KcDano

Wow! Don't think they could get any better looking!

Super job, Dave!

If not mistaken, I believe Coley was the one who laminated balsa on a cedar core.

Nice Baits...Nice Guy!! Again, a job well done!

Nathan, Great job!!!!

Super Job, Bobby. I have admired your paint schemes for sometime now.

There is no need to continually cut baits apart to see if they are constructed with thru wire harness. Take a ohm meter and check for continuity at every point. If there is continuity at all points it is a thru wire construction, if no continuity...no thru wire construction.

Vodkaman was the only one I know on TU that possesed a true understanding of what forces cause a lure to function as we know. He was gracious enough to share this information with myself and several others. Once you are enlightened to the fact of vortex shedding you soon realize the bulk of what has been put forth on what makes a lure move, is less than correct. Often we can predict the end result of our efforts without a true understanding of what is actually taking place. As the history of lure making dictates, tinkering as oppossed to scientific theory, has proved to be the genesis of many advancements in lure design to date. However, what we contemplate at this date as beyond our scope of understanding or application will some day become a reality in lure design. And if one doubts the application of scientific theory, in lieu of empirical knowledge as a means to achievce a desired result in lure design. Consider the fact, Vodkaman with no real experience in crankbait building or fishing managed to create a bait that "hunts" and can explain the theory behind it. Dave, Thanks Again! Dan

This is an unfortunate development. Hopeful we can all meet up next year!

Nice work!

I would be afraid to fish that lure, too damn nice to loose.

Phantom Products, Inc made a variety of fiberglass rods, including round and square. They haven't drawn much interest from collecters as of yet. Started production in the late 40's after the war as best I know of.

Made me laugh good!

You have done a fine job for sure! Primo Deluxe!

You are one that wanted to discussing model T's and are still asking questions a long those lines and while claiming not to understand the relevence to the subject at hand. Of course the lures were sealed it was accomplished by the paint, which served as a filler and basecoat. All accomplished without the aid of a product soley designed to seal wood prior to the application of paint.

Forgot to mention the lure companies. Pflueger Shakespeare Heddon Creek Chub I don't know if South Bend is still around Many have been bought out and some no longer make lures. The above were the Big 5

Just a couple: To reduce the number of paint applications to acheive coverage by preventing absorbtion speed up production To reduce cost No, I don't drive a model T, however, it is done. But the vehicle I do drive still has an internal combustion engine that burns gasoline

You left one or two out off your list, maybe more! I wonder how they manage to enjoy the degree of succes they did, without the aid of a product intended to seal and waterproof the the wood, unless the paint/basecoat can perform the same function. Yes, and they still use Henry Ford's concept of an assembly line today.

Could be!

Did I claim that not sealing/waterproofing a lure was the way it should be done? I questioned how essential it is to the production of a durable finish. And by the number of maker's who didn't for decades. I conclude that it must not have been crucial or they would have done so. Balsa being the one exception due to it's fragile nature. "KC, It seem u just wanna argue for argue sake. Cheese points are very valid which you choose to ignore & bring up some other "facts" in tangent." Cheesehead asked a question that is subjective and beyond answering with any degree of accuracy. "The facts of the matter are this though. In our craft today we owe it to ourselves to continue to make the best possible items we can. Just because others didn't do things does not mean that we shouldn't. If one wants to stay stuck in the old paradigms then by all means do so. However it is your own work that will become stagnant. It is your choice lead, follow, or get out of the way." I believe, Cheese is infering that constructing a wood lure without sealing/waterproofing the wood is less than a satisfactory method. Perhaps he will clarify. I say making a lure from wood sealed or not, could be considered an archaic method and equally doomed to the same destiny of stagnation. So who is leading, following, or in danger of being trampled by the herd?

Doomdart, I should have stated "Southern High Cedar" which does not have limbs near the ground. Cheesehead, You ask, How many of these old lures are still retaining their paint? You tell me how many old lures there are, and we can start from there to determine what percentage of the remaining lures still have paint. Who is to say that wood is the best option, is there conclusive evidence to the fact, that fish prefer wood over plastic construction?

Doomdart, the quality of wood most likely has some bearing. The lack of availability of quality wood at a reasonable price during the 60's, forced Creek Chub to expand their line of plastic baits. Several years expired before some of their baits returned to the market in a wood version again and eventually were made exclusively in plastic. During the 30's C.A. Clark the maker of the famous Water Scout soaked different woods in water for 90 days to determine which was more suitable for production. He arrived at "high southern cedar" as the best wood for a floating bait, mahogany and poplar were used for sinking baits. Woodie, Yes, checking and fracture lines are caused by expansion and contraction of the wood. The wood doesn't have to be subjected to water for this to take place. I think the old lure makers were cognizant of this fact so took no effort to attempt waterproof. Some

Yes, the paints of today are superior. But I can think of several modern baits that have experienced problems with finish durability. The heart of this debate is really, how crucial is it to sealing/waterproofing a bait. My point is that for decades bait makers made no attempt to waterproof them. If there were attempting to do such it was by coating them heavily in white enamel and other durable paints. My opinion this was not there intent because they left raw wood under the eyes and hardware mountings. Having fished numerous old baits that have chew marks deep into the wood, checking, and fracture lines extensively, the majority of the paint remains. I am talking about baits that 50-70 yrs. in age. Yes, prior to Creek Chubs subsequent buy-outs there finishes did suffer. However, if you examine one of these lures from that era you will notice that the finish is extremely thin. I have seen devconed baits that once the bait had a compromise to the finish and the wood was then subjected to water the devcon could be peeled off the bait. I have yet to see that occur on an old bait.