Not sure about their weight, but a Heddon automatic would look good.

If you're good with right hand wind maybe a Holmes. Not sure of dimensions though.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7423&hilit=Holmes&start=0

Even better might be a Stuart. Another perfects style reel, also heavy but smaller diameter.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=69253&p=375291&hilit=Stuart#p375291

Sorry, I don't know the weights of the different Heddons. Someone might know if you posted a question on the reel section.

I believe Heddon also marketed some Hardy clones that might work in the larger size.

But actually how can you go wrong with a Medalist.

What about a Medalist 1494 1/2. More room to add weight if needed and decent diameter

I have a Heddon T30 8 footer which is a great rod but very tip heavy like yours. Initially I fished it with a Heddon Imperial which is the only reel that will truly fit the reel seets on these rods. I used leadcore under the backing to bring it into static balance. For the last couple of years I've been using my Shakespeare 1900 which is also a good match.

Yeah Scotto, you know more about the auction than I do!
Funny analogy too, as a '67 Shelby is my absolute dream car....preferably the GT 350 model though, I'm a small block guy.

The #GF 702 is probably going to be right up there with the Golden Eagle for favorite to fish. Mainly because of the pedigree, as I think Heddon really hung a big hat on this rod.

The reason for this is the 1951 Heddon Museum print pre-release advertisement (thanks to post of Mark/wrong88) stating "result of several years experimentation". Post war fishing products, in particular rods, were steeped in brand loyalty and skepticism of technology. Bamboo was the tried and true fine rod building material, Heddon being a major player they tip toed into so called "Tubular Glass" deliberately with the "browntone" bamboo effect finish. Setting themselves apart from the stark and established Shakespeare Wonderods by such subtlety, and somewhat under pricing their high end bamboo at $35.00 ($400 today ).
Off they went, and with the upstarts in Kent Washington a few years later (Fenwick of course) most of us have had a full lifetime of enjoying our favorite rods! Some conjecture on my part as far as the whys and R&D of the time, I'm sure others will freely share any evidence of my misconceptions. That's what the forum's for right?

Thanks Scotto for your colorful interjection, and all for the advise on reels. I have a brand new Medalist 1495 Akron build with a few Onepfoot upgrades at about 6.2 ounces that is so period that I can't resist, leaving me a bit tip heavy even with line.
Charlie

Thanks Trev for your input,
I'm leaning toward your practical 1495 choice despite my feeling like the 1494 looks better to me. I'd add tungsten shot through the spool cap, and would gain over two ounces. It irks me to go that route but even 8.5 ounces is pretty tip down without line.
Having an outfit that would have been available before I was born that suits my favorite fishing is going to be very satisfying to me.
Thanks all again, Charlie

Shakespeare was the only established rod company to immediately jump into the post war fiberglass market. They invested big, hiring Arthur Howald, developing the Howald process, and marketing their Wonder Rods. Other early glass companies were new punks; Phantom Products, NARMCO (producers of Conolon rods), Harnell, followed a couple years later by ActionRod, Pacific Laminates (producers of Silaflex rods), and Lamiglas. These start ups pushed new technology into a rapidly expanding market.

By the late 40s/early 50s additional established rod companies had joined the fiberglass market. South Bend, Horrocks Ibbotson, Montague, Heddon, Wright & McGill, and Phillipson (a new company with very established staff) were all known for their split cane fishing rods. The true driving force for adopting fiberglass was quite pedestrian. The US entry into the Korean war led to a complete embargo on Tonkin bamboo, the principal raw material for cane rod production*. The established companies needed new product lines quickly. In addition, the Libbey Owens fiberglass rod patent was issued in 1951. Because Libbey Owens sold fiberglass fiber, not fishing rods, they granted technology licenses for $1 (see Johnson & Johnson's Fiberglass Fly Rods, p 148). For the established companies, selling fiberglass was a cheap and effective way to stay in business.

In essence, the sudden switchover to fiberglass placed all companies back at the starting line racing for market share (the same thing happened with graphite in the 70s). Established companies leveraged their brand names. Start ups leveraged their innovation. Shakespeare leveraged both! All companies built new production facilities, bought fiberglass pre-preg from Hexcel, and poached each other's personnel. The established companies dumped cane production before the decade was over**.

Heddon was one of the more successful operations, producing rods under different ownership groups until the mid 80s. Of the companies mentioned above, only Shakespeare (part of Pure Fishing), Wright & McGill (Eagle Claw), and Lamiglas still have a market presence.


Tom

* Cane imports were restricted by the late 40s and shut off altogether in the early 50s. The existing stocks of Tonkin cane supported the limited rod production of high end shops like Leonard, Winston, and Orvis. Normalization of Chinese trade relations in the early 70s allowed small scale cane rod builders to flourish, but that is a whole different forum...
** Unlike most, Phillipson cataloged cane rods until the early 70s.