I don't think anyone ever gave it a thought, except it's been mentioned by those of us who happen to like venerable American cane rods, and maybe also happen to like venerable British fly reels. It has nothing to do with their point of origin, and everything to do with their function.
The thread is not even about preferences, because only a handful of fly fishers on this side of the pond have ever tried a British rod. The Brits learned a long time ago what they had to export. The thread is simply about an opposite to an axiom that doesn't mean anything to anyone, anyway.
It's jokes, except for asking if anyone has other examples to throw up.
It was about 1920 when Hardy became the fly reel maker to emulate on this side of the pond, too, and US makers wasted no time working up their versions of the St. George that might stand their patent and trademark infringements in court. Oops, prewar Perfect clones didn't pass the bar, nor did Dowiagic attys. Otherwise, Pflueger and Shakespeare high-power lawyers managed to keep the Medalist and Russell going in spite of their obvious infringements.
The 1938 Medalist patent drag was, however, a clean sheet of paper.
fwiw, Hemingway liked Hardy rods, but then he never fished a dry fly in his life.
Then you have to ask if the Hardy rod is a Fisher, after all.
Thomas Special rod, and Thomas Special reel
before that (1915), this was the All-American approach - a benchmade conventional American fly reel on a quality American fly rod.
I did go through every reel I ever tried on my Farlow Armourcane, but alas
Why was Farlow Armourcane ever imported? Because post-fire Leonard, Norm Thompson, and Lee Wulff figured out they could make more money selling imported factory cane blanks than building them to sell. Nice little semi-para 5-wt, though - kind of a pocket rocket.
But the axiom kept going with glass, too
Even SA offered it in perfect combos - Fisher rods and Hardy reels.