 |
 |
 |
|
|
On this Page William Brown and J.W Laing William Brown ‘Man, do ya think a fish wad be sic a fule as come to a man that hadna a flask in his pouch?'
1835 – 1836 – 1839 – 1840 – 1888 – 1891 – 1908 – 1913 –
William Browns own reel engraved on the back "Wm Brown, Fishing Tackle Maker, Aberdeen, Died 24th Jan 1877
3 different "Silex" type spinning reels, manufactured by Walter Dingley, sold Browns and engraved on the reverse "Wm Brown, Aberdeen" see below for the mechanisims
Above William Brown two knobs on spool 4 inch diameter (the one on the left in the picture of all three)
William Brown one knob on spool with counterbalance, rim cut (obviously factory modification) 4 inch diameter (The one in the middle of the picture of three)
Above William Brown wider drum than the others with knobs on alloy cross bar 4 1/4 inch diameter (the one on the right in the picture of three)
An ebonite and brass "perth" style reel from Brown in exceptional condition
You might be wondering about this one in the William Brown Page? Well it's a fly called the Millais and was tied by Dave Carne, this fly was invented by the tackle maker PD Malloch for his friend the artist Millais, the reel the fly is sitting on is a Malloch side-caster, made by Malloch and sold by William Brown (as engraved on the winding plate of the reel). From the Fishing Gazette, The “Millais” Salmon Fly (Invented by Sir John Millias: described and made by Mr. P.D. Malloch, Tag: Silver Tinsel and yellow floss silk Tail: Golden pheasant crest, and a few fibres of yellow macaw Butt: Yellow wool Body: Two turns of scarlet floss silk, the rest scarlet pig’s wool; oval silver tinsel, scarlet hackle run down over body; the same at shoulder. Wings: Taken from the scarlet ibis wing, over a crest, blue macaw feather at each side Head: Yellow wool
This is a very rare William Brown "Perth" salmon reel made of wood and brass and is in almost unused condition
The above is another very rare reel from William Brown, it has a rim control not unlike the Hardy Marquis (i.e. the winding plate lips over the side) - the other strange thing about this reel is the three part horn knob!
The largest and the smallest sizes of the ordinary William Brown Phantoms
A selection of differeny colour Brown's phantoms
A selection of boxed Brown's Phantoms
Brown's designed a Phantom for fishing still water, the extra big fins made it go extra quick
When they go fast you get a kinky line, so.... you needed to reverse the spin of the minnow
This was called the Inskip Patent....
When you caught the salmon you probably had one of these to land it with...
A pair of early gaffs by William Brown
A nice boxed William Brown Silver Sandeel - not that common!
A shot of the interior of Willliam Brown's shop - may bring back memories for some
A selection of natural bait mounts by William Brown
Came in silver too
The above is a "proof" page of illustrations for William Brown in 1890's
The above is a drawing of a proposed William Brown advertising board for William Willox of Ballater, I know nothing of William Willox, but I would love to find this frame! William Brown and the Indian connection
The above scans come from a very rare catalogue - which came from the Harper Family - it may be the only one, written on page 2 in pencill are the prics for producing the catalogue in editions of 500 and 1,000. What is clear though is that Brown's did supply a lot of tackle to India in the late 1800's early 1900's, the following is a little story of my own; About the year 1998 I was ‘phoned out of the blue by a tackle dealer from the sounth coast of England, he told me the tale of 3 William Brown “Mahseer phantoms”, I was intrigued and asked him how he know they were “Mahseer phantoms”, he explained that they were of a large size and were contained in a custom made tin box – they had been recovered from India, he also mentioned that the chap who had sold them to him also thought that some where he had a similar box with 6 phantoms, a large reel and the accompanying rod – although he could not locate them. I was interested enough to pay the rather large price for the rather large lures – I was not disappointed when I eventually got them in my sweaty hands! I concurred that they were “Mahseer phantoms” stamped with the W & B on the fins and that the design of the phantom tin is very similar to that of some in design drawings from the William Brown archives and one that I already had for more conventional size phantoms (ie the partitions are of tapered form, see below) and left it at that.
Drawing of WB Phantom Box and Photo of a WB box for standard sized phantoms Fast forward to 2005 I was looking at ebay and noticed a set of 6 Phantoms in similar if not identical tin case – the seller didn't mention the size of the minnows so they did not look anything out of the ordinary, I also noted the seller was also listing a rather large brass reel inscribed with “Roorkee Foundry*”. Anyway to cut a long story short I bought the phantoms (for a very reasonable price) and a fellow collector bought the reel (again at a reasonable price due to quality of photo and description on the listing). On receipt of the phantoms – which were exactly the same, right down to the paper linings in the tin trays, I contacted the seller – turns out he was the brother of the seller of the set of three phantoms, he did not have the rod. I visited the buyer of the reel and we put the lures and reels together (the reel is a giant 6 inch diameter and very wide drum, probably by a
Remember that reel is 6" in diameter ! *Roorkee Workshop & Foundry were originally established to cater in Ganga Canal Works in 1843, on a very modest scale, comprising merely a timber yard, a smithy and a carpenter's shop. In 1848, Lieutenant A. Allan was appointed to take charge of the establishment, who developed spacious buildings with lathe, model and engine-room accommodation, while in 1851, further large installation of machinery was made. In 1852, the connection between Workshop and the Canal was severed, and the workshop became an independent and self-supporting institution undertaking the supply of iron and wood for general purposes, manufacture & repair of mathematical instruments and iron foundry. By 1871, it afforded employment to 1,069 artisans and labourers, engaged in work of very wide range.
Tournament Line and the L Bouglé / William Brown connection I found the following letter sent to James Harper when he was proprietor of Brown's, we mostly think of Bouglé as the designer of a very desirable varient of the Hardy Perfect reel (and also the currently made version) but he was also a big shot in the world of spin casting.
157 Faubourg Saint-Honoré November 1st 1905 Dear Sirs, On my return after an absence of several weeks I find your favour of the 10th with sample of your fine undressed spinning line. My opinion is that for casting light weights from the reel either for light spinning or for tournament work this line ought to answer admirably. Some American anglers of my acquaintance and myself have been for some time past trying to get something of the kind. Quite recently the makers of the American “Kingfisher” lines have, at the request of my friend Mr C. G. Levison, issued new style of thin undressed line of which I received a 100 yards spool last September. It is the same firm who is making the No. 77 Kingfisher line of which I sent you a sample last year and which I have been using with great satisfaction for pike and salmon spinning for several years. I enclose sample of their new thin sort do you may compare it with yours. According to the label on the spool “This line will only stand a test of 4 or 5 pounds, it is intended for professional casting or small brook trout” Your line is slightly finer than the American ones and as regards strength it seems quite strong enough though I have not had time to find its breaking weight. I wish you to send me if possible 50 yards of this line of yours. I think you would do well to send a small cut of the same like that which you have sent me to my American friend Mr C. G. Levison of Mr Levison takes great interest in these matters and he has largely contributed to improve and refine the bait casting tackle used in the states. He is always on the committee of the Mr Levinson I might add has been using for many years with great success your phantom baits and it was he who advised me to adopt the “Inskip” style. The new Kingfisher line of which I enclose sample is much more expensive than yours ($1.50 per 100 yards) so that if in a practical trial yours answers well it is sure to be preferred by all of us. In your last letter you say, “We intend waterproofing it also”… This I do not very well understand unless you simply mean a coat of paraffin such as is often applied to these bait casting lines in It is only for casting “from the coil” that a dressed line (in the ordinary sense of the word) line is required and then it must be a thick line so the fingers of the operator may easily catch hold of it but them this is altogether another purpose. As above explained I consider nothing but a simple coat of paraffin is desirable for lines which are to used in casting from the reel. The No 77 American “Kingfisher” line of which I sent you a sample last year is said by the makers to be thus treated. Such dressing I have often applied myself to some of my bait casting lines and I intend to treat the thin new Kingfisher of which I enclose sample. This is how I do it: I simply melt some paraffin was in a tin can and when very hot I place the line in it. I leave it to soak about 15 minutes the paraffin being kept hot and then I lift the line out; I place it on an old newspaper until the paraffin has hardens and it may then be rubbed off the line with a piece of sort rag held by one’s fingers and the line pulled between folds in the rag. When first used after the paraffin is on it may not render from the reel as freely as necessary but it will run smoothly very soon and I believe this coat of paraffin must have a happy influence on the durability of the line. You may possibly find that this treatment may affect the appearance or shop finish of the line and not help to its sale. This may be so but anyhow I would advise you to on no account give it a linseed oil dressing. As you may not remember the No. 77 Kingfisher to which I make allusion in the present letter I enclose another sample of it. I also send you a sample of a very popular American flax line for salt-water fishing which may interest you to see. This line which is called the “Cuttyhunk” line and manufactured by J.S. Johnson & Co. is used in this size by American anglers for sea fish running up to 75 or 80 pounds such ad their striped bass. Is it not interesting to compare such line with the very coarse line used by British sea anglers especially considering that he latter have very seldom indeed to deal with fish of more than 20 pounds. All the rest of the equipment of American sea anglers is light and refined in the same proportion. Excuse this very long letter which may be of little interest to you and believe me dear sir, Yours truly L Bouglé
P.S. To sum up the matter the points which Mr. Levison and I require in a line for bait casting from the reel are: It should be as light and thin as possible for a given strength so as not to check the flight of the lure. It should be as tightly plaited and consequently stiff as possible so as to have little tendency to kink. It should on no account be made with a core because a line thus made picks up too much water and consequently swells with the result that it’s weight and size increase considerably after a few casts and also because a line with a core is bound to rot very soon.
With such tackle and one of your No. 4 Blue and Silver phantoms I killed last April a 21 pound fresh run salmon in the river Wye, in
Letters from Camp on the Seaton River, B.C. 1890s
The following letters were founc amongs some files of correspondance in the archive of "William Brown" material - makes interesting reading.
Camp, 15th September, 1893. Wm Brown Esq., I got your letter – No 547 – a few days ago. Everything came safely and the way in which you have filled my order leaves nothing to be desired. I regret to add that fishing is almost a blank. I leave my river today and move up into the mountains after the stags. The failure in the fishing is due to the Salmon. Trout is our game fish – trout in the river commonly 4lb – 6lb, in the lake 20lb – 30lb. Salmon don’t take the fly except on a few waters close to the sea, in spring, and even then the minnow is more in his line. But I am 300 miles up stream: by the time the salmon has forced his way thus far up the raring Fraser river he is a sorry looking object: still the big strong species (there are three species) is excellent eating. I have seen the great Fraser packed from bank to bank with a heavy squirming mass of fish and when Bridge River conflicts, such a jam that the weaker fish fall back by millions to die. So I can quite understand navigation (as you remark) being to some degree impeded, though I only tell you what I myself can vouch for. Thus the tributary streams are so disturbed by the salmon that the trout fishing is at a standstill, until - say - 1st October: by that time the salmon will have spawned and (for the most part) died: the trout will have had gorge on the spawn and will be eager for the fly and in the primest condition: I shall then return to this river. Also that most pig headed and ignorant of public departments – The Canada Fishery – has one cast iron law for the whole vast dominion: this stops trout fishing on the 15th of October: now as far as weather goes one could fish generally to the 1st of November very pleasantly: as to the trout he remains in prime order up to the 15th of April: then (in this river) he begins spawning and a paternal government has withdrawn protection as the season open on the 1st of February. Of course what is wanted is a system of local boards to regulate seasons in localities. I have thought that some account of these matters might interest you and some of your customers: you perceive, however, that my letter is slip slop – written in a spare half hour – I am shifting camp (as I say) today. Don’t let my name get into the papers please, by any mischance. I enclose $20 – but this is guesswork – I know it is somewhere about the mark. Faithfully yours, J Martley PS the trolling rod you sent is a very fine one indeed.
Camp, 7th September, 1896. Mr D. Bell (Wm Brown & Co.), My dear Sir, - Last week I had the very finest trout fishing which has been given me to enjoy in any part of the world. Working with both fly and minnow, comparison between the “Devon” and your “Phantom” was forced on me with the conclusion that your minnow is as sportingly – artistic lure – greatly preferable, yet when capture of the large fish is the object the “Devon” takes the cake: I lose many fish with your minnow – lose them, not by the inevitable chance of sport, but just by them “getting away”: after the rush is stopped and the fish turned and you say “bar accidents, I have him” your minnow comes back: not so with the devon it is less attractive than your minnow; less sportsman like; but far more deadly. Hence, I inquire with much diffidence “is the hook arrangement of your phantoms as perfect as it might be?” In seven out of ten the It may also be that the minnow of yours which I am using are too small for the 3lb to 10lb trout in rushing water, and that larger minnows and hooks would leave nothing to be desired. The Geen’s leads are simply perfect: a few lead worms (to slip one, or part of one, on) in addition to the Geens are often a convenience. Yours faithfully, J Martley P.S. No beastly salmon up this season – or not enough to affect the fishing. The following extract from the next letter was printed in the William Brown 1897 catalogue: “12th September, 1896. “Dear Sir, - I am much obliged for your letter – date I cannot quote; it is somewhere in my tent. Things get all over the place in camp. “Day before Yesterday, 8 A.M. to 9.30 P.M., spinning at the mouth of Portage Creek with the Phantom, grassed six and missed one. Best of the six, 3 lbs. “Afternoon, same day, head of Portage Creek, water swift and strong, rain. Killed half a dozen from 2 P.M. to 4 P.M. with a big brown fly of yours, gold ribbed, which my friend J.S.B. gave me. Canoe capsized; saved everything except my hat, and so back to camp. Bad rise, which was accounted for by thunderstorm at 6 P.M. “This season, though I have basketed many, my best has only scaled 6 lbs. (on a Brown Speckled Phantom). “The wear and tear on your fragile-looking Phantoms stand surprises me…-Yours faithfully, J. Martley, Captain.” The actual letter tells a slightly different story! Camp, 12th September, 1896. Mr D. Bell (Wm Brown & Co.), My dear Sir, - I am much obliged for your letter – date I cannot quote; it is somewhere in my tent. Things get all over the place in camp. Day before Yesterday, 8 A.M. to 9.30 P.M., spinning at the mouth of Portage Creek: grassed 3 with the devon; and missed 3: put up one of your phantoms (silver) on which I had clumsily fitted an extension triplet (see my last letter on the point): killed 3: missed 1, best of the six 3lb (phantom), least of the six 1½lb. I found the addition to your minnow - makes it in my opinion – perfect: shall you object to fit my minnows with it in the future? Afternoon, same day, head of Portage Creek, water swift and strong, rain. Killed half a dozen from 2 P.M. to 4 P.M. with a big brown fly of yours, gold ribbed, which my friend J.S. Bell gave me: Canoe capsized; saved everything except my hat, and so back to camp. Bad rise, which was accounted for by thunderstorm at 6 P.M. This season, though I have basketed many, my best has only scaled 6 lbs. (on a Brown Speckled Phantom). The wear and tear on your fragile-looking Phantoms stand surprises me. Thanks for the suggestion re “Fishing Gazette”. If you will kindly pass on my address I may try him with a paper later on - Faithfully yours, J. Martley. P.S. If my letters can be useful in anyway, make use of them – careful use – not necessarily all extracts.” So it would seem that, as now, accuracy or completeness is sometimes lost in the attempt to market a product. It would also appear that Captain Martley, had lost some of his publicity shyness between 1893 and 1896.
JW Laing 1895 – John William Laing Died
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
