11 replies to this topic

[Mainard]

I have been given 2 of these reels and was wondering if anyone could tell me what wt line can be used on these thanks. I also was given an old bamboo fly rod but there are no markings on it at all . Also wondering what wt might I be able to use on it .

[mikechell]

I've got a couple of those ... use them all the time.  Since you're rarely "fighting" a fish on the reel with these, line weight isn't an issue. 

On the other hand, since you AREN'T fighting a fish on the reel, some would argue that they are strictly small fish reels.

 

I love my automatics.  I have several rods prepped and ready on my boat.  I'll often use the "top water" rod first (automatic reel), if no hits, I can quickly retrieve line and pick up the "sinking fly" rod. 

[Flat Rock native]

I would submit that auto-winds are not necessarily Small-fish reels. When I was pre-school age my dear, departed Mother landed an 11 pound Northern Pike on a steel fly rod equipped with a red Martin reel. Caught it while Crappie fishing in Lake Maloney outside of North Platte, Nebraska on a tandem rig baited with tiny minnows.

Of course it was a SMALL Pike

Saw the pictures many times during youth years. Still have the rod and reel.

[RickZieger]

For the rod try some lines you have on other rods to see how the rod works with different weights.

 

Rick

[Flat Rock native]

For the rod try some lines you have on other rods to see how the rod works with different weights.
 
Rick

This is a quick practical solution. Steel has posted information at times regarding using Pennies to calculate by bending the rod with weights hung from the tips. For another approach.

[tjm]

Most rods of yesteryear liked 7wt lines, as a starting point..

I've fished with the automatic reels and they have some nice points, some days I liked them; picking up the striped line so that current didn't grab it was snap. 

As to what line fits,  the limitation is more of how long a line will fit, A full (96'?) length DT9F didn't have enough space, a half length would fit with some backing  as I recall, smaller diameter line means more feet of line gets on the reel.The reels were probably meant to hold a L7F or L6F line.

[tjm]

http://common-cents.info/

http://common-cents....ic_Layout_1.pdf

 

That rod may also have line weight marked something like "GAG" or "HCH" or "HDH" etc. which would be the old way of designating line weights. A conversion table http://css.sbcma.com...yline_chart.htm

[redietz]

Most rods of yesteryear liked 7wt lines, as a starting point..

I've fished with the automatic reels and they have some nice points, some days I liked them; picking up the striped line so that current didn't grab it was snap. 

As to what line fits,  the limitation is more of how long a line will fit, A full (96'?) length DT9F didn't have enough space, a half length would fit with some backing  as I recall, smaller diameter line means more feet of line gets on the reel.The reels were probably meant to hold a L7F or L6F line.

More like a 6 weight, at least in trout models.  The most common (again for trout) line designation was HDH, which translates roughly into a modern DT6; many rods so designated happily cast a modern 5 weight.

 

Bass rods, of course, were about a line weight heavier.

[tjm]

Reditz, Where I learned to use a fly rod for trout, 9wt were most common, 8 wt next,and trout were about the only thing those guys fished for; bass rods of course had spinning reels, so it may depend on who you knew. In  years of fishing that same area, I never saw a 6wt. until graphite came out. I mentioned 7 because in other areas I have seen more 7-8s than other sizes.

Thanks for setting me straight. 

[phg]

I agree, somewhat, with tjm.  Bamboo rods were generally a couple line weights heavier than what we use today.  It wasn't really needed, though.  I build a lot of 4wt bamboo rods, and they work fine with trout. 

 

I too have several automatic reels.  I inherited a late '40's Utica from my dad.  I also have picked up Shakespear a few years ago.  Back when these reels were in use, silk or linen lines were the norm, and they were thinner than their modern plastic counter parts.  A reel that held 7wt or 8wt silk line in the '50's would probably be filled up with a modern plastic 6wt line.  The spools were fairly small.

 

I also agree with Mikechell, they are best used for picking up the slack line while you are fishing.  My dad certainly used his that way.  Anytime you realize you have too much line piling up around you feet, just press the lever, and zip! the line is back under control.  

 

Use them and enjoy them.  They were state of the art in their day, and every post WWII bamboo rod should be equipped with one! 

[Mainard]

Ok thanks guys for the input. 

[redietz]

I agree, somewhat, with tjm.  Bamboo rods were generally a couple line weights heavier than what we use today.  It wasn't really needed, though.  I build a lot of 4wt bamboo rods, and they work fine with trout. 

 

 

Agree, if by "a couple" you mean 6 weight rather than 4, but don't start out testing with a 7 weight; chances are the rod will be overloaded by at least a line weight. Here are a couple of typical catalog entries from back in the day.  The first is from a Heddon catalog, the second from a South Bend.  They're typical, any random catalog would show the same recommendations.  Notice that the "trout" sized rods recommend an HDH or HEH line. (Modern DT 6 or DT 5). I will also say that all of the Heddons in the "trout" sized will cast a modern 5 weight just fine (I own about 10 of them), The South Bends, however, seem to vary; I've cast some that will take a 5, but most are true 6 weights.  Again, none are 7 weights.