The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

Nobby wrote:Returning to Snape's original post:


I read in my JB Walker catalogue that they claim to have supplied cane to Richard Walker for use in his Mark IV rod.


They made this claim for many years, and I guess that means nobody objected. So whose cane were they supplying? Their own, Southwells???


Why would RW go all the way to Hythe for his cane, when Croydon is so much nearer, though both would offer the same sort of postal service, surely...so why go to JB Walker?

I have a JB Walker catalogue in which there is a copy of a letter from RW thanking them for supplying the materials he used to make a rod that caught Clarissa, I think I have reproduced it somewhere on this forum but can't locate it. Will dig the catalogue out if necessary.

Thanks Beresford, helps to clear things up for me. One question remains though, how are the Mk IV Avon and Mk IV Carp differentiated on the transfer - mine just says Mk IV, does that make it the Avon (light carp) or the Carp?

Paul

My B. James MK IV Avon says Avon on the rod but my B. James MK IV Carp rod says nothing. So yours is the carp rod Paul.

pduffield wrote:Thanks Beresford, helps to clear things up for me. One question remains though, how are the Mk IV Avon and Mk IV Carp differentiated on the transfer - mine just says Mk IV, does that make it the Avon (light carp) or the Carp?

Paul

The James Avons I've seen (I've only owned one and sold it to get something I thought was better) have always had the word Avon on them as a transfer. I think all the MkIV Carps are just called MkIV, certainly the one I had and the one I borrowed were just MkIV.

So if I have this right,
The Mk IV Avon is marked 'Mk. IV Avon'
The Mk IV (light carp) is just marked "Mk. IV"
The stepped up Mk IV, which the consensus seems to be is a later version not designed by Walker, is marked "S/U Mk. IV"

I found a PDF on the Bruce & Walker website about 3 models of Mk IV B James & Son were selling at one point. There's no date, but the rod names all incorporate the letter 'G' (for glass?) and the specs talk about spigot ferrules.

http://bruceandwalker.co.uk/library/his ... rotter.pdf

Paul

pduffield wrote:So if I have this right,
The Mk IV Avon is marked 'Mk. IV Avon'
The Mk IV (light carp) is just marked "Mk. IV"
The stepped up Mk IV, which the consensus seems to be is a later version not designed by Walker, is marked "S/U Mk. IV"

I found a PDF on the Bruce & Walker website about 3 models of Mk IV B James & Son were selling at one point. There's no date, but the rod names all incorporate the letter 'G' (for glass?) and the specs talk about spigot ferrules.

http://bruceandwalker.co.uk/library/his ... rotter.pdf

Paul

Yup that's right, G is for glass. As before, keep in mind that what one builder will call a MkIV is not the same as another and I suspect many and possibly most were not built to Walker's exact taper.

I think we're in danger of getting our knickers in a proper old twist here. The carp rod described at the beginning of DMAL is built with a straight taper - i.e. the rate of change of diameter per foot run is constant, though not the same on each section. This clearly is NOT the MkIV design, which Walker himself described elsewhere as being designed around a taper which, under load (deflection) gave a perfect quarter circle. This was then modified to stiffen up the lower half (i.e faster taper) to prevent the rod feeling weak under increased load, and the top two feet also had a faster taper to enable better control when casting light baits. Finally the extreme butt was made dead stiff (or near as) with a piece of dowell or whole cane. The effect of sandwiching a slower taper between two faster tapers created a hinge in the top section, between halfway down and just above the ferrule; whether this was intentional or a happy accident will always remain a matter of conjecture, but there's no denying it had a profound effect on the rods action, slowing down the tip recovery just enough to make casting light baits even easier.

I don't know how the DMAL rod compares to the MkIII - it may be one and the same, or it may not. Whatever the truth of the matter, the straight taper rods would not have been significantly better than any number of salmon spinning rods already in existence. The clever thing about the MkIV was not the fact it was ten feet long, nor that it had a test curve loading of 1.5lbs. The real secret's in the taper. Anyone who's had much to do with cane fly rods will know how important taper is. Simply knowing the length and the maximum and minimum diameters of a good rod design and subsequently making a rod that tapers evenly from one to t'other doesn't generally give the desired outcome.

The lighter rod described in DMAL is neither the MkIV nor the MkIV Avon - it's simply a lighter tip section for the rod Walker was describing in the book. The MkIV design came about after those letters were written. The MkIV Avon was developed as a lighter version of the carp rod for use when seeking smaller species, especially when long casting was required.

To further compound matters, most of the commercially-built examples of both MkIVs - including the majority of B James models - are not exact replicas of Walkers original design. The earlier ones are not far off, but the post 1958 rods are generally heavier throughout, more so in the tip.

I think there's confusion here between the Mk III and the MK II - the former was the double-built rod used by Walker to catch the 34lb common in 1954, and - so far as I understand (Chris Ball, please help!) - it is both heavier and stiffer than a MK IV, with a slightly higher test curve...

If you want an exact replica of the original Walker MKIV (and can afford £1300!) then Edward Barder still makes MKIVs and to the exact specifications from Walker.
http://www.barder-rod.co.uk/coarse%20ro ... mkivs.aspx

farliesbirthday wrote:I think there's confusion here between the Mk III and the MK II - the former was the double-built rod used by Walker to catch the 34lb common in 1954, and - so far as I understand (Chris Ball, please help!) - it is both heavier and stiffer than a MK IV, with a slightly higher test curve...

When we saw the MKIII at Chris Ball's house he said it was a lot heavier (being double built) but wasn't much stiffer bizarrely.
The MKII was the 'whopper stopper' named by Maurice Ingham which was a lot stiffer.