Yes sorry except the butt ring all Lrh rods should have the thick butt ring which you guys have mentioned earlier
LRH "0" - question for owners about rings
- Bobthefloat
- Rainbow Trout
- Posts: 3456
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:27 pm
- 8
- Location: West Sussex coast
- Olly
- Wild Carp
- Posts: 9086
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:58 pm
- 11
- Location: Hants/Surrey/Berks borders.
Re: LRH "0" - question for owners about rings
I have at last found a reference to the Hardy LRH '0'! In the 1951 catalogue - 8.5 ft - weight 8oz 3drm.
It describes how the reel is on top of the rod for casting - ?
It describes how the reel is on top of the rod for casting - ?
- Bobthefloat
- Rainbow Trout
- Posts: 3456
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:27 pm
- 8
- Location: West Sussex coast
Re: LRH "0" - question for owners about rings
I think most were set up for fishing with a multiplier ( earlex)
https://youtu.be/-d-3OlJybr8
Watch a master at work!
- Wallys-Cast
- Pike
- Posts: 6579
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:02 am
- 12
- Location: Durham.
Re: LRH "0" - question for owners about rings
I read somewhere there were two types of each model. One with screw reel seat for multiplier use and the other with movable reel bands for fixed spool use. I have seen fixed reel seats down the handle too but these could be special orders.
Wal.
Wal.
- Bobthefloat
- Rainbow Trout
- Posts: 3456
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:27 pm
- 8
- Location: West Sussex coast
Re: LRH "0" - question for owners about rings
I have three I think with sliding reel bands which I much prefer someone told me these are rarer ?Wallys-Cast wrote: ↑Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:39 am I read somewhere there were two types of each model. One with screw reel seat for multiplier use and the other with movable reel bands for fixed spool use. I have seen fixed reel seats down the handle too but these could be special orders.
Wal.
- Wallys-Cast
- Pike
- Posts: 6579
- Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:02 am
- 12
- Location: Durham.
Re: LRH "0" - question for owners about rings
You're probably right there Terry. The fixed reel seat does seem to be seen more often yet the sliding fittings make more sense as it gives the best of both worlds.
Heres a bit about the two types. This is from a 1957 catalogue, I notice there's no mention of the LRH 0. I wonder if the LRH 0 possibly became the County or maybe the Egret. I believe they were both 8ft 6 spinning rods.
Wal.
Heres a bit about the two types. This is from a 1957 catalogue, I notice there's no mention of the LRH 0. I wonder if the LRH 0 possibly became the County or maybe the Egret. I believe they were both 8ft 6 spinning rods.
Wal.
- Bobthefloat
- Rainbow Trout
- Posts: 3456
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:27 pm
- 8
- Location: West Sussex coast
Re: LRH "0" - question for owners about rings
Brilliant thanks for posting that Wal
- Olly
- Wild Carp
- Posts: 9086
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:58 pm
- 11
- Location: Hants/Surrey/Berks borders.
Re: LRH "0" - question for owners about rings
I got this from a ~Thread~ on here!
https://splitcaneinfo.com/?page_id=15
Loads of catalogues.
The reel on the top - may well have been a centrepin or a Silex! Spinning was, in several books of the 20's & 30's I have, not done with a fixed spool or a multiplier but an Aerial! This is mentioned in the 1937 catalogue where only No:1 & No:2 LRH rods are available.
https://splitcaneinfo.com/?page_id=15
Loads of catalogues.
The reel on the top - may well have been a centrepin or a Silex! Spinning was, in several books of the 20's & 30's I have, not done with a fixed spool or a multiplier but an Aerial! This is mentioned in the 1937 catalogue where only No:1 & No:2 LRH rods are available.