I just stripped an old vintage Phenix rod built on G Loomis blank (IM6 Boron Don Iovino splitshot) and it appears to be solid carbon, no mandrel lumen, no spine and heavy. I have seen a plenty of vintage Phenix boron rods but they are all tubular blanks. Does anyone know if G Loomis made any other solid carbon blanks in the 80s/early 90s?

20260311 145027 — Postimages

What makes you think this isn’t a tubular blank? It almost certainly is. It looks like a tubular blank with an aluminum tube for under the handle.

I did not know Loomis made any Phenix blanks. As far as I knew Phenix had made their own until transferring production out of the country.

I've also never heard of Loomis making solid blanks. All new to me.

Cool old rod though. Boron rods are getting really rare these days. Boron was a hard material to work with because it is so brittle and often difficult to get a good bond with the blank resins.

Yea Phenix relied on outside sources for blanks, they did the assembly here in so cal back then. G Loomis provided them a few different blanks, IM6 Boron, 96% graphite and not sure what else.

3 hours ago, casts_by_fly said:

What makes you think this isn’t a tubular blank? It almost certainly is. It looks like a tubular blank with an aluminum tube for under the handle.

It has no mandrel lumen, the hole in the middle of tubular blank, only for a few inches from the butt and it closes. Nothing on the tip

I think pictures would help here. Given the aluminum tubing on the butt, I’m not sure you could see up into the blank itself well enough to tell.

3 minutes ago, casts_by_fly said:

I think pictures would help here. Given the aluminum tubing on the butt, I’m not sure you could see up into the blank itself well enough to tell.

Yea hard to see but i used flashlight and ran a very thin wire through the lumen.

35 minutes ago, 4g63power said:

Yea Phenix relied on outside sources for blanks, they did the assembly here in so cal back then. G Loomis provided them a few different blanks, IM6 Boron, 96% graphite and not sure what else.

I'm curious what is the source of your suggestion Loomis made blanks for Phenix? Before I posted my comment above I double checked, and here is what I found to help clear up any confusion- unless there is another source that AI and I am not aware of:

AI Overview

Based on available industry information,

G. Loomis did not manufacture blanks for Phenix Rods. While Gary Loomis founded G. Loomis (later sold to Shimano) and now operates North Fork Composites, Phenix Rods utilize their own proprietary materials and are manufactured independently, not through a partnership with G. Loomis.

Key findings regarding this topic:

• No Known Connection: There is no evidence suggesting G. Loomis produced blanks for Phenix.

  ---

  The second point to clear up is that as far as I have ever known Gary Loomis did not use boron in his rod blanks at any point in his career outside of Lamiglas. He avoided it because of his experience at Lamiglas who did use boron until they also stopped using it all together. So when Gary moved out of Lamiglas he left boron behind as this search shows:

AI Overview

Based on the available history of G. Loomis,

they are primarily known for pioneering high-performance graphite, IMX, GLX, and NRX technologies rather than boron. G. Loomis focuses on advanced carbon fibers and specialized resins, as explained in this G. Loomis rods video.

• Loomis Material Focus: G. Loomis focuses on, as shown in this G. Loomis GLX rod review, lightweight graphite and proprietary carbon fiber technology.

• Boron Misconception: While some older custom makers (like this Lamiglass boron rod mentioned on Facebook) used boron, it was generally considered, as discussed in this Reddit thread featuring Gary Loomis, too heavy for the high-performance, lightweight rods that defines the Loomis brand.

Therefore, G. Loomis did not produce mainstream boron fishing rods, relying instead on advanced graphite, as seen in this G. Loomis NRX rod discussion.

---

I cannot find any information to support either suggestion. Do you have a source you can share? I'd sure like to see it. I have followed Gary's career closely and so this is an interesting subject to me.

Even if Phenix did source any blanks from Gary Loomis, they would not have been made of boron. I don't think I have ever seen a Loomis boron rod ever. Its a material he did not like to work with. He went in another direction.

So from what I can tell you have a boron rod made by Phenix. And I also don't think Gary made solid rods. Never seen one of those either. Hopefully this may clear up the origins of your rod.

You asked this question: "Does anyone know if G Loomis made any other solid carbon blanks in the 80s/early 90s?"

And the answer I believe is no. He never made solid rods out of graphite that I know of. And one last search on phenix and boron rods made when and where came up with this result:

AI Overview

The original Phenix Rods, featuring boron graphite, were manufactured in the

United States, with the company's roots in the California fishing scene starting around 1977. These early, highly regarded boron/graphite rods were produced prior to the company's shift in manufacturing, which eventually moved overseas.

• Original Manufacturing: The initial Phenix rods, popular for their boron/graphite construction in the late 70s and 80s, were manufactured in the USA.

  ---

  I do hope this helps to clear some things up.

The reason Gary Loomis avoided boron once leaving Lamiglas is because of the Fenwick situation they got into. Search it up and you will find boron was dropped because it is very brittle and early on in graphite fishing rod development manufacturers had a tough time with a lot of rods breaking. Fenwick suffered this tremendously. I believe it is also why Lamiglas stopped using boron.

I asked google search one final question: "why did lamiglas stop using boron in rods?"

Search results NOT AI:

Lamiglas and other manufacturers moved away from using boron in fishing rods primarily due to the high cost of the material, complex manufacturing processes, and the advancement of high-modulus graphite, which offered similar performance benefits without the drawbacks.

Key reasons for the decline of boron in Lamiglas and other rods include:

• Extreme Manufacturing Costs: Boron was incredibly expensive to produce, far more so than even top-tier graphite, making the final rods less accessible to the average angler.

• Brittleness and Fragility: While boron filaments added strength against twisting, they were prone to sudden, catastrophic failure upon impact, sometimes turning into powder when subjected to sharp shocks, such as being struck by a sinker.

• Advancements in Graphite: The rapid development of high-modulus and improved-strength graphite made it a more versatile and cost-effective material, allowing for lighter and equally fast-recovering rods without the fragility of boron.

• Production Difficulty: Incorporating boron filaments into graphite sheets proved difficult and labor-intensive for manufacturers.

While some companies like Fenwick (with their Boron-X) and Orvis experimented with them in the 1970s and 1980s, the "boron era" was relatively short as the industry moved toward superior, more durable graphite technology."

In my opinion Gary Loomis never bothered with boron in any of his rod blank companies. He saw what happened at Lamiglas and he knew about Fenwick as well. He wanted to avoid all that in his own career.

AI Overview

Don Iovino Phenix rods, particularly known for pioneering "doodling" and finesse techniques, were primarily made

during the late 1970s through the 1980s. These vintage rods were popular Southern California tools, often featuring boron and graphite, developed alongside Iovino's 1976 discovery of deep-water bass fishing techniques.

Just trying to clear it up some....... hope it helps. I believe you have an all Phenix rod there and a nice one!

I worked for phenix.

Cool AI search though.

10 hours ago, 4g63power said:

Yea hard to see but i used flashlight and ran a very thin wire through the lumen.

I'd still be surprised if that wasn't an epoxy plug and the blank itself was hollow, but you have it in hand so...

The last solid blanks I know of were older fiberglass ones (ignoring super specialty ice and heavy saltwater blanks) and that's going back to the 50's or 60's. The thing with a solid blank is that it actually would bend MORE than a hollow version and of course be much heavier. It's to do with the physics of tubes vs solid rods. Considering the end use case here (light power finesse fishing) I'm not sure I see where a solid rod would have made sense design wise.

What's your plan for the rod? Surely you have something in mind if you went to the work of stripping it.

18 minutes ago, casts_by_fly said:

I'd still be surprised if that wasn't an epoxy plug and the blank itself was hollow, but you have it in hand so...

The last solid blanks I know of were older fiberglass ones (ignoring super specialty ice and heavy saltwater blanks) and that's going back to the 50's or 60's. The thing with a solid blank is that it actually would bend MORE than a hollow version and of course be much heavier. It's to do with the physics of tubes vs solid rods. Considering the end use case here (light power finesse fishing) I'm not sure I see where a solid rod would have made sense design wise.

What's your plan for the rod? Surely you have something in mind if you went to the work of stripping it.

Yea i said it appears to be solid, i guess i won't know for sure unless i cut it in half lol i have stripped and destroyed a plenty of phenix boron/vintage rods when i worked there and this is the only one like this. Eventually i want to replace the aluminum tube and build a casting rod eventually but i got a couple of other rods i want to finish first. Of course never enough time and the money....

I think casts_by_fly is on to something concerning the design of that rod.

I think the metal tube may explain the physics.

If the rod is hollow at the point where the rod exits the metal tube and too much pressure is pulled on the rod tip, it could cause the end of the metal tube to act like a pivot or fulcrum point.

That could possibly cause the rod blank to crimp inwards some at that exit location as rod is pulled to one side of metal tube and away from the other.

So maybe the butt end of a tubular blank was filled in with epoxy up to just past that point where rod exits metal tube so that it can withstand greater loading force by being solid at that particular location rather than tubular?

If so, then in manufacturing process, they would have known where on the blank that spot is, and then use a measured stick to push a plug into the blank to just past that exit point and then back filled with epoxy?

Just tossing this out there as a passing thought for maybe why the blank is solid at the butt end.

Simply a durability issue for the manufacturer to spend a little more on epoxy, and one extra step in production to try and avoid possible breakage down the road.

Phenix may have been forced into doing something like this if they had too many broken rods returned that were left hollow and snapping at that exit point. Just theorizing here.

From what i understand, aluminum tube extension was purely for reel seat and handle. It was common for blanks being made short, think of pistol grip rods. When Larry Howard owned Phenix, he started selling rods made with modern style reel seats and longer straight cork/hypalon handle. They would get the same blanks, some went on pistol grips, some for reel seat/straight handle. Don't think there were any other reasons for it. At least that's how I understand it.

1 hour ago, 4g63power said:

From what i understand, aluminum tube extension was purely for reel seat and handle. It was common for blanks being made short, think of pistol grip rods. When Larry Howard owned Phenix, he started selling rods made with modern style reel seats and longer straight cork/hypalon handle. They would get the same blanks, some went on pistol grips, some for reel seat/straight handle. Don't think there were any other reasons for it. At least that's how I understand it.

grip on tube like that is for manufacturing like you said. It's easy to keep all the grips to the same internal, straight diameter and not have to make them individual to each blank. You can build them separately to the rod in another part of the factory and you need less space to do it becuse you're not swinging around a 7' rod- you only have a 24" piece or so.

If you're going to pull the tube off later anyway, it would be a neat experiment to see if the remaining blank floats or sinks. That will tell you if it's hollow (and plugged) or full solid.

7 minutes ago, casts_by_fly said:

grip on tube like that is for manufacturing like you said. It's easy to keep all the grips to the same internal, straight diameter and not have to make them individual to each blank. You can build them separately to the rod in another part of the factory and you need less space to do it becuse you're not swinging around a 7' rod- you only have a 24" piece or so.

If you're going to pull the tube off later anyway, it would be a neat experiment to see if the remaining blank floats or sinks. That will tell you if it's hollow (and plugged) or full solid.

I'll keep you posted when I do

Funny, I have one AI bot signed up as a Follower on the forum (ImAscammer-xxx), and I've received two pm's from bots that the forum caught and deleted - didn't get to read the whole messages before they were deleted, but I received the e-mail notification with the truncated message.

No, those weren't AI bots. Those were real human spammers from Shanghai that I caught. I changed their names to "ImAspammer-xxx" or "ImAscammer-xxx" after banning them, and I deleted the PM's.

Bots cannot sign up as members here.

While I'm not at liberty to discuss the details, In essence, spammers and scammers are blocked from posting. So now they're using PM's to spread their garbage. And they're all humans.

@bulldog1935 I know you hate it when people make incorrect assumptions about reels. Please be respectful and don't do the same to my forums.

I know bot bandwidth can cost the forum a lot of money.

Guess I promise not to compliment you for bringing Cloudflare to the top of log-in recognition, which has worked well on other forums.

It would be unwarranted, because Cloudflare has nothing to do with blocking bots from logging in. Plus, I don't pay any bandwidth costs. So no, you don't know what costs the forums money.

Might be best to stop guessing how the forum works.