies/icon_sun.gif)