E.bay prices - Wizard & Lucky Strike

[PDuffield]

I don't have a problem with the length of the handle as such, it's the effect it has on the balance and perceived weight of the rod when holding it for long periods that's the problem.

I remember the revelation that carbon rods were compared to fibreglass. They probably weren't that much lighter, but the point of balance was under or behind your hand so they felt almost weightless in comparison to glass rods where you were always fighting the point of balance which was several inches in front of your hand.

The first time I held a carbon rod in a tackle shop it was handed to me ready assembled butt first. I took it expecting to need to brace it against a tendency to pull down at the tip and promptly smacked it against the ceiling. The guy in the tackle shop who I knew quite well just grinned and said everyone did that. :hahaha:

I remember my dad having a glass rod that was supplied with weights you could insert into the butt under the cork to increase the weight at that end to bring the point of balance further back. Extension butts would work the same way on a Wizard, but I wish they'd just made them with longer handles in the first place. Surely FWK could have just held the rod further down the handle?

[SeanM]

Nobby had a waggle of my Wizard at the weekend (ooer!). This is one I picked up for £150 on a buy it now, collect only on Ebay a couple of years ago. It was in reasonable nick, reringed poorly at some point, and useable. I gave it a full resto when the ferrules started to knock a bti, adding a couple of extra rings, and it now looks lovely.

It does take a bit of getting used to as a trotting rod, but by holding in front of the reel and using your little finger it's fine. I think that we have been spoilt somewhat by carbon rods and expect to be able to use a rod for a full eight hours with very little in the way of a break. The Wizard is good for a couple of hours followed by a leisurely break and then off again.

I do find Wallis casting with one a little difficult as I learned with my hand below the reel in the modern fashion.

I think that the Lucky Strike is a nicer rod to use for trotting, better for small hooks and fine lines, but not as good with good sized fish. I'd sooner play a big barbel on a Wizard any day!

[GloucesterOldSpot]

I don't mind the handle length. Sure, for more modern angling styles it could usefully be about three or four inches longer, but I prefer to use it as intended, and certainly don't feel the need to extend it somehow and ruin the integrity of the original design. If I really couldn't get on with it I'd sooner sell it to someone who could and buy another model rather better suited to my needs than adapt it to suit a style of fishing it wasn't designed for. The short handle puts a larger percentage of the rods mass above the hand, and it's this that makes it such a good Wallis caster - which is not exactly surprising really. Take the casting style out of the equation and the rod starts to make less sense, especially when compared to an Avocet or similar. You might as well argue that a fly rod handle is all wrong for use with a fixed spool reel.

My Wizard weighs around thirteen ounces I think (more than the Allcock's catalogue quotes anyway) but I don't find it tiring to use at all. My Chapman Hunter is in another league, and I find two hours about the limit for trotting with it - less if I have to do much line-mending. As I mostly use it for float fishing for tench or legering for barbel it's not really a problem.

[SeanM]

My Wizard weighs around thirteen ounces I think (more than the Allcock's catalogue quotes anyway) but I don't find it tiring to use at all. My Chapman Hunter is in another league, and I find two hours about the limit for trotting with it - less if I have to do much line-mending. As I mostly use it for float fishing for tench or legering for barbel it's not really a problem.

Yup. 13 ounces for mine too. The Lucky Strike weighs in at just under 11 ounces.

[PerchBasher]

There does seem little logic in eBay prices. As others have said the going rate is whatever someone is willing to pay and if two or more people have their heart set on something, this sparks off a bidding war resulting in silly prices for relatively humdrum items, witness the £100 plus paid for an Efgeeco Pakaseat a few weeks ago.

Are these items worth the money? I picked up a little used Super Wizard from a member of my club for a £100 and while it’s a lovely looking thing and I don’t regret buying it, I would have been reluctant to pay much more. It’s a great rod for those relaxed, rod in the rests, pour a cup of tea and watch the world go by days but for serious trotting? Perhaps anglers years ago were made of sterner stuff, but I find the short handle, the lack of rings and the balance makes it uncomfortable to use for more than a couple of hours. A friend has an adapted one fitted with a butt extension taking the handle to 24” and additional rings. I’ve handled this and it feels much better, but this begs the question that the rod may not have been that good in its original form?

The Lucky Strike being much lighter is a better option for trotting, but again suffers from a short handle and is not really suitable if you expect to hook anything bigger than four or five pounds. I also recall my late uncles who used to run a tackle shop in the 1950’s and 60’s telling me that Allcocks made the LS as an entry-level boys rod.

Now, this may sound like rank heresy – and apologies to any LS and WW aficionados out there, but I believe the less glamorous but more practical Chapman 500 is the better rod. I have two, one of which I’ve re-ringed with bells high life rings and in my inexpert opinion both make better rods for light ledgering and float fishing respectively. While these can go for over inflated prices, I don’t think that the man with a beard who once held the carp record ever used one, so shop around and you should be able to find one under £100.

[Nobby]

Well the 500 was made as a cheap copy of the Walker Mark IV Avon, without a compound taper. At 10 foot it's a bit short for trotting on all but the smallest rivers if you need to mend line, but it does to me, feel a nicer rod to hold for a bit.


Turns out I have some damage to my wrist so perhaps that's why I couldn't get on with the Wizard's short handle and holding the rod in front of the reel?


I made a butt extension up for my Wizard with a 'plastic' wine bottle cork and a bit of studding..it works after a fashion, but short handles just don't suit me. I had a Dawson's Avolon and that had to go..the handle was only 15 inches!

[GloucesterOldSpot]

There does seem little logic in eBay prices. As others have said the going rate is whatever someone is willing to pay and if two or more people have their heart set on something, this sparks off a bidding war resulting in silly prices for relatively humdrum items, witness the £100 plus paid for an Efgeeco Pakaseat a few weeks ago.

Are these items worth the money? I picked up a little used Super Wizard from a member of my club for a £100 and while it’s a lovely looking thing and I don’t regret buying it, I would have been reluctant to pay much more. It’s a great rod for those relaxed, rod in the rests, pour a cup of tea and watch the world go by days but for serious trotting? Perhaps anglers years ago were made of sterner stuff, but I find the short handle, the lack of rings and the balance makes it uncomfortable to use for more than a couple of hours. A friend has an adapted one fitted with a butt extension taking the handle to 24” and additional rings. I’ve handled this and it feels much better, but this begs the question that the rod may not have been that good in its original form?

The Lucky Strike being much lighter is a better option for trotting, but again suffers from a short handle and is not really suitable if you expect to hook anything bigger than four or five pounds. I also recall my late uncles who used to run a tackle shop in the 1950’s and 60’s telling me that Allcocks made the LS as an entry-level boys rod.

Now, this may sound like rank heresy – and apologies to any LS and WW aficionados out there, but I believe the less glamorous but more practical Chapman 500 is the better rod. I have two, one of which I’ve re-ringed with bells high life rings and in my inexpert opinion both make better rods for light ledgering and float fishing respectively. While these can go for over inflated prices, I don’t think that the man with a beard who once held the carp record ever used one, so shop around and you should be able to find one under £100.

The Chapman 500 is certainly better for those who hold a rod in the modern style - reel at the top of the handle, four inches or so of butt poking out behind elbow, balance of handle resting against the forearm - but it's not a patch on the Wizard for casting from a revolving centrepin, in the manner so ably demonstrated by Mr Wallis. In fact, I'd say it's not a particularly good rod for use with a centrepin, however you choose to cast. Nor is it much cop for trotting; it's a foot shorter overall, and you hold it about a foot further up from the fat end than you would a Wizard, so your effective reach is less by about two feet.

Wallis designed the Wizard to suit his style, and I think he did a pretty good job of it. That the design is not suited to someone accustomed to modern trotting methods is hardly the fault of the rod. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to want these old rods - for whatever reason - without possessing the ability, desire or intention of using them as they meant to be used. Being used to more modern designs, their Wizard is found wanting and butchered to adapt it to the user's requirements, when they'd have been better off leaving them well alone and getting something designed for the job - or sticking to a carbon match rod. You wouldn't intentionally cut two foot off the end of a perfectly good MkIV to turn it into a pier rod after all, so why ruin a perfectly good Wizard just because you don't like the design?

[CraigM]

Hello Chaps [& any chapesses].

Having started this thread I'll add to it by telling you that I'm now the proud owner of a Wizard, bought on eBay last night for £166, ie. midway between the two "original condition" ones I posted about. I decided that £175 max. was about right for me for one in excellent condition, in line with an earlier post. I regret to inform you that my good lady struggles to echo that sentiment!

It's been fully refurbished, looks great in the pictures [& the seller sent me several more] BUT does have a 24" handle.

I have to agree with the sentiments above. Had the rod still had the shorter original handle then I would have left it as Allcocks intended as I wouldn't alter an original rod in such a major way. I suspect that I personally will find the longer handle easier to fish with [presumeably I use a big baitrunner, braid & a bolt rig..................only kidding!!] which is what I intend to do with it &, along with the overall condition that was therefore a reason why I went for this one.

Question - are cane rods an "it" or a "her"?

I'll actually get the rod on Friday [I hope!] & look forward to hanging it/her next to The Lancer.

Perhaps we can compare Wizards in due course! I'll weigh it & let you know if it's weight has been altered.

Regards,
Craig.

[PDuffield]

I know a widely held view is that the Wizard handle is short because FWK Wallis designed it that way, and with the number of Wizards sold with the handle length staying the same for decades it can't have been a major handicap for other anglers of the time, but if FWK wanted a shorter handle, why does the Hardy FWK Wallis Avon have a 'normal' length handle?

[Nobby]

That's a good question.

Certainly we've all seen the pictures of FWK casting and he can clearly be seen holding the rod in front of the reel in them.....

http://www.purepiscator.com/articles/ph ... scast.aspx

And it's not as though he, at least, needed a longer handle for an overhead cast on the Avon. :D






It IS a longer handle, isn't it?


Hmmmmmm.