Well yes and no, or two ways of saying the same thing. It was a production economy that enabled manufacture on separate mandrels. It was a great innovation that produced fine rods. But the tail is wagging the dog to say say marketing had nothing to do with it. Perhaps you don't remember the marketing. I do. I rememember people laughing at the ridiculous webbing wrap but accepting it because they liked the way the rod cast. Fenwick was at the right place at the right time as fisheries were restored, bamboo became more costly, and fiberglass became, not just the poor man's alternative fishin' pole, but the high tech latest and greatest thing. Jim Green being a great caster was also great marketing and he had a good schtick to go with it. He could have sold any number of fine 'glass fly rods and helped popularize them. He did it for/with Fenwick. When west coast fishing lit up, so did the Fenwick brand, and then even the eastern anglers, Atlantic salmon anglers in particular, noticed. And so the brand grew as fly-fishing publishing/media shifted from the quaint eastern venues westward. Fenwick was at the right place at the right time, that's for sure. Better transfer of action power, not really. Stiffer spot requiring more care in design and layup of the two separate pieces, lacking continuity between one another, yes. Dead spot in the middle of the rod, yes. Fiberglass technology was around both before Fenwick and after, when other makers advanced it further. Not worth arguing about, but marketing and manufacture made the design seem far more advantageous than it is from a user standpoint, unless the user planned to break a lot of tip sections. And they did make good rods with it. Casting isn't fishing, but that renown was also well-earned. It is often a persuasive marketing point to people who don't fish or cast a lot. People who did might check out a Fenwick, and if they could get over looking at it (knowing they wouldn't have to while fishing), they might give it a try or put it down in favor of an old favorite or any number of other rods on the rack. Repeating the Golden Gate marketing--it had great influence--is part of the Fenwick branding, which was well done. A technical enhancement, other than in manufacture, not so much.
Reading the patent is a good way to sort the technical claims from the marketing. A long time since I have, but anyone interested can search at the USPTO and decide. As I recall, It was mostly about strength of the ferrule joint. Whether the solution was in search of a problem depends if people broke a lot of their rods at the ferrule, at a time when glass-to-glass joints were new both in manufacture and to users. Not much about flex or transition of energy. On the other hand, not much said about manufacturing improvement, either. Obviously, though, less hand fitting of a separate component.
|