Early Mitchell changes ? ( angle of attack)

[JohnEboy]

Hi Mates

The image below shows 7 early Egg shaped mitchells , from left to right these are in date order as they appeared . Third from the right is the "B " serial Mitchel . Looking at the image we clearly see the angle of the reel in relation to the rod changes , most noticeable if you follow the line of the axel tube .

Around this time we also see changes to the shape and robustness of the foot and where the foot meets the stem . The vertical part of the stem is lengthened and the angled part of the stem sees an angle change . Looking at the "C" reel onwards we keep the changes to the foot and extra length of the vertical stem , but the angle of the stem reverts back .

Kind regards
John

[Rockape]

Wow! John, you have a good eye!

[JohnEboy]

Wow! John, you have a good eye!

Thanks Paul
I was looking at changes to the foot or stem that may have been made to combat early foot failures .
John

[Altex]

A group of us looked into these changes a couple of years back.

The stem was increased in length from roughly 2 - 2.25 inches on some MK3 reels shortly before serial numbers were introduced : probably late 1951.The change was introduced gradually as moulds were renewed, so both lengths were used simultaneously for around 12 months.

I have a mint un-numbered MK3 with the longer stem and a mint very early MK4 number B33196 with the short stem. Where possible I try to use mint or factory-fresh reels for study purposes.

Note my use of the word "roughly". While most stems are 2 or 2.25 inches there is some small variation.

I would not be too concerned about the pitch angle. The reel is clearly best angled slightly upwards towards the rod. Quality control was not stellar and oddities do turn up. I recall a second reel with the foot badly twisted out of line with the rest of the reel. Of course this could have occurred post manufacture, as could your reel with the odd pitch angle, but it is hard to see how this could have happened.

[JohnEboy]

A group of us looked into these changes a couple of years back.

The stem was increased in length from roughly 2 - 2.25 inches on some MK3 reels shortly before serial numbers were introduced : probably late 1951.The change was introduced gradually as moulds were renewed, so both lengths were used simultaneously for around 12 months.

I have a mint un-numbered MK3 with the longer stem and a mint very early MK4 number B33196 with the short stem. Where possible I try to use mint or factory-fresh reels for study purposes.

Note my use of the word "roughly". While most stems are 2 or 2.25 inches there is some small variation.

I would not be too concerned about the pitch angle. The reel is clearly best angled slightly upwards towards the rod. Quality control was not stellar and oddities do turn up. I recall a second reel with the foot badly twisted out of line with the rest of the reel. Of course this could have occurred post manufacture, as could your reel with the odd pitch angle, but it is hard to see how this could have happened.

Thanks for the response and info Altex .

I had put the stem length increase to about 5mm in the vertical part of the stem somewhere between A05156 and A33113 . However I'm sure you are right and it was a bit earlier and some of the reels were still made with previous moulds.

Like you , I find it hard to see how this odd pitch angle could have occurred post production . The curious thing Is I have two "B" series reels with exactly the same pitch angle . This made it a little easier for me to rule out damage or wear . Even more curiously though both these reels have full bail rotors and do not conform to the "pilot " reel standard , both reels also have the same downturned bail arm , and both reels have a handmade aluminium knob on the handle in the shape we see the black plastic items .
I guess its not unthinkable that someone was customising / modifying reels . yet I cannot see how that would be possible with the foot angle /pitch .

Many thanks
John

[Altex]

I also have 2 of the very first "B" numbered hoop bails complete with required rotors and baffle plates. Both have the normal pitch angle. One has the long stem; the other the short stem.

I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the first "B" numbered hoops were anything other than regular production reels. If any members have evidence to confirm that these reels were "Test" or "Pilot" reels, I would be grateful to see it.

I haven't seen your "B" hoops, but it is possible they are converted claws. The pitch angle could be altered fairly easily, but I can't imagine why.

The first hoops tend not to turn up in the UK because Patent restrictions meant they were not available here. My pair came from the US.

[JohnEboy]

he pitch angle could be altered fairly easily, but I can't imagine why.

Some suggestions have included making it a better angle for spinning rods with large eyes further up towards the butt section of a rod and aiding distance casting .
It would seem fixed spool reels started to be used in tournament casting at this time and as you know towards the fifties Mitchell started t produce dedicated tournament casting reels . Its hard to tell from images online but some appear to have a flatter angle compared to the more usual 300.

John

[Bailarm]

I also have 2 of the very first "B" numbered hoop bails complete with required rotors and baffle plates. Both have the normal pitch angle. One has the long stem; the other the short stem.

I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the first "B" numbered hoops were anything other than regular production reels. If any members have evidence to confirm that these reels were "Test" or "Pilot" reels, I would be grateful to see it.

I haven't seen your "B" hoops, but it is possible they are converted claws. The pitch angle could be altered fairly easily, but I can't imagine why.

The first hoops tend not to turn up in the UK because Patent restrictions meant they were not available here. My pair came from the US.

I presume when addressing Altex I am addressing Rolands Babulis who used to post here as both Tinca and Jeremy Fisher?

I know that you don't think pilot reels important as you told me so a few years ago, but you surely remember Wallace's images on the MRM of the unique rotor casting and baffle plate?

Although Wallace named it a pilot I think of it as a prototype and I think it is important because it brought the reel right up to date and thus contributed to the continued success of the Mitchell reel.

pilot rotor casting absences.JPG (140.55 KiB) Viewed 14019 times

pilot baffle, note handle knob.JPG (44.84 KiB) Viewed 14019 times

Photos Wallace Carney, red additions are mine.



Thanks to the generosity of a UK angler I now have one of these reels and it is identical to Wallace's above. It was discovered in France.

[JohnEboy]

Some interesting info on this thread :

https://mitchellreelmuseum.com/forum/vi ... 87d3#p1062

[Altex]

What exactly is a prototype? One dictionary definition is "One of the first units manufactured of a product which is tested so that the design can be changed if necessary before the product is manufactured commercially". This is how I think of a prototype : others may disagree. I recall Dennis Roberts writing about prototypes and making the point that they would be made in very limited numbers and not distributed to the general public. They would be unlikely to have the maker's names or be fully finished.

Perhaps some Mitchell collectors have their own particular understanding of what a prototype is, but if so it is rather confusing for the rest of us.

I have heard the first claw bail reel described as a prototype, but in my opinion there are too many of them about for that to be the case. Also, I doubt that they would make a box for a prototype.

Simplex whose earlier post has been resurrected was involved in the discussions I referred to earlier. As I recall he found in France 2 or 3 early hoop bails which lacked a serial number. Salesman's samples perhaps? The reels also had stamped internally a number. I recall numbers 6 and 7. Understandably, it was thought possible that these were genuine prototypes with the internal number identifying that particular reel. However, when our group examined several reels it was discovered that the internal numbers were used regularly at that time. Numbers 1 - 13 have been found with multiples of each. I believe that the red handled MK3 in Mr. Carney's book has number 1 in the housing. The earliest reel I have seen with such a number is a MK2.3 with number 1.

Returning to the first hoop bail reel, this reel with a metal knob was advertised in 1953 and a new product announcement from Garcia stated it would be available around March 1953 : this date was missed. I would not expect a prototype to be advertised in this way. The reel was also made in this form for several months which is hardly what one would expect of a prototype. My understanding is that early examples of the first hoop are around number B24000, although I believe an earlier number may have turned up. I have examples of this reel with numbers around B33000 and 72000 : several months apart. I also have B99293 which has the first rotor but a later baffle plate and a plastic knob.

I am not sure that I would describe the baffle plate and rotor as unique, but it depends on what one understands by that term. A dictionary definition is the only one of it's kind.

So the question remains : what is a prototype? My understanding suggests that the first hoop bail was a regular production reel and it was advertised as such. As is always the case, changes were quickly made. The rotor was changed to accommodate RHW and LHW, the baffle plate changed and the knob became black plastic. More changes quickly followed.

The reel has also been described as a test reel. It was essentially a MK3 with a new rotor and bail so I don't think there was much to test. Would a test reel be sold to the public?

My identity is not a secret and I have been referred to by my name on this site. to avoid any confusion my name is Rolands Babulis and I am a UK based collector of fishing tackle, with a particular interest in early Mitchell reels.

[JohnEboy]

Perhaps some Mitchell collectors have their own particular understanding of what a prototype is, but if so it is rather confusing for the rest of us.


I believe that the red handled MK3 in Mr. Carney's book has number 1 in the housing. The earliest reel I have seen with such a number is a MK2.3 with number 1.


The reel has also been described as a test reel. It was essentially a MK3 with a new rotor and bail so I don't think there was much to test. Would a test reel be sold to the public?

Hi Roland
Please dont take this as a dig at you , because its not .

I am a firm believer in continuous development of these reels , however it is useful to many to have some sort of consensus over some areas that might be considered significant steps and indeed with identifying these .

You speak of terminology between collectors in understanding prototypes , yet would everyone who regularly uses this site understand what a MK2.3 might be ? Most people using this site and in the wider Mitchell world might have a better idea of a version 1 , 2 or 3 .

Perhaps its just me though as I have not read Wallace's book .

Kind regards
John

[Altex]

You are welcome to have a dig at me !! this has been going on for over 5 years, so I am used to it.

The words prototype, test and pilot are in common usage and there are dictionary definitions. A prototype would not be made in large numbers and sold to the public.

As a serious collector I own and have studied every book written about Mitchell reels. Because there was such confusion I made my own study.

When you bought your early reel I wrote and congratulated you. Later, when it became clear that you had concerns I wrote again and offered you information. You failed to reply to either e-mail : enough said. I recall that you contacted me several years back after you bought a MK2.3 reels, but didn't know what it was.

You take me to task for using the mark system and say that most people know what 1st, 2nd and 3rd versions are. Actually that is incorrect.

The man who, in my opinion, did more than anyone else to popularise Mitchell reel collecting is Dennis Roberts. He dated the first version to 1937/38 est. and described it as a first version - prototype. His second version was a reel with "Made in France" and a wooden knob. His third version the same reel with a metal knob. Fourth version a claw reel with boomerang check.

Bernard Caminade has the first model as round anti-reverse and wooden knob. Second model, round ar, MIF metal knob. Third model, claw with boomerang check.

Joy Van Hengst. 1946-7 prototype phase. Round ar. 1948-9 round ar and metal knob. 1950-2 claw with boomerang check.

Barry Frewing. First production 1948 - 54. Rotary check and metal knob.

Wallace Carney. First version 1939 - 40. No paint primer. no MIF, round ar and wooden knob. Second version 1940-6. MIF. Round ar and wooden or metal
knob. Third version 1946-51 with boomerang check.

I'm seeing very little consensus and plenty of room for confusion.

So let's look at it logically. The first reel is defined by no MIF and a wooden knob. Are they all the same : no. The first reels lack primer while the later ones have primer and a different TG and ar knob. Does it matter? Yes. One is worth twice as much as the other.

The second reel has MIF and a round ar. Are they all the same. No. Some have a wooden knob and some metal, and there is a significant difference in value. Actually, there are other differences which I cover in my book.

So you see I think sub-dividing the early models makes sense and it has helped me in the hobby.

[JohnEboy]

You are welcome to have a dig at me !! this has been going on for over 5 years, so I am used to it.

The words prototype, test and pilot are in common usage and there are dictionary definitions. A prototype would not be made in large numbers and sold to the public.

As a serious collector I own and have studied every book written about Mitchell reels. Because there was such confusion I made my own study.

When you bought your early reel I wrote and congratulated you. Later, when it became clear that you had concerns I wrote again and offered you information. You failed to reply to either e-mail : enough said. I recall that you contacted me several years back after you bought a MK2.3 reels, but didn't know what it was.

You take me to task for using the mark system and say that most people know what 1st, 2nd and 3rd versions are. Actually that is incorrect.

The man who, in my opinion, did more than anyone else to popularise Mitchell reel collecting is Dennis Roberts. He dated the first version to 1937/38 est. and described it as a first version - prototype. His second version was a reel with "Made in France" and a wooden knob. His third version the same reel with a metal knob. Fourth version a claw reel with boomerang check.

Bernard Caminade has the first model as round anti-reverse and wooden knob. Second model, round ar, MIF metal knob. Third model, claw with boomerang check.

Joy Van Hengst. 1946-7 prototype phase. Round ar. 1948-9 round ar and metal knob. 1950-2 claw with boomerang check.

Barry Frewing. First production 1948 - 54. Rotary check and metal knob.

Wallace Carney. First version 1939 - 40. No paint primer. no MIF, round ar and wooden knob. Second version 1940-6. Round ar and wooden or metal knob. Third version 1946-51 with boomerang check.

I'm seeing very little consensus and plenty of room for confusion.

So let's look at it logically. The first reel is defined by no MIF and a wooden knob. Are they all the same : no. The first reels lack primer while the later ones have primer and a different TG and ar knob. Does it matter? Yes. One is worth twice as much as the other.

The second reel has MIF and a round ar. Are they all the same. No. Some have a wooden knob and some metal, and there is a significant difference in value. Actually, there are other differences which I cover in my book.

It's a shame that we are where we are. If things were different, I could have lent you some books and you could have seen some special reels.

Not sure where all this is coming from Roland.

I have just completed an email search and our last communication was 2018 .

Has you sent me an email about the early reel I bought I would have appreciated it and responded . I saw a lot of negativity and ridicule when I purchased that reel and some positivity would have been welcome . Being a well know collector I think you would have been better placed than some others t understand why I but it .

As I said I want having a dig at you , or taking you to task over anything , but clearly you have taken it that way .

I think you recently wrote about envying those new to collecting and studying these early reels and I thought that was pretty brilliant , it is a fun and enjoyable thing to get hold of new reels and study them . There has to be room for people to question and raised theories about reels and have open discussion , even if similar ideas have been thrown about before .

The only thing that irritates me is terms like "serious collector " which can seem a little divisive and dismissive of those with less experience . I also saw someone else write "true collector " recently to.

Post like the ne I originally made here are enjoyable for me , I have 2 reels that have anomalies and it should be healthy to be able to post and discuss these things .

If you did send me an email congratulating me on my early reel , then thank you for that , much appreciated .

best wishes
John

[Altex]

My first line was jocular, note the exclamation marks. I have been the subject of hostility for several years hence my remarks.

You clearly copied my post before I edited it. You will note that the final paragraph was removed because I thought you might take it the wrong way.

A new collector can be just as serious about the hobby as an experienced one, so I think you are misinterpreting that. Naturally any hobby can be more important to some than others. It must be said, however, that there is far too much unpleasantness in this hobby, some of which you have encountered. It's not pleasant, and I don't regard people who behave in that way as either serious or true collectors.

I thought my post was objective and might offer a new insight. I am surprised that you don't have reference books, but that is your choice.

This is not the place to air personal matters. I sent you a congratulatory email on your reel because I knew how pleased you must be. When things got a bit rocky I sent you 3 chapters from my book in PDF form. You did not download them. Neither e-mail was returned to me so they went somewhere. Perhaps you have changed your address.

Life's too short for this. I am genuinely happy that you found your early reel. If you want to discuss anything you know were I am.

Regards,

Rolands.

[JohnEboy]

My first line was jocular, note the exclamation marks. I have been the subject of hostility for several years hence my remarks.

You clearly copied my post before I edited it. You will note that the final paragraph was removed because I thought you might take it the wrong way.

A new collector can be just as serious about the hobby as an experienced one, so I think you are misinterpreting that. Naturally any hobby can be more important to some than others. It must be said, however, that there is far too much unpleasantness in this hobby, some of which you have encountered. It's not pleasant, and I don't regard people who behave in that way as either serious or true collectors.

I thought my post was objective and might offer a new insight. I am surprised that you don't have reference books, but that is your choice.

This is not the place to air personal matters. I sent you a congratulatory email on your reel because I knew how pleased you must be. When things got a bit rocky I sent you 3 chapters from my book in PDF form. You did not download them. Neither e-mail was returned to me so they went somewhere. Perhaps you have changed your address.

Life's too short for this. I am genuinely happy that you found your early reel. If you want to discuss anything you know were I am.

Regards,

Rolands.

Hi Roland
My Email is unchanged .
I think quite a few people dont have Mitchell reference books and for different reasons . For myself , and with limited funds I choose to buy reels to study rather than books . Some of the books are limited numbers and or collectors tend to hang onto them so they are not often seen on the open market , when they do appear the cost can be prohibitive . The same issues with limited funds also applies to the quality of reels one can buy , we cant all have the best of the best and make do with what we find .
Perhaps too there are some who see quite a lot of information on the internet and if its not available then asking on a site like this would often see someone with knowledge of the Books come forward with responses , That in turn promotes discussion and awareness for others too .

In an ideal world having al the available books would be lovely , but its far from an ideal world .

I have seen extracts from your books , most recently on the website of one of the best rod builders in the country . The book looks very good quality and with very clear images , the reels too look fabulous . Interestingly with the few pages that were on that site I could see information related to the very earliest reels that are also found on my reel . Some of it I already knew , One point I was somewhat aware of but your very clear image and information also helped me identify that as part of my early reel , much appreciated .

best wishes
John

[Altex]

Dear John,

The email is a mystery. I used an address for you from memory and as neither was returned to me I assumed you received them. Let's put it behind us.

All collectors have to prioritise when it comes to making buying decisions. I agree that most Mitchell books are far too expensive, but they are valued as collectables in themselves. I have a friend who collects only books; not reels. I couldn't function without books. Studying the books has been as interesting as studying the reels, and it is instructive to understand how authors reached such differing conclusions.

My friend, who you refer to, has fished with Mitchells for years, but the book has piqued his interest and he has bought some reels from me. He sold the second edition book very quickly to serious rod collectors so we may have some new entrants to the hobby in the UK. New blood is always welcome.

I'm intrigued to know what your correct email address is.

Warm regards,

Rolands.

[Rockape]

I have to say, that I would dearly love to own some these wonderful Mitchell books; there is a rare one on the lineage of the auto bail models too which I would love to own, but yes, too expensive for me.
Not that I would hesitate to pay the price if I had the personal funds.
I love reading reference books on my hobby subjects, but my wife (bless her) would have a head fit if I did buy one (we pool our income and she handles the bills etc, so understandable really).

So I can also only go on my own findings and of course the gratefully received help of like minded and way more knowlegable people like yourselves on this excellent forum.

[piscesman]

Rockape, what auto-bail are you referring to?
Kim

[JohnEboy]

Dear John,

The email is a mystery. I used an address for you from memory and as neither was returned to me I assumed you received them. Let's put it behind us.

All collectors have to prioritise when it comes to making buying decisions. I agree that most Mitchell books are far too expensive, but they are valued as collectables in themselves. I have a friend who collects only books; not reels. I couldn't function without books. Studying the books has been as interesting as studying the reels, and it is instructive to understand how authors reached such differing conclusions.

My friend, who you refer to, has fished with Mitchells for years, but the book has piqued his interest and he has bought some reels from me. He sold the second edition book very quickly to serious rod collectors so we may have some new entrants to the hobby in the UK. New blood is always welcome.

I'm intrigued to know what your correct email address is.

Warm regards,

Rolands.

Your friends customers have deep pockets , he sells high quality tackle , There was a pretty amazing Richard Walker MK4 signature rod that I think recently went for £3,800 . Lovely item .

I will send you an email , its the same one though .

John

[JohnEboy]

I have to say, that I would dearly love to own some these wonderful Mitchell books; there is a rare one on the lineage of the auto bail models too which I would love to own, but yes, too expensive for me.
Not that I would hesitate to pay the price if I had the personal funds.
I love reading reference books on my hobby subjects, but my wife (bless her) would have a head fit if I did buy one (we pool our income and she handles the bills etc, so understandable really).

So I can also only go on my own findings and of course the gratefully received help of like minded and way more knowlegable people like yourselves on this excellent forum.

Yes it would be lovely to have the books wouldnt it Paul , I know Wallace's books are available for just over £50 , but thats in the states and the shipping to the UK would be more than the book itself .
Roland's Book was selling for £100 .

As you say its great to have the people on this site so generous in sharing Knowledge .

John

[Altex]

Dear John,

The signature rod which Edward sold was one of mine !! He's sold most of my cane rods. I'm in my seventies so it's time to let some things go.

I will be looking at early Mitchells next.

Yes, email me and I might be able to help you and Paul on the book front.

Regards,

Rolands.

[JohnEboy]

Dear John,

The signature rod which Edward sold was one of mine !! He's sold most of my cane rods. I'm in my seventies so it's time to let some things go.

I will be looking at early Mitchells next.

Yes, email me and I might be able to help you and Paul on the book front.

Regards,

Rolands.

Hi Roland
That was a very special rod , so rare and in great condition . It would certainly have been high on the list of many collectors . Many people know to look on Edwards site for the very best tackle available .



Will send an email later .

Kind regards
John

[Rockape]

Hi Kim,

I don't remember the exact title now, but it was mainly dedicated to details on the lineage of the Mitchell Match reels (up to the last of the 440A models). I think it included the first 330 reels?

My two favorite Mitchell models are the 300, from 'The Mitchell' to the 70's 300's, and the UK market Match reels, from the Midnight blue early 70's reels to the last gold screen print text Matches of 1988, so to have books on these specific reels available is wonderful, if a little cost prohibitive. I love the Matches for their looks and high speed gearing, but I prefer the older reels for feel and a watch like AR clicker sound.