An Aspindale Aero 890 conundrum
Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:56 am
Some weeks ago I bought the 890 from Paul F's estate sale. It was original and was stripped down ready for finishing, which Wal duly did for me to his very high standard. I was absolutely delighted with the rod which, incidentally, I intend to use for crucians in the next week or so.
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.
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.