Mitchel Reel Musem - Mitchel Mates Discussion Group

Mitchell Reel Museum Discussion Group

If you are looking to collect, buy, repair, service, learn, ask questions or go fishing with a vintage Mitchell Fishing Reel, you are at the right place! We are just Mitchell Reel collectors and enthusiast who enjoy an open discussion forum on "vintage" Mitchell Fishing Reels. Please Click Here to learn how to make a post and ask about Mitchell reel service or repairs, get advice on buying or collecting, or any other question in this free public forum.

"Click Here to Find Vintage Mitchell Reels For Sale Worldwide"

It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:34 pm


Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 41 posts ]
New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:49 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
Hi Mates,

I recently purchased New In an unopened blister Package (NIP) 1997 Mitchell 300 Century reel to go with my New In the Box (NIB) 1997 Mitchell 300 Century reel. The NIP model has a few slight variations and is made in China from the NIB model which was made in Taiwan (I showed these in a previous post).
Attachment:
Mitchell Century Reels.jpg

Both of these reels and their packaging is documented by Dennis Roberts and Mike DiMattio as being produced in 1997.

So here's my question. The NIB Taiwan production reel was produced by Mitchell Sports as evidenced by the box.
Attachment:
Mitchell Century Reels1.jpg

And the paperwork.
Attachment:
Mitchell Century Reels2.jpg


Please see the continuation because this is where it gets interesting :sCo_hmmthink:

Regards,
Chris


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:58 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
So now;
Attachment:
Mitchell Century Reels3.jpg

This NIP (never opened) indicates:
Attachment:
Mitchell Century Reels4.jpg

Manufactured in China but by Pure Fishing :sFun_shocked: .

How is this possible that the same 1997 Mitchell 300 Century were manufactured in two different countries by two different companies in 1997 when Pure Fishing didn't purchase Mitchell until 2000? ……….I don't know :blush .

Any insight / information would be appreciated Mates.

Kind Regards,
Chris


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:43 pm • #  
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 6:02 pm
Posts: 73
Location: USA
Hey Chris,

Full disclosure: this is not one of my collection areas, but I like a mystery.

History supporting your statement:
Quote:
In 2000, Mitchell was purchased by Pure Fishing …
has been presented in About Mitchell at the Mitchell website.

Likewise PURE FISHING® OUR STORY:
Quote:
1988: Berkley acquires Fenwick and becomes Outdoor Technologies Group
1995: Abu Garcia joins Outdoor Technologies Group
2000: Outdoor Technologies Group becomes Pure Fishing and acquires Mitchell, Johnson, and Spiderwire brands from Johnson Worldwide Associates
Observe that “Pure Fishing” did not start until 2000.

So, what is the strength of the evidence placing the 300 Century blister pack in 1997?

John


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 11:26 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
Aside from the documentation in Dennis Roberts' book Mitchell Collectors Value Guide 1937-2000 pg. 55 and Mike DiMattio's book Mitchell 300 Boxes, Identification & Dating Reference, 1946-2008 pg. 56, I have nothing to add. If you don't have access to those publications, they can occasionally be purchased from collectors or on auction sites . Regardless of when Pure Fishing started, I have observed that Pure Fishing acquired Mitchell in 2000, because I too went to the "About Mitchell" site and I also believe that was previously stated by me, therefore the reason of my question. There is no "Strength of Evidence". I have not opened the Pure Fishing blister pack to check for dates on the paperwork nor do I intend to..Again the reason for my question. I was just asking per chance that another Mate knew something that I didn't (highly likely!) - not to make a statement.

Chris


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:28 am • #  
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 6:02 pm
Posts: 73
Location: USA
Hey Chris,

Thanks for your additional information.

I gather from what you have written, the strength of your evidence is 2 expert opinions that the 300 Century blister packs date to 1997 (as you stated at the start of this thread). Such a blister pack, as demonstrated by you, is labeled with “Pure Fishing”. (BTW, for clarity, I would never suggest to break open the blister pack.)

Corporate/distributor websites state 2000 was the start date for Pure Fishing and when Pure Fishing acquired Mitchell. This is strong documentation for dates about “Pure Fishing” and acquisition of Mitchell.

So, how is it possible for distributor information about 2000 to be reconciled with opinions that “Pure Fishing” (and its label), prior to its existence in 2000, were present in 1997? I cannot see how. I would suggest to rely on the stronger sources of evidence.

Warm regards,
John


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:39 am • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:11 am
Posts: 113
Dear John,

As usual you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Mitchell collecting is still in it's infancy as a hobby, and the reference material currently available is not always 100% accurate. Inevitably the historical research into Mitchell reels is still a work in progress.

I have had regular contact with Mike DiMattio who is a very intelligent person, and he fully accepts that there are errors in his book. This does not in any way reflect badly on him : it is simply that new evidence has come to light since he wrote it. I hope that when he has time, he will publish again.

I'm sure if Dennis Roberts was still with us he would have revised and updated his excellent books.

It is, of course, a double edged sword. On the one hand it can be frustrating to find information is inaccurate : on the other it adds an extra dimension to the hobby as one can make one's own enquiries and have constructive discussions with other collectors.

For what it's worth, I have dated my boxed Century reels to 1996 on the basis that Mitchell regard 1946 as the birth date of their iconic reel as that is when it was designed. Logically the 50th. anniversary would fall around 1996.

Regards,

JF.


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:18 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:18 am
Posts: 632
Location: Portland, OR
The many Mitchell mysteries....Is it reasonable that both reels were produced in 1996-7, but some were not packaged for sale until 3-4 years later? Given the state of Mitchell at the time....overproduced production, low sales, company in flux...when the sale to Pure occurred, Pure took possession of leftover inventory and packaged it...China may of been close enough to Taiwan for their purposes and were moving production to China anyway, so labeled it that way...just a thought...

BTW, welcome back Chris!!

Sandman


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:04 pm • #  
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 6:02 pm
Posts: 73
Location: USA
Hey Sandman,

You do make a very good point about leftover inventory and a new owner packaging it differently. Likely, many tackle collectors can recall at least a couple examples of this.

However, relabeling “made in Taiwan” (ROC = Republic of China) to “made in China” (PRC = People’s Republic of China) is likely problematic. I’m thinking regulators would not be accepting of that.

Warm regards,
John


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:17 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:20 pm
Posts: 283
Location: Michigan
Chris, :sSig_nicethread:
A great post with wonderful photos to go with it. Thanks so much for showing both versions of these reels. Many collectors (Including myself) were unaware that there were two versions until you pointed this out so well in your first post regarding the Century reels back in 2017. That post became one of my personal all time favorite posts at the MRM. :tup

[See it here: 50th Anniversary Mitchell 300, dated August 11, 2017, found under Mitchell Reel Talk Board.]

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5475

Once again, you show so well, in this new post, both versions and remind us that there are still many unanswered questions regarding these two versions. Of course, if there weren’t any mysteries or questions they wouldn’t be Mitchells would they? :sHa_rollingsmilie:

Seems to me that some of the early published experts missed the fact that there were two versions of the Century, and I would attribute the reason for this to be a lack of interest in the newer, raised emblem Mitchells. That’s unfortunate as I believe there are many new collectors who are extremely interested in these reels.

I personally do not have any more facts regarding your question as to exactly when and where these two versions were made. I would point out, that there may be more clues residing in the paperwork that came with each version. I do have, what I believe to be, the original paperwork from the Mitchell Sports version as shown below. Since I purchased my Pure Fishing 300 Century version without the blister pack, I cannot be sure what the paperwork for it looks like. This is one of my personal most highly sought after items I am looking for to complete my collection.

Does anyone have a copy of a 100% positive owner/user manual for the Pure Fishing Century they could post?

Kind Regards,
Bill :tup


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:07 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
Jeremy Fisher wrote:
Dear John,

As usual you have hit the nail squarely on the head.


:sCo_huhsign:
Hi Rolands,
Did I miss something? What statement in any of this was made to answer my original question or a new observation that wasn't previously stated by me?
I'll wait.

Chris


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:24 pm • #  
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 6:02 pm
Posts: 73
Location: USA
Chris,

I am sorry that you did not find my replies helpful (I do recall a time when you did). I respect you disagree. (And perhaps, that you have not have understood what I wrote.)

I do not wish to generate conflict. So, I now respectfully discontinue any further comment to this thread or to any of your future threads.

John


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:47 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
Hello Sandman and Bill,

Sandman, Thanks for the welcome back though I've recently been reminded why I left to begin with. You make a great point about the recycling of these Century reels and I think you're onto something which I have a theory about - I've been thinking about this for several months.

Thank you Bill for posting the full manual from the boxed Mitchell Sports Century reel because it plays a role in my theory. Also thank you for the kind words. I agree that these reels are underappreciated with respect to their mystery - and they are beautiful, especially the Mitchell Sports version.

So Mates, Here's my theory. I'll state up front that this is only my opinion based on my research and some knowledge of how business works...There is NO "Strength of Evidence".

In the late 1990's (be it 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998 is irrelevant) Mitchell Sports is in trouble financially and needs a new marketing savior. They design a shiny new Mitchell 300, well everything is the same as the Black Mitchell 300 except for a metallic silver paint job and cool graphics. They market it as a "Limited Edition" to induce sales. Now because their profit line is so thin, they only apply a "300 Century 50th Anniversary Limited Edition" sticker to a normal Mitchell 300 box which still has the black Mitchell 300 depicted on it. They set up a display showing the "New" Century reel because they can't just leave it in the box - few would notice that sticker in the upper right corner of the otherwise normal box. They also have an advertising campaign touting this really cool looking new Mitchell. Note that the Owners Manual (Thanks Bill) already covers the 300, 306 and 308 with schematics to avoid printing costs for individual manuals - it is also in several languages on the same sheet (again saving printing costs).

Also there are significant differences in these two reels as I noted in my earlier post which Bill provided a link to, so Sandman, I don't think this was an inherited stock recycled by Pure Fishing in 2000.

But what if: Pure Fishing buys Mitchell Sports in 2000 (which is supported by "Strength of Evidence") and they realize how much trouble Mitchell is actually in. They need a fancy/shiny object fast to boost sales. The average Mitchell fisherman won't recognize what or when the Mitchell 300 50th Anniversary is - he / she will only see a "New" Mitchell reel hanging in the store; and it's nice looking! So Pure Sports resurrects the paint job and graphics of the Mitchell Century 300. They have it reproduced cheaper in China, place it in a clear blister plastic case (so you can actually see the reel) and place a large "Limited Edition" sticker on it....even though it's several years after the actual anniversary.

I think this Mitchell Century 300 reel was simply a marketing strategy by both Mitchell Sports and Pure Fishing to boost sales. I don't think either company made very many of these reels (although I have no "Strength of Evidence), I believe they wanted to keep their investment small and hope to jumpstart sales. It's still a very nice reel and has beautiful paint/graphics.

So that's my theory Mates, I hope you find it thought provoking, I'm always interested in your thoughts as well.

Kind Regards,
Chris


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:58 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
John,

I have no conflict or disagreement with what you contributed. You just pontificated on what I already wrote.... and then required "Objective Quality Evidence" (OQE) an engineering term. I had none - hence my question in the first place. That was the point of my question. We still live in a free country, feel free to comment as you desire. I value your opinions and observations, but in this particular case I think you just restated my question in a roundabout way and received a printed "High Five" from Rolands which I found confusing.

Regards,
Chris


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:45 am • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:11 am
Posts: 113
The message I sent, and which has attracted the ire of cshannon772, was addressed to my good friend John Fishkat and is quite clear and unambiguous.

I would not describe John's contributions as " just pontificating".

I echo the sentiments expressed in the last message from etranger (John).

JF.


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:15 am • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
Hello JF,

I think "ire" is a strong term for addressing my statement. I simply addressed the comments made in this particular thread which I started as a question to the Group based upon an observation made by me. Your message was not strictly addressed to John (The Museum has a PM function for that) but was made on an open thread to the Group as a whole - I simply questioned the content of the statements and the contribution to this particular thread. I would happily and humbly apologize to both of you and the Group as a whole if you can point out one tidbit either of you contributed to enhance my original post/question in this thread which is why I questioned your intent in the first place.

Please don't "broad-brush" my single statement in this thread to address all of John's contributions (or yours for that matter) to the Museum. That is not what I wrote nor can anyone reach that conclusion based on my statement. You have both enhanced the knowledge and understanding of our hobby with your many observations and contributions....Just not in this case, which is what I addressed.

Whether you or John decide to comment or decline on my current, past or future posts is of little consequence to me. As I stated to John this is an open forum and all Mates are free to post as they wish (providing it is within the established rules of the Museum). My personal preference is that it remains factual and contributes to the original thread but apparently that is of little consequence to you and probably John as well - I'm OK with that.

Regards,
Chris


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:37 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:11 am
Posts: 113
cshannon772,

Your original question was how is it possible that the same reel was manufactured in 2 different countries in 1997 when Pure fishing didn't buy Mitchell until 2000. You stated that any insight/information would be appreciated.

The simple answer to your question is that it is not possible.

As John reasonably pointed out, the factual distributor information cannot be reconciled with the opinion of 2 collectors/authors (one of whom is a friend of mine), and suggested you rely on the stronger evidence.

As I subsequently wrote, this hit the nail squarely on the head. I went on to point out that the reference material currently available is not always 100% accurate.

With respect, I would suggest that John and I provided answers and explanations to your original question. The topic reads quite logically and coherently.

I am puzzled as to why you would question my intent. I can't speak for John, but my intention has only ever been to share factual information with other collectors, many of whom have become friends.

I am not sure that what has passed here is to the benefit of this Forum, and I shall not engage any more with you publicly. I have in the past offered to discuss matters with you privately.

JF.


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:59 pm • #  
User avatar
Full Member

Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 6:02 pm
Posts: 73
Location: USA
Chris,

Okay, since you asked, here goes. (I wrote this prior to seeing JF’s last post.) I am really reluctant to spend more time on this issue, but maybe this can help you and other Mates in the future:

1. You wrote 2 authors (Roberts and DiMattio) had documented the blister pack (BP) in 1997. For me, this was confusing language, as documentation would require more than showing BP in a book, such as that was the date purchased by an author, the date of advertising or a magazine article. Hence I asked about strength of evidence (which I did not view as a demand or requirement). (BTW my background is in biological/medical research, so it’s possible I may view strength of evidence slightly differently than an engineer would.)

2. You wrote PureFishing (PF) did not aquire Mitchell until 2000, but did not cite a source for that statement (until after I did), such as the Mitchell website.

3. I added that PF was not in existence until 2000, which rules out other potential explanations for an earlier date (1997), such as a contractual relationship with Mitchell versus outright ownership.

4. And finally, you presented a set of conflicting information without presenting your conclusion or hypothesis. You wrote “… I don't know. Any insight / information would be appreciated Mates.” Of course, a conclusion or hypothesis is not required in a post – but not having one does invite others to discuss possibilities. Which I did.

John


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:32 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
I thought you two were done commenting on my posts. :sEm_oops:


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:08 pm • #  
User avatar
Global Moderator

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: West Virginia, USA
Mates,
I wish I could add something to the questions brought up in this discussion, but I can't. The newest reel I own was made in 1978.

I would like to remind everybody that, based on my many mistakes, we have to make sure that what one might put in a post can ,sometimes, be taken several different ways .

I, now, try to critique any of my posts several times, in advance of posting, with hopes that it won't offend anyone.
I have read this message several times, and I hope this works. Particularly here! :sHa_rollingsmilie:

Regards,
Ted Lanham


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:23 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
Thanks Ted,

After reading your post several times and thinking hard about it...…... I'm not offended :tup .

Best Regards,
Chris


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:42 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 703
Ok, here goes. If someone has a 1997 Blister Pack 300 Century Reel and there is a slit in the back the width of the manual and that manual is still in there is this a MI Blister Pack or new in Blister Pack Reel?? Since the factory seal around the Blister Pack has not been opened what are your conclusions???? Anxiously waiting all opinions.........
Kim :sCo_hmmthink: :sFun_eyescan: 8o :sFun_crazydance:


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:05 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
Hi Kim,

That would be awesome if it would do no further damage to the packaging or the paperwork. It would have to be done very carefully and obviously depending on the location of the break in the packaging and location of the paperwork. My paperwork is located in the top of the blister pack so if the cut/break was in the bottom - that could be tricky. And then there is no guarantee that there is a date on that paperwork :sAng_banghead2: . It would be interesting to see though.....I don't think any of us have seen it yet. I would take photo documentation as well - a hard time disputing. I still think that the blister pack followed the original (in the box) by about three years - but only my theory.

Best Regards,
Chris


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:08 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:20 pm
Posts: 283
Location: Michigan
Kim and Chris,
Ok now the suspense is killing me. That would be 99.999% positive proof of what that original paperwork looked like. :clap
Kim, just think of the service you would be doing to mankind to slip that paperwork out, o-so-carefully, and posting a scan of the complete information. :cute :sBo_bounce2: 8o
Millions of lives could be saved and you would always be remembered as The Mitchell 300 Century Hero!!!!! The Man who resolved the Century 300 paperwork mystery. :sFun_bananacolors: :sSig_youtheman:

Anxiously waiting your decision. :sFun_eyescan: :hat :sSa_sadeyes: :sSa_sadeyes: :blush :sBo_bounce2: :smokin ;) :sHa_clap2: :sHa_clap2:
Bill :tup


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:11 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 703
Okay I just wanted to get some opinions first. I have 2 - 1997 Century in blister packs all original . My paperwork is in back in the dip it would be very easy to slit and pull the paperwork out. Consider it done but give me a few days and I will have to send pictures to someone's address depending on the megapixels.
Kim :sHa_okay: :sCh_fisherman: :sSig_nicethread:


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:39 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 1173
Location: Virginia
WoW Kim,

I agree with Bill! Are you sure? That one sheet could contain the secret of life as a Mitchell Collector...… The world as we know it could be forever altered! It could be the "Holy Grail" or "Pandora's Box" :sHa_lol:

Seriously though, I could never ask you to do that - but it would be awesome to see what is printed and hopefully a date. I know of nobody who has a copy or has seen what is printed on that owners manual.

If you decide to do that, and would like to email me the photos (I think you still have my email), I would be VERY happy to post them for you here in this thread. It would definitely be a first for the Museum.

Kind Regards,
Chris


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:10 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 703
Okay here is the first installment of the photos. Need to flatten out instructions sheet so all is clear of the printing so people can understand it. Enjoy.
Kim :sAni_fish: :sHa_rollingsmilie:


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:12 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 703
Showing package before it was carefully sliced open. What I can tell from reading the owner's manual this is going to have more questions than answers. Don't worry I will not leave you hanging too long.
Kim :sAni_fish: :sCh_fisherman:


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:13 pm • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 703
Boogers, forgot to add the last two pictures. My mistake.
Kim :sSa_sadeyes:


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:23 pm • #  
User avatar
Jr. Member

Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:45 am
Posts: 12
I have a 300 century in the Mitchell Sports box, but never bought the black version in the blister pack, nor the Chinese silver version, as I simply didn't like the look of all of that plastic!

However, having thought about this subject for a while and looked closely at the pictures here, and in Mike's book, I think another answer to the conundrum could be on the packaging, especially the Mitchell logo.

I have collected a number of Mitchell Sports reels, many in the green box, with and without the sleeve, and nowhere on any of the boxes, nor on the paperwork have I seen the Mitchell name underlined and printed inside an oval, as it is on the blister pack.

To be sure, the font looks the same as that used on my Mitchell Sports boxes, and the Mitchell name is printed in white on a green background, and the red line underlining the name looks to be the same color as the red line that separated the green block from the reel picture on the MS box, but the oval is something new.

Now, take a look at the Mitchell website today, and indeed, any reel from the company over the past several years, and you will see this oval logo used on the box and in advertising.

So, I think that the logo change may well have been driven by Pure Fishing, when they acquired the business from Johnson, and maybe one of our trademark sleuths can track the date of that down, as I have absolutely no idea how to do that!

George


Top
  
 
 Offline
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:47 am • #  
User avatar
Sr. Member

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 703
Another installment which I'm sure people are going to find interesting. Going to do several post as time allows me.
Kim :sCh_fisherman: :sHa_rollingsmilie:

More pictures to follow which is going to have more questions than answers


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 41 posts ]
New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.141s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]