At last! A 'Rover'
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:29 pm
I have finally managed to lay my hands on a Rover. I really wanted to be able to compare it to an Octofloat and see why, by comparison, it was so expensive.
First the bad new; it still has pretty rubbish cork shives for the handle...they look like they've been fed to the worms!
The good news is that it has re-inforced, serrated end ferrules and I think they are a tad larger than if they had been mounted on rounded down cane, so perhaps they are mounted on built up cane the 'proper' way?
All the dimensions, I won't bore you with numbers, ....are just a little smaller than an Octofloat, not by much, but by more and more as you go up towards the tip. The tip is 3mm across the flats instead of the Octofloats 3.5mm. Whilst that's only half a mil and doesn't sound a lot...it represents a little over a 14% reduction!
The rod has a softer, more 'through' action than an Octofloat and feels lighter but the two butt sections, with the Rover's rubber button removed weigh just 20 grams different, probably representing the slightly smaller quantity of cane.
This is an early model with plain Sealey style reel bands in uncoloured aluminium and its bag is gold over black embroidery, before the introduction of red and green silk label of later rods.
It's not that much better quality than an Octofloat De-Luxe from later times, having identical silk-work, but in a 'fern' green rather than a twist, but is a good deal better than the Octofloat of the same period and has real agate lined butt and tip rings, though the butt is an unusually small one. Basically the Octofloat got better in time, though never got these better ferrules.
I'll put an image up of the two rod's sections side by side later for comparison...the main difference is the intermediate tip rings are nearer to the tip of the thinner top section of the Rover.
First the bad new; it still has pretty rubbish cork shives for the handle...they look like they've been fed to the worms!
The good news is that it has re-inforced, serrated end ferrules and I think they are a tad larger than if they had been mounted on rounded down cane, so perhaps they are mounted on built up cane the 'proper' way?
All the dimensions, I won't bore you with numbers, ....are just a little smaller than an Octofloat, not by much, but by more and more as you go up towards the tip. The tip is 3mm across the flats instead of the Octofloats 3.5mm. Whilst that's only half a mil and doesn't sound a lot...it represents a little over a 14% reduction!
The rod has a softer, more 'through' action than an Octofloat and feels lighter but the two butt sections, with the Rover's rubber button removed weigh just 20 grams different, probably representing the slightly smaller quantity of cane.
This is an early model with plain Sealey style reel bands in uncoloured aluminium and its bag is gold over black embroidery, before the introduction of red and green silk label of later rods.
It's not that much better quality than an Octofloat De-Luxe from later times, having identical silk-work, but in a 'fern' green rather than a twist, but is a good deal better than the Octofloat of the same period and has real agate lined butt and tip rings, though the butt is an unusually small one. Basically the Octofloat got better in time, though never got these better ferrules.
I'll put an image up of the two rod's sections side by side later for comparison...the main difference is the intermediate tip rings are nearer to the tip of the thinner top section of the Rover.
