First version

[JohnEboy]

Hi chaps
I am now the proud custodian of a first version Mitchell. As you all know they are quite rare so I was very pleased to obtain this one .




Kind regards
John

[Ted Lanham]

John,
Great find. I'm curious, how did to come across this reel. For many decades I looked for one of these, but never got lucky.

Regards,
Ted Lanham

[JohnEboy]

John,
Great find. I'm curious, how did to come across this reel. For many decades I looked for one of these, but never got lucky.

Regards,
Ted Lanham

thanks Ted
I feel very fortunate to have this reel .

To be honest It was a bit of a fluke , I came across an ebay listing just 4 hours before it closed , I was quite amazed and I think lucky there were not more bidders like the one that sold earlier this year in the US .

John

[Ted Lanham]

JohnEboy,
I believe that those reels are more available across the pond, but you are still lucky to acquire it. They are scarce everywhere.

Regards,
Ted Lanham

[GreatLaker]

John,
Congratulations on a rare find!!
Wonderful to see photographs of first versions as it is a rare treat to many of us. If there is any chance to get a peek on the inside of the housing or inside the rotating head, that would really be a very special occasion.
Kind Regards,
Bill

[JohnEboy]

JohnEboy,
I believe that those reels are more available across the pond, but you are still lucky to acquire it. They are scarce everywhere.

Regards,
Ted Lanham

Hi Ted
Yes I would imagine there are more in Europe and so potentially there would be a greater chance of coming across one . However I think you are right and these reels are scarce everywhere . The chances of buying one are still very slim .

That said I do hear of one chap in the UK who seems to find quite a lot of them (comparatively speaking ) , yet as far as I am aware from what I ahve read Wallace has inspected as many reels in the UK as this UK chap has ?

John

[JohnEboy]

John,
Congratulations on a rare find!!
Wonderful to see photographs of first versions as it is a rare treat to many of us. If there is any chance to get a peek on the inside of the housing or inside the rotating head, that would really be a very special occasion.
Kind Regards,
Bill

Thanks Bill , I'm still excited at the moment and busy comparing with other half bails and having fun inspecting the reel very close up using an illuminated jewellers loupe .. under close examination the body is very interesting even when compared to 2nd's .
I will say that one area in particular that caught my interest was the lube port extension.

I will of course post some detailed images when I get round to it.

John

[JohnEboy]

John,
Congratulations on a rare find!!
Wonderful to see photographs of first versions as it is a rare treat to many of us. If there is any chance to get a peek on the inside of the housing or inside the rotating head, that would really be a very special occasion.
Kind Regards,
Bill

Hi Bill
Here's a couple of snaps from inside the rotating head and the housing . Sorry I haven't managed detailed images yet , still busy enjoying comparing it to various early half bails .
Hope this is of interest .
John

[allansharkey]

Hi, thanks for posting the pictures, I have had many 2nd versions and many 1st version heads some bodies, normally referred to as using up old stock or transition reels, nice to see the real thing, never seen a complete and real 1st version on eBay in the UK in my time of restoring 11 years, I have had a lot of 2nd version reels come up in job lots, which is a thrill, not for a few years, people are more aware now, sellers and buyers. Allan

[JohnEboy]

Hi, thanks for posting the pictures, I have had many 2nd versions and many 1st version heads some bodies, normally referred to as using up old stock or transition reels, nice to see the real thing, never seen a complete and real 1st version on eBay in the UK in my time of restoring 11 years, I have had a lot of 2nd version reels come up in job lots, which is a thrill, not for a few years, people are more aware now, sellers and buyers. Allan

In some circles people are probably more aware , but most anglers who fish with old tackle probably are still somewhat confused I think .

Maybe you would also need to be quite brave buying a genuine 1st on auction or genuine sale unless you were really sure ? A couple of aspects of this reel would probably leave question marks for some , I noticed them , but others who know about Mitchells didnt see it from the images .

I must say it is incredibly nice to be able to compare this very early reel with 2nds and 3rds etc .

[ffwayne]

I have to question the difference in the counterweight pictures between yours and the one from Wallace's study. I see a screw in yours. Far from being anywhere beyond a novice, but feel I have to ask. Still a beautiful find.
Wayne

[JohnEboy]

I have to question the difference in the counterweight pictures between yours and the one from Wallace's study. I see a screw in yours. Far from being anywhere beyond a novice, but feel I have to ask. Still a beautiful find.
Wayne

Thanks Wayne
It's a interesting point that I have discussed with others. My reel has several differences when compared to the 1st Version study on MRM and of course many similarities.
I wonder if you feel the counterweight in my reel would perhaps disqualify it from being a 1st ? What if other early reels also have screws in the counterweights ?

It was an interesting area to study and compare with other reels , perhaps there are clues in how the reels were made ? Perhaps the really interesting bit is the holes on the bottom of the head that you can see in the MRM 1st Version study ?
Many others have done far greater inspections of many 1st versions and in some ways there are still questions and uncertainty. None the less it is good fun having reels to compare .
John

[GreatLaker]

I have to question the difference in the counterweight pictures between yours and the one from Wallace's study. I see a screw in yours. Far from being anywhere beyond a novice, but feel I have to ask. Still a beautiful find.
Wayne

Wayne,
I believe what you are seeing with the counterweight is a repair. Remember when these reels were originally purchased they were for fishing and not for collecting. If something went wrong and it was possible to repair, then it was done. Of course, you could say these reels were guaranteed for life but that only applied to the original purchaser, didn't it?

How the lead counterweights were fastened to the rotor is not well known, if at all. Does anyone reading this know??

Working with lead and attaching it to an aluminum alloy surface might have called for an unconventional method or at least a method we are not familiar with today, I'm guessing.

Wallace, bless him, has shown us that the lead counter weights were welded to the rotor, but how was this done? All I can come up with (guessing and conjecture) is that some kind of pins were formed into the newly made lead counter weights and these were fitted into the holes made in the rotor. Then, somehow high heat (welding) was applied. The outer surface (back side) of the rotating head could then be cleaned of the excess lead left over from the melted pins by sanding or grinding to give the surface a smooth finish and then painted. Of course I'm only guessing and your guess is as good as mine.
But let's say that one of the original lead pins was knocked loose from the mounting hole. Then using a screw to fix a wobbling lead counter weight makes sense to me. How about you?

Kind Regards,
Bill

[Ted Lanham]

Bill,
I was thinking the same thing as you about this being a repair. Thanks for being able to come up right words to explain this possibility.

Regards,
Ted Lanham

[ffwayne]

Great answers as always.
Thanks everyone.
Wayne

[JohnEboy]

I have to question the difference in the counterweight pictures between yours and the one from Wallace's study. I see a screw in yours. Far from being anywhere beyond a novice, but feel I have to ask. Still a beautiful find.
Wayne

Wayne,
I believe what you are seeing with the counterweight is a repair. Remember when these reels were originally purchased they were for fishing and not for collecting. If something went wrong and it was possible to repair, then it was done. Of course, you could say these reels were guaranteed for life but that only applied to the original purchaser, didn't it?

How the lead counterweights were fastened to the rotor is not well known, if at all. Does anyone reading this know??

Working with lead and attaching it to an aluminum alloy surface might have called for an unconventional method or at least a method we are not familiar with today, I'm guessing.

Wallace, bless him, has shown us that the lead counter weights were welded to the rotor, but how was this done? All I can come up with (guessing and conjecture) is that some kind of pins were formed into the newly made lead counter weights and these were fitted into the holes made in the rotor. Then, somehow high heat (welding) was applied. The outer surface (back side) of the rotating head could then be cleaned of the excess lead left over from the melted pins by sanding or grinding to give the surface a smooth finish and then painted. Of course I'm only guessing and your guess is as good as mine.
But let's say that one of the original lead pins was knocked loose from the mounting hole. Then using a screw to fix a wobbling lead counter weight makes sense to me. How about you?

Kind Regards,
Bill

Well said Bill .

Perhaps it is a repair , perhaps that is the way it was built. I don't think we understand enough of very early reels to be sure .
John

[GreatLaker]

I don't think we understand enough of very early reels to be sure .
John

John,
That is true and that is why I feel your contribution of posting these photos is of such great value and importance.

Not to be greedy but is there any chance we can see more? I would love to see what the lube nut looks like outside the reel. Also what the bare cover plate and housing look like and.......aw heck I want to see everything.

Kind Regards,
Bill

[JohnEboy]

I don't think we understand enough of very early reels to be sure .
John

John,
That is true and that is why I feel your contribution of posting these photos is of such great value and importance.

Not to be greedy but is there any chance we can see more? I would love to see what the lube nut looks like outside the reel. Also what the bare cover plate and housing look like and.......aw heck I want to see everything.

Kind Regards,
Bill

Sure Bill , I will try and post those images tomorrow.

I'm not too secretive and I know many people wont get to appreciate these early reels up close . That said there a couple of things about this reel that I would like to keep to myself (at least for now ) but apart from that I'm happy to share photos.

What you wont get to appreciate is how this reel feels and how its actually formed /constructed . Having very little paint probably gives a better appreciation for how these early reels were made . I understand some dont like the words like prototype , but it does somehow feel "rougher" for want of a better word .

Kind regards
John

[JohnEboy]

Requested images ;

[GreatLaker]

John,
Thank you so much for posting these new images. I find them fascinating and learn something or get a question answered from almost every one.
Kind Regards,
Bill

[allansharkey]

I have to question the difference in the counterweight pictures between yours and the one from Wallace's study. I see a screw in yours. Far from being anywhere beyond a novice, but feel I have to ask. Still a beautiful find.
Wayne

Hi all, Whilst i agree with all the comments I have had many 2nd version reels with 1st version parts, this could be due to early repairers using stock up from broken reels or the factory using up old stock, although from memory this mainly applied to the head popping up frequently which had a pyramid indent to the right of the bail arm lever. I believe the posting on the home page and the book both by Wallace to be the definitive 1st version study, of course there may be some changes during the first version reels life span ie the war as the biggest and possibly using up parts that had been modified or used for experiments or even repaired due to the scarceness of parts and using up parts that were not as they should ie putting a screw in the lead weight, or a later repair in the days you did repair, many theories but a great reel to own, maybe one will turn up herein the UK still pretty much a unicorn, Allan

[JohnEboy]

I have to question the difference in the counterweight pictures between yours and the one from Wallace's study. I see a screw in yours. Far from being anywhere beyond a novice, but feel I have to ask. Still a beautiful find.
Wayne

Hi all, Whilst i agree with all the comments I have had many 2nd version reels with 1st version parts, this could be due to early repairers using stock up from broken reels or the factory using up old stock, although from memory this mainly applied to the head popping up frequently which had a pyramid indent to the right of the bail arm lever. I believe the posting on the home page and the book both by Wallace to be the definitive 1st version study, of course there may be some changes during the first version reels life span ie the war as the biggest and possibly using up parts that had been modified or used for experiments or even repaired due to the scarceness of parts and using up parts that were not as they should ie putting a screw in the lead weight, or a later repair in the days you did repair, many theories but a great reel to own, maybe one will turn up herein the UK still pretty much a unicorn, Allan

I found the "pyramid " comment interesting .

[allansharkey]

Hi, I have seen the pyramid indent on many heads, but not for years, of course to make it a first version it can not have a red undercoat and must have the alum gear, also other signs in the head, the first version study is a good starting point, for this fascinating reel, Allan

[Bailarm]

I've not heard the 'pyramid' name for the indentation by the bail arm before, but I concluded years ago that it was a pilot to guide the cutting gear in if the reel was to be made as a right hand wind one.

There are at least fourteen first versions in the UK that I know of, I've held four for examination luckily.

They all have differences between one another and that's the problem with the 'versions' way of cataloguing them. Modifications were made over a period of time...just look at the variety of transfer gears, good ness knows what was going on there as they all seem to perform perfectly...even after 70 years.

One writer of a recent book, once a member here, has written in a self-published book of the changes using Mark, or the abbreviation Mk., as is the British way, but I felt it didn't reduce the confusion of 'versions', possibly making it more confusing still.

Consequently, I don't think you can look at a reel and say it isn't this, or it can't be that because of one deviation from Wallace's study which was made some years ago when there just wasn't enough 'firsts' to compare. Wallace did what he could, very thoroughly, with a single reel.

The above mentioned writer has a dozen first versions! All obtained from France, I believe.

Some have primer, some don't. Some have lost a lot of paint, some none at all! They did all have the aluminium rotor gear though.

Inside them is a myriad of minor differences, but one thing caught my eye especially. There were at least two casting dies producing the main body shell, Aluvac casting 4190, using different systems to inject the molten alloy...one with four ports, the other with just two.

Then there is the casting of the main body with the axle mounting shaft/rotor head axle in place before the molten metal was pumped in. No two reels are quite the same here, with the ribbing of the axle shaft often poorly contained within the molten metal. In fact JohnEboy's one above is the best I have seen so far with just a little of the ribbing showing.


Edit:

In addition, I see JohnEboys reel has curved tangs to the anti-reverse lever spring. Some just have a straight bar of spring metal here with no tangs. I've always assumed that to be an early indication, since curved tangs continued on until the first full bails, but it is just as assumption.

One constant was a poorly finished area around the pinion gear axle, with none of the reels having a pinion gear shim washer behind the gear.


.

[JohnEboy]

I've not heard the 'pyramid' name for the indentation by the bail arm before, but I concluded years ago that it was a pilot to guide the cutting gear in if the reel was to be made as a right hand wind one.

There are at least fourteen first versions in the UK that I know of, I've held four for examination luckily.

They all have differences between one another and that's the problem with the 'versions' way of cataloguing them. Modifications were made over a period of time...just look at the variety of transfer gears, good ness knows what was going on there as they all seem to perform perfectly...even after 70 years.

One writer of a recent book, once a member here, has written in a self-published book of the changes using Mark, or the abbreviation Mk., as is the British way, but I felt it didn't reduce the confusion of 'versions', possibly making it more confusing still.

Consequently, I don't think you can look at a reel and say it isn't this, or it can't be that because of one deviation from Wallace's study which was made some years ago when there just wasn't enough 'firsts' to compare. Wallace did what he could, very thoroughly, with a single reel.

The above mentioned writer has a dozen first versions! All obtained from France, I believe.

Some have primer, some don't. Some have lost a lot of paint, some none at all! They did all have the aluminium rotor gear though.

Inside them is a myriad of minor differences, but one thing caught my eye especially. There were at least two casting dies producing the main body shell, Aluvac casting 4190, using different systems to inject the molten alloy...one with four ports, the other with just two.

Then there is the casting of the main body with the axle mounting shaft/rotor head axle in place before the molten metal was pumped in. No two reels are quite the same here, with the ribbing of the axle shaft often poorly contained within the molten metal. In fact JohnEboy's one above is the best I have seen so far with just a little of the ribbing showing.


Edit:

In addition, I see JohnEboys reel has curved tangs to the anti-reverse lever spring. Some just have a straight bar of spring metal here with no tangs. I've always assumed that to be an early indication, since curved tangs continued on until the first full bails, but it is just as assumption.

One constant was a poorly finished area around the pinion gear axle, with none of the reels having a pinion gear shim washer behind the gear.


.

Hi Nobby
I think hhat maybe some of the allure and magic lies in the air of mystery with these early reels ?
Perhaps the only way we will see definitive answers is when someone invents a time machine ?

Best wishes
John

[GreatLaker]

I've not heard the 'pyramid' name for the indentation by the bail arm before, but I concluded years ago that it was a pilot to guide the cutting gear in if the reel was to be made as a right hand wind one.....quote]

I agree somewhat with Nobby that the mark or "pyramid" shaped mark was a minor defect. Also agree that the mark was/has been found on first versions as Wallace has pointed out. I believe the "pyramid" nick name was derived by someone looking at the photograph Wallace posted in his first version study here, or in his book titled "The Mitchell Classic 300 Spinning Reel".

You can view this photo right here in the MRM on the Home page under the Studies tab. (see link below)
https://mitchellreelmuseum.com/first-ve ... eel-study/ Scroll down a bit until you come to the heading above the 9th photograph titled "ROTATING HEAD" and look at the photo. You will see that it does indeed look like a pyramid.

This is one great example of how valuable it is to see photos of first version reels and how lucky we are John has shared some of his with us. With John's photographs you can see that the mark is actually more pronounced on his rotor and has a long rectangular shape. Visually cut off the end of John's mark, and it forms a pyramid if lightly struck. This mark was likely made by a machine and was not intentional. Perhaps the machine was out of adjustment and as each rotating head was struck, a different amount of the defect was pressed into the rotating head. Look at 10 first version rotors and all the marks have varying shapes.

Thanks again John, for your generosity.

Kind Regards,
Bill

[Bailarm]

Not wishing to be argumentative, but one can see the crystalline structure in the slot I believe is a pilot for cutting a rotor for right hand wind. I think that shows us it is cast in, not machined out....though it could be that it is stamped in I admit

I can't see that it could serve any other purpose than to assist in cutting, but as John says, short of time travel will we ever know?

When the first Mitchells were offered for sale most anglers cast with their right hand, then passed the rod to their left hand to wind the reel. I believe many US anglers still do this?

So it seems sensible that should left hand wind not catch on* they be ready to switch to right hand wind promptly.

Interestingly the first full bail reels, that are often referred to as 'pilots' don't have the requisite casting parts for right hand wind and it was only in the first full bails marketed for sale that this was changed. Left hand wind HAD caught on by then so perhaps it wasn't so important in a prototype?


* Garcia even went as far as writing a section in the Mitchell reel owner's manual encouraging anglers to try left hand wind.

[JohnEboy]

I've not heard the 'pyramid' name for the indentation by the bail arm before, but I concluded years ago that it was a pilot to guide the cutting gear in if the reel was to be made as a right hand wind one.....quote]

I agree somewhat with Nobby that the mark or "pyramid" shaped mark was a minor defect. Also agree that the mark was/has been found on first versions as Wallace has pointed out. I believe the "pyramid" nick name was derived by someone looking at the photograph Wallace posted in his first version study here, or in his book titled "The Mitchell Classic 300 Spinning Reel".

You can view this photo right here in the MRM on the Home page under the Studies tab. (see link below)
https://mitchellreelmuseum.com/first-ve ... eel-study/ Scroll down a bit until you come to the heading above the 9th photograph titled "ROTATING HEAD" and look at the photo. You will see that it does indeed look like a pyramid.

This is one great example of how valuable it is to see photos of first version reels and how lucky we are John has shared some of his with us. With John's photographs you can see that the mark is actually more pronounced on his rotor and has a long rectangular shape. Visually cut off the end of John's mark, and it forms a pyramid if lightly struck. This mark was likely made by a machine and was not intentional. Perhaps the machine was out of adjustment and as each rotating head was struck, a different amount of the defect was pressed into the rotating head. Look at 10 first version rotors and all the marks have varying shapes.

Thanks again John, for your generosity.

Kind Regards,
Bill

Thanks Bill
It really is pleasure to be able to share and discuss these reels and in doing so keep them alive in hearts and minds.
Best wishes
John

[JohnEboy]

Not wishing to be argumentative, but one can see the crystalline structure in the slot I believe is a pilot for cutting a rotor for right hand wind. I think that shows us it is cast in, not machined out....though it could be that it is stamped in I admit

I can't see that it could serve any other purpose than to assist in cutting, but as John says, short of time travel will we ever know?

When the first Mitchells were offered for sale most anglers cast with their right hand, then passed the rod to their left hand to wind the reel. I believe many US anglers still do this?

So it seems sensible that should left hand wind not catch on* they be ready to switch to right hand wind promptly.

Interestingly the first full bail reels, that are often referred to as 'pilots' don't have the requisite casting parts for right hand wind and it was only in the first full bails marketed for sale that this was changed. Left hand wind HAD caught on by then so perhaps it wasn't so important in a prototype?


* Garcia even went as far as writing a section in the Mitchell reel owner's manual encouraging anglers to try left hand wind.

HI Nobby
It would be nice to imagine that perhaps there was an early intention for the rotating heads to turn to thd left or right .
No being much of an engineer , would it take much in terms of gearing to make it possible to turn the other way ?

I have just edited this to add thatcI have just scrutinised the area using an illuminated jewellers loupe and to me it would seem the hole for the lever arm is cut out , the notch on the other side that only appears on very early reels I would suggest was there as part of the casting process .
I will try and take some macro images to post .

John

[JohnEboy]

Hi all
Not sure I am still showing this well , the dark areas within the right "slot" are not paint residue, they are small holes .

[GreatLaker]

John,
Thanks for those micro shots they are terrific.
I have now seen all I need to see regarding the mystery defect or "imperfection" as Wallace has so elegantly stated.
Kind Regards,
Bill

[JohnEboy]

John,
Thanks for those micro shots they are terrific.
I have now seen all I need to see regarding the mystery defect or "imperfection" as Wallace has so elegantly stated.
Kind Regards,
Bill

Thanks Bill
I do find all this quite interesting .

I did post those images on a UK based traditional angling forum , I specifically asked if anyone could comment from an engineering viewpoint as there are some skilled engineers on there .
The viewpoints coming back so far are that the slot on the right has been cut out , and one educated guess suggests a woodruff key cutter due to the ramp on the right hand side of the slot .

kind regards
John

[Rockape]

I just found this thread and I remember watching the auction, congrats on winning it John.

One thing that has me puzzled though, is the bail arm spring type in your 1st version. This is the same type as in my recently acquired 2nd version, but I see Wallace's has the v shaped spring.
Does anyone here know which type came first?

[JohnEboy]

I just found this thread and I remember watching the auction, congrats on winning it John.

One thing that has me puzzled though, is the bail arm spring type in your 1st version. This is the same type as in my recently acquired 2nd version, but I see Wallace's has the v shaped spring.
Does anyone here know which type came first?

be kind

An interesting question Paul , pretty sure you will get a few responses and hopefully a definitive answer , still something I'm looking and and found interesting with the reel so not in a position to comment .

If you take yours apart again at any point would you be kind enough to post the inside of your rotor head please ? also if there is anything you see outside underneath that you think unusual .

Thanks for the congrats on winning it . They arnt often seen for sale on the open market like that as i'm sure you know . It wasnt cheap either but I wanted one and was keen to have it to compare with other reels . I think the last one I saw was in the USA and went for more than twice the price . When It was up for sale I saw additional images that showed some differences from the study on here , but I think thats part of the fun with these old reels.

Kind regards
John

[Rockape]

Hi John,

I already have a shot of the rotor (see below).

To be honest, because the rotor had the suspected alloy gear with the thin brass insert, and everything about the body and rotor (paint finish etc) suggested to me that they were original to each other, I wondered if that part had been changed, so I opened up a couple of A serial numbered reels, which had the same bail spring, so I assumed (not a good thing to do) that at some point the original v shaped spring had broken or maybe someone recommended the loop version and it was changed, so I re-fitted one like that in Wallace's 1st version study from another previously obtained early third version reel (swapped them over).

Sacrelidge maybe? but easily replaced again if I am wrong, so yes we need an expert here to settle this conundrum.

[Rockape]

It is my understanding that there was some talk during those days of slightly loose bail arms, and that the loop type was better?

Did Mitchell introduce the loop wire to correct the 'inferior' early one, and therefore offer a replacement (any service bulletins on this I wonder).

Who knows, but it does get the old grey matter going.

Edit: I just re-read your post, and you asked if there was anything unusual on the outer drum.
Well there is a small indentation next to the bail trip lever, which is like a small but prominent indented dash line short in length and horizontal in line with the bttom (and top) of the rotor, if that helps (see photo).

[Rockape]

To add: I have just seen another restored 2nd version's rotor with the exact same mark that mine has, so I have asked the owner for info on the type of bail trip spring he found under the baffle plate.
I will let you know the moment he answers (if he gets back to me of course).

[GreatLaker]

[quote=Rockape post_id=2647 time=1665924076 user_id=416]
I just found this thread and I remember watching the auction, congrats on winning it John.
One thing that has me puzzled though, is the bail arm spring type in your 1st version. This is the same type as in my recently acquired 2nd version, but I see Wallace's has the v shaped spring.
Does anyone here know which type came first?
[/quote]


Rockape,
The spring Wallace shows in his study is correct. The first two versions of the Mitchell have the same pick-up spring (part #19) and pick-up trip lever (#37).

A distinguishing feature of the 3rd version is the newly designed pick-up spring (#19) and new pick-up lever (#37).

The pick-up spring in the 1st and 2nd version Mitchell reels is made of a thicker wire which can be seen if you have good eye sight. These springs have few bends as it is much harder to bend this type of wire as the diameter increases. Now days, this type of wire is often called "hard wire" or "Music wire" in the U.S. One of it's negative characteristics, in some circumstances, is the fact that it is more brittle than softer more bendable wire. Even a tiny nick in it can cause it to break (fail) and so perhaps this is one factor why Mitchell made the 3rd version pick-up spring out of a narrower (softer) gauge wire.

Also, I should mention that many part names and numbers did not change as parts were redesigned or upgraded. That is why a 1st version part like the pick-up spring #19, retained the same name and number for the 3rd version design, even though the design changed considerably.

Kind Regars,
Bill

[JohnEboy]

Hi John,

I already have a shot of the rotor (see below).

To be honest, because the rotor had the suspected alloy gear with the thin brass insert, and everything about the body and rotor (paint finish etc) suggested to me that they were original to each other, I wondered if that part had been changed, so I opened up a couple of A serial numbered reels, which had the same bail spring, so I assumed (not a good thing to do) that at some point the original v shaped spring had broken or maybe someone recommended the loop version and it was changed, so I re-fitted one like that in Wallace's 1st version study from another previously obtained early third version reel (swapped them over).

Sacrelidge maybe? but easily replaced again if I am wrong, so yes we need an expert here to settle this conundrum.

Parts like the springs can easily break over time and be replaced with a more modern version . Similarly with the interchangeability of parts its no surprised people took to upgrading parts , even whole rotating heads like they did from half bail to full bail to have a more modern reel .
Perhaps its right for the individual custodian at any given point to decide how they want their reel to be ? In this example the choice of spring would be whatever you feel is right ? and as you say can be reversed if you feel differently at a later date too .

Thanks for sharing your photo , I do appreciate it .
John

[JohnEboy]

It is my understanding that there was some talk during those days of slightly loose bail arms, and that the loop type was better?

Did Mitchell introduce the loop wire to correct the 'inferior' early one, and therefore offer a replacement (any service bulletins on this I wonder).

Who knows, but it does get the old grey matter going.

Edit: I just re-read your post, and you asked if there was anything unusual on the outer drum.
Well there is a small indentation next to the bail trip lever, which is like a small but prominent indented dash line short in length and horizontal in line with the bttom (and top) of the rotor, if that helps (see photo).

Thanks again for looking and sharing an image , my interest was underneath , one might expect to see a hole where the spring screw goes , and perhaps two circular marks or indentations underneath where the counterweight can be seen inside . If you look to wallace's 1st version study he has these marked with arrows as "two lead welds for the counterweight . In reality the paint is so nice on your reel these may only be barely visible if at all ?
best wishes
John

[Rockape]

Ah, apologies John, I misunderstood your question.
I'll have a close look at mine in that area, and post some photos if I find anything interesting.

[Rockape]

Just grabed these quick shots of the back of the rotor, and the locating holes are just visible, see pic:

[JohnEboy]

Just grabed these quick shots of the back of the rotor, and the locating holes are just visible, see pic:

Oh thats brilliant Paul , many thanks for doing that .
Very noticeable indeed .
John

[Rockape]

No problem John, glad to help.