102 A BOOK ON ANGLING 



stout in the butt, but very handy and well balanced, n ft. 6 in. 

 long ; weight, 14 oz. 6 dr. 



Bowness. Ordinary hickory rod, rather light and whippy, 

 ii ft. 8 in. long ; weight, 13 oz. 4 dr. 



Aldred. This is one of the glued triangular spliced rods, 

 that is, the joints consist of three long pieces of bamboo 

 cane, carefully fitted, glued up, and tied every inch and a 

 half. This rod, though a beautiful specimen of workmanship, 

 is rather tiring to the arm, being a little top-heavy, and lacking 

 the free spring of the last two, though it has great power of 

 resistance with a heavy fish. Length, 12 ft. 4^ in. ; weight, 

 13 oz. 8 dr.* 



That the reader may get an accurate comparative view 

 of these, I put them together : 



oz. dr. ft. in. 



1 Gould . . . 13 12 12 8 



2 Cheek . . . 14 6 n 7 



3 Bowness . . . 13 4 n 8 



4 Alfred . . . 13 8 12 4! 



So that, after all, it reduces itself to a question of drams. 

 Well, if a horsehair can pull down the strength of a great 

 fish, a dram or two (no pun intended) may well pull down 

 the strength of the human arm. The great thing I deduce 

 from the above is, not to have a single-handed rod the least 

 top-heavy. The rod which figures as the heaviest by ten 

 drams in the above list is lighter to the feel and easier to fish 

 with than either of those numbered i and 4, and yet it is 

 ten drams heavier than one, and fourteen drams, or nearly 

 an ounce, heavier than the other ; and this I hold to be a 

 significant fact, because the introduction of greenheart and 

 Castle Connel rods has been working an entire revolution in 

 this respect, and top-heavy rods are the order of the day. There 

 is no doubt that you can with these rods heave out more line, 

 but if the stream I desired to fish required long throws and 

 more power, I would not sacrifice comfort in fishing, but would 

 simply prefer a double-handed rod at once. The above- 

 named rods, which are a good deal used now, are so small in 

 the butt, and so top-heavy, that they are to me entirely 

 detestable, and I would not fish with one of them if it would 



* This is the earliest mention which I have met with in angling literature 

 of the split cane rod. The reader will note that it is of very different con- 

 struction from the complex article, with or without steel centre, now in 

 vogue. ED. 



