Account activated

Really looking forward for Something about this rod.

So it's not a good rod then, or is it just not AS good?

Thanks alot! Just bought them and kinda fell In love with that rod. Surely its 'cause its fiberglass that makes it Feel different for me.

By the color and the coarse glass material this could be a Sportex blank.
I do have a customized rod with this kind of blank. It is 2,4m long, class 5/6 writen on it, but more a 4/5. Not sure, if sportex.
Very interessting on this rod: It is made like a modern rod - tip over butt section, like the brown Fenwick rods.
The old Norris and DAM glass rods are usely a bit darker in color, more reddish-brown and have the same coarse structure of the material. But I do have also Norris glass rods for spinning/bottom fishing with a simular color.
But these rods used to change there color by the time, sunlight, and became lighter.
This is well vissible, when I rebuild those rods. Under the windings the blank was much darker.
My "probably" sportex rod has a deep flexing but without a lot of wobbeling, the tip rests pretty fast.
A later sportex glass rod of the 70s, red blank, modern glass material, a "Fly Star 5, FL2601", is awful to cast compared to the older modell.
Dont want to write to much about sportex, as this is not the question of this post.

I just learnd, that Hardy used blanks of other companys, didnt know that before.

For people that grew up fishing with graphite rods, glass often feels 'lighter' or more flexible. An 8 foot rod from the late 50s is probably a 6/7 weight, not a #4/5. Try it with several different line weights and see which is best.

Whatever you paid is the value of the rod. Does this rod have 'additional' value to collectors? Not that I am aware of.


Tom

Thanks! I just started fly fishing a year ago after my soccer-career ended. I think that im not the Best To judge how good this Is etc. Maybe i put it on storage for 5 More years and see what happens.

Sorry for my short replies. Im from Finland and its not that easy To write in english.

Above the logo Is a text on Red font that says "regd trade mark" and text below the logo i cant see Else but theres words hardy and glas..

I just received my Hardy Anglers Guide 1965.
Here, Hardy offered a cheaper range of rods, made of split bamboo or glass.

The material of the bamboo they called "Neocane" - compared to their usually "Holokona" bamboo.

They offered one range off glassrods made of "Neoglass", (their better range material they called "Glaskona") : the "Ben Hope". It came in 2 length, 8´ and 8´9´´, both in class 6.
The pictures in the catalogue are only black and white paintings, no colours to see. But they show probably black writings.
The pictured rod shows 8+1 Ring, but you don´t know if this is the shorter or the longer version.
The shorter rod weights 4 oz/ 115gr, the longer one 4 3/4 oz / 135gr.

Reinhard

This looks to me like a Glaskona or Neo-Glas rod, and so blank. With the “hand on rod” logo, probably the former. These were marketed for a couple of years each in the early- and mid-1960s respectively, so are of interest in historical terms, with Hardy looking to get into the glass market to expand their market position.

I have got the Neo-Glas Ben More spinning rod with an identical-looking blank. It is no lightweight, being an 8 1/2 ft rod for spinning for salmon and pike; casts from 3/4oz to probably 2oz, so a bit heavy for most Rapalas. But a genuinely nice rod to fish, and bomb-proof.

I would make three comments about these early Hardy glass rods:

1) the “Neo-” and “Glas” pre-fixes (Glaskona, Neo-Glas, Neo-Cane) were IMHO Hardy’s euphemisms for lower-priced, entry models. You can see that on the fittings and finish compared to cane rods of the same vantage. Luckily they realised that this was a dead end in marketing terms!

2) the difference between the Neo-Glas and Fibalite JET blanks and rods is night and day. I also have the 7ft 5/6lb Fibalite spinning rod: Hardy really raised/restored their game with the move to Fisher blanks, and the standard of cork, fittings and finish were massively improved.

3) I would be really surprised if it was not “true to weight”, and so a 6-weight. But remember that, certainly in the UK, rods were always specified for a double taper (floating) line; if there was any sort of dual rating (even implied), it would be DT-6F/WF-7F. But, in those days (and into the 1970s, when I hung around Hardy’s Pall Mall shop a bit as a kid!), anything below a 6-weight would have been considered unusually light, and exceptionally difficult to obtain a line for.

Enjoy fishing your rod, and let us know how you get on with it.