The Hunt Pattern Fly Rod: A Short History

A fellow rodmaker recently dropped me a line with a question about the history of the Leonard “Hunt” and pointed me to a thread on the Classic Fly Rod Forum about it.  He wanted to know, specifically, what I knew about the history of the model, how it developed, and whether the “Hunt” designation was simply an aesthetic matter or whether the rod’s design was actually different in some meaningful way.

These days I think most people tend to associate the Hunt model with Tom Maxwell, who reintroduced it in the late 1970’s when he was in charge of the Leonard shop, and where I worked on quite a few of them myself. Odds are, if you come across a Hunt these days, it came out of the Leonard shop during that era or perhaps slightly later. Yet I’ve also noticed over the years that fewer and fewer people seem to be aware of the real history of the model, which actually goes back quite a bit further.

My own “Hunt Pattern”, a modern twist on the traditional “Hunt”

The basic story behind the hunt has nothing to do with “hunting” trout, as some people have speculated, but begins with the rod’s true namesake, Richard Hunt, an avid salmon angler and a man of some means who even published a small book about salmon fishing entitled Salmon in Low Water (1950), which, if memory serves, had a tiny circulation of some several hundred. I read it many years ago and it’s an interesting read, but over the years Hunt probably became known more for writing the introduction to Charlie Phair’s classic book Atlantic Salmon Fishing (1937), which, though a tad dated, is probably the classic book on the subject.

Anyway, the story goes that Mr. Hunt apparently wanted a rod that would lend itself to low visibility on the water and so he approached Leonard to see what they could do. In those days of course, rod shops were typically manned by small teams of craftsmen who were highly capable of accommodating such requests — a far cry from our current era of overseas, high-production manufacturing — and shops like Leonard frequently customized rods at the behest of their better customers.

To meet Mr. Hunt’s request Leonard decided to stain the bamboo to be much darker than the standard blonde that Leonard rods were known for, and they oxidized the ferrules to reduce flashing that could scare fish (or so the theory went). A close look back through the catalogs would probably be able to fix the first year that Leonard introduced these to their general customer base, but I’ve always heard that Mr. Hunt had had Leonard build him the darkened model fairly early, probably even as far back as the early 1920’s.

A New Edition of Atlantic Salmon Fishing, the classic book by Charles Phair. Richard Hunt had written the forward to the 1937 original.

At the outset then these early Hunts were basically an aesthetic variation, though they weren’t exactly without their problems. Chief among them was the fact that the exterior of the bamboo tended to resist this staining process, especially when there were traces of enamel on the surface and which often resulted in pretty uneven coloring.

So the answer to the question about whether there were performance differences with those early Hunts is basically “no”. If the rod was built with a fast taper then it would be fast, or with a slow taper it would be slow — the staining had little to do with it. In terms of performance it all depended on how the rod was engineered and not what it looked like.

For some reason — and I’ve always been a little puzzled as to why — the Hunt largely disappeared from the Leonard lineup for several decades in the 1960’s and 1970’s. They may have appeared in a catalog or two during that stretch but I’ve seen virtually no actual Hunts from that era. Again, I’m not entirely sure why this was the case, and maybe it was as simple as a basic demand issue, with fewer people interested in darker rods. Leonard certainly wasn’t the only rod shop that struggled through those years, and so it wouldn’t surprise me if they got rid of the Hunt because it was simply more work than it was worth.

All of this changed when Tom Maxwell came to Leonard in the late 1970’s to take over running the shop. Tom seemed to have a particular eye for the look of the Hunt – the dark cane with the red wraps – and he almost immediately set about reprising the model, introducing a new, modern Hunt that was far superior in almost every way.

For starters, the staining process was discarded in favor of flaming the bamboo culms that the rod would eventually be made from. This flaming process wasn’t new of course. Other makers had been doing it for many decades and Tom himself had been flaming rods when we first met at T&T in the early 1970’s. Yet, in contrast to the earlier application of stain that Leonard had used for it’s Hunt model, this “modern” flaming process actually changed the rods performance quite a bit, stiffening it and giving it a quicker, faster action. It was a subtle difference but a significant one.

The rest, as they say, is history and in many ways it’s not surprising that the Hunt has gone on to achieve broad recognition. While it’s now associated less with a particular model and more with a certain look, a number of builders – myself included – have gone on to make their own versions of the Hunt, inspired largely by the Leonard model during that Maxwell period. In fact, when I acquired the Leonard equipment in 1984 I knew that I wanted to make a Hunt-style rod, so I changed the name slightly from “Hunt” to “Hunt Pattern” as a way of paying homage to the Maxwell era Hunt rods. Over the years I also introduced a few subtle innovations to my own version of the model as well, modernizing and tweaking it in a few areas.

That, to the best of my knowledge, is the brief history of the model though there is undoubtedly much of the story that has been lost to history. As with much in the bamboo rodmaking world, over time fact often yields to rumor and speculation and so there are parts of the story that will probably never be known. Nonetheless, it certainly remains one of my all-time favorite rods and whether you want one because of the look of that beautifully flamed cane or because you prefer rods with a little extra quickness, you won’t go wrong with a Hunt Pattern.

-Marc

Marc

Subscribe

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

, , , ,

6 Responses to The Hunt Pattern Fly Rod: A Short History

  1. Bob Nunley January 31, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    Marc,
    Thank you! That was an excellent explanation of the history of the Hunt rods and answered questions I’ve had about them for many years. A tip of the hat to you, sir, for sharing your knowledge.

    Bob

  2. Marc
    Marc February 1, 2011 at 8:01 am #

    Hi Bob –

    Glad you liked it and thanks for the kind words. I’m sure there is more to the story (especially about why they disappeared for a while) but I’d have to do a bit more research to figure it out.

    Hope you’re doing well down there in Arkansas, and if you’re ever in the area please stop by.

    Best,
    Marc

  3. Per Brandin February 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm #

    Marc, thanks for that background; you confirmed a number of things I already suspected. I will add one thing from my own experience. I’ve never owned an old pre-fire Leonard Hunt, but I have sold one on consignment and cast another years ago. Though they seem similar in action to the model 50 or 50 df, they always have felt a bit faster to me and better all around. In fact, those two 8 foot three piece pre-fire Hunts are two of the best casting Leonards I’ve ever had in my hand. I’m not suggesting that the faster action comes as a result of the staining; I agree with you it doesn’t, but I’m wondering if the taper of the Hunt wasn’t designed to be a bit quicker than the similar blonde rods of the same time period. Any thoughts about that? Thanks for a wonderful, really fun and informative website! Per

  4. rick mitchell August 1, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    Mr. Aroner:
    Great reading throughout this entire blog, and always extremely interesting to get the story form a person as experienced and qualified as you to tell them . I wish more rod makers of your era, and earlier, would also be so kind as to share their anecdotes and history before its lost to memory.
    But getting back to the Hunt’s, I’ve had the great fortune of owning an absolute beauty (50 DF, 3/2) of Mr. Maxwells era for some years now.
    My only minor reservation about the design, lies with the grip. Did the original models have the same slim grip (as in your photo), or was that a Maxwell innovation? If it was, why? As much as I covet the rod I actually find my hand tiring and even cramping after a few hours on the water. Any idea why T.M. endorsed this slender grip for such a super powerful rod?

    Rest regards,
    Rick
    Wickford, RI

  5. Marc
    Marc August 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    Hi Rick –

    Thanks for stopping by and it’s a great question. I’ve actually wondered about this a little myself, i.e., why Tom styled so many of his grips this way.

    If I had to venture a guess it would be that this design decision probably stemmed from Tom’s association with the Pennsylvania fly-fishing community, many of whom liked to fish with their hands as far down the rod as they would go, often having their casting hand almost up against the reel. It’s the only thing that I can think of to explain it, and given that that’s where Tom’s fishing roots lay it’s probably as good a guess as any.

    When I started making rods I consciously steered away from this a little bit. My own feeling is that you could take this sort of thing to an extreme in either direction – too slim as I thought some of Tom’s grips were, but also too hefty and chunky the way you see on some Garrison rods for example (these heftier grips can sometimes work well for salmon rods but less so for trout, in my opinion). I figured that I would steer my grips somewhere toward the middle, more in the style of say, how Payne did many of them on his rods. It’s also worth noting that Maxwell wasn’t the first to make thin grips, though he pushed it farther than most. I’ve seen pretty thin grips on some Orvis rods too, for example.

    For what it’s worth, I think that even if you’re a great rodmaker – as Tom undoubtedly was – that not every idea you have is going to be a great one. There is a long list of great makers who have tinkered with certain things and sometimes the results were just sort of middling. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t superb craftsman, but more that in the process of working at a craft for many years you’re bound to do a few things that don’t come off as well as others. I think that’s just a natural outgrowth of continuing to tinker – as indeed you must – and something that is probably best kept in the context of one’s entire work.

    Anyway, that’s an awfully long answer, probably more than you bargained for!

    All the Best,
    Marc

  6. Jack Riesche March 10, 2013 at 11:16 am #

    I have a Hunt series for a 5 wt. 2 matching tips with the brown threads instead of the lesser priced red wrappings, so I had been told.
    The rod was purchased at Chuck Fothergills
    Fly shop in Aspen, Co. Either the summer of 79 or 80.
    John Denver supposedly bought this rod and. Others like it for his band members. He fired a member and I happened along just in time to pick up this beauty.

    I have never even taken the protective plastic covering off of the grip. It has been assembledv4 times since I purchased it and has never had a reel in the seat.

    Would this rod be worth anything to a collector?

    It is the dark brown, with wrappings all along the blanks.

    It still even smells new!

Leave a Reply

Want to Stay in the Loop?
    You'll Recieve:
  • Notification of new rods and reels in stock
  • Updates from our workshop
  • Tips and advice on rodmaking
PS - We promise not to clog your inbox and your
information will never be shared with any third party.