mka
Well-known member
Great news...Winston's Bamboo Shop is back in production! Link below:
Winston Bamboo Is Back! | Winston Fly Rods
Winston Bamboo Is Back! | Winston Fly Rods
It should be noted that the Winston bamboo rods are not the same rods or built by the same rod builders that made Winston bamboo famous. That would no be Sweetgrass Rods which is the company that Glenn Brackett founded when Tom Morgan and Glenn Brackett sold Winston and they left over a change in the direction of Winston in 2005.
Mostly correct, actually Tom Sold the company(Winston) to David in 1991, with an 18 month contract to stay on and mentor the new owner group. After those 18 months, Tom left the Winston Building and Twin Bridges for good in 1993, his health began to decline and his MS got pretty aggressive, he met Gerri and they moved to Bozeman and opened TMR (Tom Morgan Rodsmiths) on a very limited scale at first, the end of 1995. By mid 1996 it was pretty functional and setup enough to take orders. Glenn meanwhile, stayed on at Winston long after the sale, running the bamboo operations for them, until the highly publicized dispute erupted, he finished the 2005 year and left Winston in January of 2006 with Jerry Kustich to partner up and move down the road to open Sweetgrass in March 2006. Ironically, Glenn and Jerry sold their Sweetgrass building to Winston when they moved their operations to Butte, Winston used that building until it burned down in 2017. Jerry is now more removed "semi retired" and doesn't spend much time in MT anymore. Glenn is working toward retirement and has been mentoring a few guys for the last couple years, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he retires soon (like in a year or two), I think he hoped for his son Bruce to be interested in taking over, but I'm not sure the interest is there. Perhaps Jamie will be the next owner of Sweetgrass, but who knows for sure.
In any event, the newly reopened Winston Bamboo shop will obviously not be run by Glenn as it was for so many years, it is likely they did however, probably re-hire (or kept on payroll for the last few years while rebuilding) some previous shop employees that did learn from Glenn back in the day. And, if one of those previous guys wasn't put in charge and isn't running the new shop, Winston also probably brought in someone of bamboo substance from elsewhere to head the shop operations. I'm sure either way, they will likely be quality rods in the expected Winston Boo fashion, but to Silver's point, they have not been since 2006, nor will they be now, the highly desired rods that were produced by the legendary boo guru Glenn Brackett. I'm very saddened, but I'm afraid those days are nearing an end, regardless of what brand name will be on the rods.
As has become the usual, cooutlaw and I are essentially in agreement...though I am less a Loyalist than he is. OK, to people and creativity, yes, to a Brand, no. And I'm not suggesting that ALL post Morgan graphite's from Winston are bad rods, several in their core smaller water, shorter, lighter line weight configurations are quit nice. They feel like formulamaticly "designed by committee" though rather than the conceptual vison of a master rod designer. And what is with the Boron? Winston enjoys an enviable cadre of loyal aficionados and have capitalized on their traditon. Me, they are going to have to win back as other rod makers have bypassed them by leaps and bounds going back to at least the early 1990's, I think earlier.[/QUOTE
Without debate, even among any brands loyal following, all makers have had successes and flops in models, and individual configurations within those models over the years. No one brand has ever produced exceptional rods throughout every series and every configuration they ever produced. It likely would be an impossible achievement for any company to ever accomplish. Especially with varying angler tastes and industry politics, one can always find an eager nay-sayer for anything on the planet.
Obviously many manufacturers have seen both sides of the coin, and vision has played a huge component in that...To S&S's point, Sage players like Green, had a different vision, perhaps inspired by different geography, water being fished, angling styles, etc. As did Scott, Loomis, Hardy, (insert 6 more brands here), The RPL from Sage was a vision in the mid 1980's that S&S is likely referring to, a faster action, power reserve, alternative to most more traditional action options available at that time, technology being played with and advanced, we see the evolution of that start in yet designs still today. Winston (Tom Morgan) meanwhile, at the time, held conviction to remain steadfast to his preferences and to those that appreciated his specific purpose designs, (and obviously continued with same vision at TMR). Different paths, neither one right nor wrong, just alternative visions, producing different rods. Both excellent, I owned both.
The rod Technology race became quite prolific from the 1990's forward, some manufacturers had great talent, lengthy experience, as well as, both vision and deep pockets at their disposal, while others were handicapped in one category or another. In racing, the formula is often simple- speed costs, how fast do you want to go? Without resources for talent, infrastructure, engineering, process development, many makers grasp at unknowns, materials, taper designs, etc. in hopes of garnering advancement and keeping enough market share to survive until the sun came out and they could again flourish with inspired, cutting edge, products. Again, regardless of technology employed, all makers still saw some wins, and, some flops, as they do today and likely will until the end of time.
With this, the only significant resource influence I would question capable of abating a design by committee theory, is intellectual property, perhaps the most very valuable asset a company can have, in fly rods that might be a maker owning years of schematics, mandrels, and taper designs, that were proven to be winners, and then if that manufacturer was to take those tapers and apply new materials, resins, etc. and adjust the materials and slight taper modification to embrace the mathematical recovery and flex profile differences needed to replicate modern day versions of those historically proven designs by a previous visionary, that maker might have finally followed a historically proven successful design and rebirthed it with a modern facelift. Using these designs would not require new engineering, nor extensive R&D and materials scientist to insure performance, as these designs would be already proven to perform for many decades. Perhaps the same recipe for success that we see in Scotts new GS as well. Proven legacy taper, slightly modified with new materials science. What would we call this rod? Perhaps Pure? Perhaps a 2019 IM6? Perhaps this rod was designed 50 years ago rather than by committee. Perhaps, some long term employee knew where to look in the files for a proven successful winning design.
Point being, S&S is correct, measureable improvement counts, especially in advancement of performance, change is good, transition sucks. How that improvement happens to come to light, maybe of less consequence of importance, many great things in this world came about by accident. Bartschi, perhaps a genius designer in his own right, took a great rod and made it better in G2 and now GS, both homeruns, from a proven legacy design. A better cake without changing the batter. Maybe others will see success in the same strategy.
It would be interesting to see the schematics of the taper designs between an RPL/LL Graphite II,III,IV, Z, and an X too (my X's feel like very familiar designs). Or the Loomis evolution of models vs taper similarities.
I think any company has the ability to win back consumers, it takes change of attitude, change of vision, and maybe leadership that says we will stay true to what we were best known for, and be the very best version of ourselves we can be, and that sometimes starts with going back to what worked all along.
As a blind man once said, I've seen many changes over the years and it looks like many more are coming into view.
I am an advocate of great rods that perform in a superior manner, whether they be designed by the highest acclaimed longest running visionary of rod design in the world, or, by the worlds smartest 8th grader, either one equally deserves the accolades for creating a great product. Let's hope it also is accompanied with world class build quality and then further, let's hope the 8th grader has admirable character and integrity.
Let me be clear, or as clear as I can be post cocktail hour visited by the Glennfiddich 12 yr., a Speymouth from the Grant family. When I say superseded I am not referring to differing characteristics like fast RPL vs. deeper flexing 8 1/2'/#5 (Fisher or Loomis). I mean LL or better yet SP in comparison to then more static WT. Which takes nothing away from WT but it is of note that Sage (Don Green) built rods of both moderate flexing and core DNA fast flagships. Were they all great...even every puppy in a litter is different and not "equal". But Winston did not respond and offer the faster, technical rods outside their wheelhouse. Fine, that's OK.As has become the usual, cooutlaw and I are essentially in agreement...though I am less a Loyalist than he is. OK, to people and creativity, yes, to a Brand, no. And I'm not suggesting that ALL post Morgan graphite's from Winston are bad rods, several in their core smaller water, shorter, lighter line weight configurations are quit nice. They feel like formulamaticly "designed by committee" though rather than the conceptual vison of a master rod designer. And what is with the Boron? Winston enjoys an enviable cadre of loyal aficionados and have capitalized on their traditon. Me, they are going to have to win back as other rod makers have bypassed them by leaps and bounds going back to at least the early 1990's, I think earlier.[/QUOTE
Without debate, even among any brands loyal following, all makers have had successes and flops in models, and individual configurations within those models over the years. No one brand has ever produced exceptional rods throughout every series and every configuration they ever produced. It likely would be an impossible achievement for any company to ever accomplish. Especially with varying angler tastes and industry politics, one can always find an eager nay-sayer for anything on the planet.
Obviously many manufacturers have seen both sides of the coin, and vision has played a huge component in that...To S&S's point, Sage players like Green, had a different vision, perhaps inspired by different geography, water being fished, angling styles, etc. As did Scott, Loomis, Hardy, (insert 6 more brands here), The RPL from Sage was a vision in the mid 1980's that S&S is likely referring to, a faster action, power reserve, alternative to most more traditional action options available at that time, technology being played with and advanced, we see the evolution of that start in yet designs still today. Winston (Tom Morgan) meanwhile, at the time, held conviction to remain steadfast to his preferences and to those that appreciated his specific purpose designs, (and obviously continued with same vision at TMR). Different paths, neither one right nor wrong, just alternative visions, producing different rods. Both excellent, I owned both.
The rod Technology race became quite prolific from the 1990's forward, some manufacturers had great talent, lengthy experience, as well as, both vision and deep pockets at their disposal, while others were handicapped in one category or another. In racing, the formula is often simple- speed costs, how fast do you want to go? Without resources for talent, infrastructure, engineering, process development, many makers grasp at unknowns, materials, taper designs, etc. in hopes of garnering advancement and keeping enough market share to survive until the sun came out and they could again flourish with inspired, cutting edge, products. Again, regardless of technology employed, all makers still saw some wins, and, some flops, as they do today and likely will until the end of time.
With this, the only significant resource influence I would question capable of abating a design by committee theory, is intellectual property, perhaps the most very valuable asset a company can have, in fly rods that might be a maker owning years of schematics, mandrels, and taper designs, that were proven to be winners, and then if that manufacturer was to take those tapers and apply new materials, resins, etc. and adjust the materials and slight taper modification to embrace the mathematical recovery and flex profile differences needed to replicate modern day versions of those historically proven designs by a previous visionary, that maker might have finally followed a historically proven successful design and rebirthed it with a modern facelift. Using these designs would not require new engineering, nor extensive R&D and materials scientist to insure performance, as these designs would be already proven to perform for many decades. Perhaps the same recipe for success that we see in Scotts new GS as well. Proven legacy taper, slightly modified with new materials science. What would we call this rod? Perhaps Pure? Perhaps a 2019 IM6? Perhaps this rod was designed 50 years ago rather than by committee. Perhaps, some long term employee knew where to look in the files for a proven successful winning design.
Point being, S&S is correct, measureable improvement counts, especially in advancement of performance, change is good, transition sucks. How that improvement happens to come to light, maybe of less consequence of importance, many great things in this world came about by accident. Bartschi, perhaps a genius designer in his own right, took a great rod and made it better in G2 and now GS, both homeruns, from a proven legacy design. A better cake without changing the batter. Maybe others will see success in the same strategy.
It would be interesting to see the schematics of the taper designs between an RPL/LL Graphite II,III,IV, Z, and an X too (my X's feel like very familiar designs). Or the Loomis evolution of models vs taper similarities.
I think any company has the ability to win back consumers, it takes change of attitude, change of vision, and maybe leadership that says we will stay true to what we were best known for, and be the very best version of ourselves we can be, and that sometimes starts with going back to what worked all along.
As a blind man once said, I've seen many changes over the years and it looks like many more are coming into view.
I am an advocate of great rods that perform in a superior manner, whether they be designed by the highest acclaimed longest running visionary of rod design in the world, or, by the worlds smartest 8th grader, either one equally deserves the accolades for creating a great product. Let's hope it also is accompanied with world class build quality and then further, let's hope the 8th grader has admirable character and integrity.
The rod technology arms race commenced with G.Loomis/Steve Rajeff's introduction in the early 90's of GLX. The first, quickly followed by Sage SP, all carbon, scrim and power fiber, actually begun a little earlier in late issue IMX's. This changed everything. Thinner walls, smaller diameters, faster recovery and all the promise for future performance headroom were initiated by GLX. Then came Nti Nano, XP, STS and yes, eventually BIIx and Zero Gravity. T&T set this out, Diamondback went out of business...
The classics are relevant and Scott's Bartschi took founder Wilson's great innovative tapers and evolved them to the current GS. Conceptual; not replications. And added, following an S lineage, Radian and Meridian. Harry would have liked them and, of course, suggest a few improvements. Post Morgan Winston still built and perhaps still would, WT and WT3's, my wife has a #6 with a green Vossler. But the Bx's have little to do in taper design with Morgan's work having matured as boiler plate progressive mediums, their flex rate and tempo are all they have in common with the WT's. They share a formula with Orvis's Helios mid-fled and current "F's". It is a good foundational design and there are many others. My favorite in class is Hardy's (Howard Crostin's) Zenith; faster in action yes but an exemplary Progressive that may have well influenced both the H2 and BIIIx. Douglas SKY carries its mantel today, improved, yes, and out of the same Korean shop.
It is not clear the degree to which actual taper designs, indeed mandrels, are transferable from the wonderful past to current material and fabrication processes. I asked Orvis to build me a rod using current techniques/materials on a 1984 mandrel I favor. They said no and we can't. Of course, ideas are recreatable but I've grown to wonder why? Why buy an Orvis Superfine when there are plenty of original early 80's era Orvis rods to be had, or a new CFO even more so. A new WT? How will it compare to Morgan era 8 1/2' rod available on the internet; buy an original if you didn't back then (I have 3 of them). I don't get the point of replicas, Scott evolved the G whichhttps://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/fly-reels/697533-more-vault-fly-reels-time.html is why it remains relevant. The Sage's too have changed significantly. Yes, Jerry Siem was the hand picked protégé of Don Green and has continued the tradition but very much in his own way. The tapers of RPL or SP+ have nothing to do with ONE or X except that they are steep and quick. Totally different as is LL and Circa except that they continue to offer rods at both ends of the spectrum.
I too am open minded about rod design and I like the new generation. T&T's Joe Goodspeed is exhibiting quite a bit of talent with Avantt and Exocett to his credit and T&T has rapidly advanced its technology and personnel too. Sage's young design team member, Peter Knox has also impressed me with his DART. These are very bright and talented anglers who know math. Orvis too has a smart designer in H2 and H3's Shawn Combs. Fred Cantoi who currently does the Douglas rods knows tapers well. And then there are the elite, Rajeff, Siem, Bartschi and Crostin...not enough to go around, we need more up and coming rod designers.
THIS! and Ditto. Well said, Mike. My earlier attempted point was I'm sensing a new resurgence of a legacy brand. Innovation comes from visionaries, regardless of industry. Often times a new vision starts by looking at the past and what made things successful in the first place. Fresh talent, minds, and ideas often provide new innovation, but also, respecting the past successes and the designs of those that accomplished things before them can be a great learning tool and measuring stick by which to begin living up to a standard by which to hold new efforts accountable.Winston has a bright future. And, they have a significant customer base that love their rods. Their new building certainly will help create an environment of pride with employees and it instills an underlying message of Winston's commitment to build quality bamboo rods now and into the future. The fact they are continuing to provide a bamboo rod for customers after that fire is good news for the industry.
I spent over 20 years in manufacturing and learned a few things about talent, quality, and innovation. Leap step innovation rarely came from the old engineers (they actually resisted new ideas)...it came from new talent entering the company with fresh new ideas and open minds. That's why we continually recruited new talent from the best engineering schools to ensure there are new and innovative products through the generations. The lesson I found to be true regardless of what company or industry I worked in is this: no person is irreplaceable, regardless of their company position or success.
I think it is like this with most young people, in any area of american life, not because there is anything wrong with them, but the individual seems to be born with a Survive/More/Faster/Stronger mentality and it drives them forward, almost in a state of blindenss....It was opined to me by a angling book collector in the booth of a book seller at Edison that he is disturbed by his sense of an absence of historical context among some young anglers more interested in simply catching...
Well, this puts the kabob on a thoughtful philosophical and historical thread but, OK. mka, I look forward to your photographing a glowing new Winston cane on one of your mountain creeks. I too used to fish a factory cane in such habitats very happily, a T&T 7 1/2' Hendrickson back in the 70's. But as redietz points out, I've gone over to the dark side of plastic.Could we please move the conversation back to bamboo in the "Bamboo Fly Rods" sub-forum?
If you want to talk about plastic rods there's another sub-forum for it.