When the opportunity came to buy another 890, from a guy who had it from a fishing mate, who had bought it when he was demobbed in 1948, the chance to get another very original one was too tempting. I bought it knowing that there was about 5" missing from the tip, but the price I paid reflected that. When I collected it on Wednesday I was pleased because it had never been touched apart from layers of poorly applied varnish, which had protected it from water ingress and the deadly glue failure that often happens with these rods. I was/am pleased with my new acquisition.
When I got home I assembled both rods and put them alongside one another and was surprised with what I saw. The latest rod was only marginally shorter (Less than 1") than the restored one, despite having a tip that was clearly 5" shortened. This was made up by the butt and middle sections each being approximately 2" longer. When I get a correct tip fitted the latest rod will be about 11' long as opposed to the other, a standard 10' 6".
Both rods are clearly marked 890 so the conundrum is, did they make the 890 in 2 lengths or, has it been incorrectly marked and should have been an 891, or some other model. Come in Nobby, or any other Aspindale aficionado out there.
Very interesting indeed Wal. It certainly is clearly marked 890 (See photo'). The length of butt and the middle section are both 45.5", including the rubber button on the butt.
