Lure Anglers

[Jeremiah T. Bagwell]

Guys,

I came across a website that had some very nice lures. One lure in particular caught my eye and it got me excited so I just wanted to show it to everyone.

 

Here is the website. http://www.banddcustomlures.com

 

The lure I am talking about is called the Evilution "V"

 

Let me hear what you all think of this one. It may be possible that I am just nuts.

 

JT Bagwell

[Peter Sharpe]

I don't suppose for one moment that you might have some kind of commercial interest in this?

[Babar]

Its not bad but £5:99??? You could make it for £1.

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremiah T. Bagwell:

Guys,

I came across a website that had some very nice lures. One lure in particular caught my eye and it got me excited so I just wanted to show it to everyone. The lure I am talking about is called the Evilution "V"

 

Let me hear what you all think of this one. It may be possible that I am just nuts.

 

JT Bagwell

---

JTB

Well, you may (or may not) be nutz, but if you're paying that sort of money for that sort of lure, you may be a mug

 

DG :cool:

 

[ 08. April 2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[Cranfield]

The 5.99 price is dollars, not pounds.

 

I have used a similar lure, with one blade, for some years and it is quite effective.

But,they are difficult to cast a good distance, in any strength of wind.

[The Diamond Geezer]

OK, so £3.85 isn't so bad, but then there's packing & shipping costs

 

You can get Zorro Aggravators from BassPro for less than $4.50 (£2.90) plus shipping

 

And personally, I think Bomber Bushwhackers and Northland Reedrunners take some beating

 

DG :cool:

 

[ 08. April 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[Newt]

JT - I like it. Similar to a Jacks Dual Spinner that I caught my first 6lb+ largemouth on in the late 1950s.

 

And assuming the wire is good quality and the hook is decent, not a bad price at all. They didn't say so I assume not titanium wire though. Cost would probably be $2-3 higher if it were.

 

Be excellent if you wanted to fish a spinner bait slow. Should work better than the dual blades on one arm or any of the inline ones.

 

I really don't know why all the lure makers went away from that basic design. At one time they were common but then the single arm ones came out. I really wonder if they didn't get popular because they take less storage space.

 

Peter - you said "I don't suppose for one moment that you might have some kind of commercial interest in this?" Since the man makes his living as a professional angler and you only make tourney money if you win, I'd say he does have a commercial interest in any good lure. But he is not sponsored by these folks and is not on their pro staff.

 

Why not just take his post at face value and assume he wants to share an interesting lure with others. We have enough water and enough fish in the US that letting others in on a good lure won't harm our fishing.

 

I notice 5 recent articles by him on the AN articles section - done for free and with no profit motive I can find. I notice none by you. So IMO you made an unjustified cut at a man who is trying to contribute to a site because he likes angling.

 

[ 08. April 2003, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[Danny H]

I think they look great, and Would give them a go without hesitation, I love Dual arm buzzbaits, why not spinnerbaits too.

[Peter Waller]

Newt, your critiscism of the other Peter is right and proper. The tone of Peter's snide comment to JT was out of order.

 

But, and there is always a 'but'! But here in the UK we are less tolerant, far less infact, than the US re contributors plugging their sponsors' wares.

 

There have been numerous examples, over the years, of articles being put together, thinly disguised as good advice, that are blatently taking the uric out of both readers and publishers over here.

 

Some sponsored anglers deserve sponsorship, and have gained it via their ability. Bob Nudd, Mick Brown and Matt Hayes immediately spring to mind. Of course there are others.

 

Unfortunately some others have gained it by pure bull s****. Their annoying plugs are then forced onto us and are, largely, not appreciated.

 

One major reel manufacturer has fallen hook line and sinker for one bloke who is no better than a good laugh. A major mail order company has been persuaded to put a very conceited and largely unpopular anglers name on their rods, more fool them!

 

These guys devalue the work of those who deserve sponsorship. The good guys, in return, add value to the product, and offer sound advice to us punters. The bad are resented in some quarters, ignored in others, but, regretfully, sometimes admired by those who don't know better.

 

We tend to be a suspicious crowd over here where sponsorship is concerned. When a self-opiniated, self appointed, self-publicist and conceited angler stands up and says something is great, when clearly it isn't, then the whole issue of sponsorship becomes suspect, or atleast a tad annoying.

 

We see things thru rose tinted glasses over here. Advice is only seen as good when it is not tainted by self or commercial interest. As has so aptly been said by another poster, 'different floats, different folks'!

 

[ 09. April 2003, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Guest sslatter]

Newt:

Peter - you said "I don't suppose for one moment that you might have some kind of commercial interest in this?"  Since the man makes his living as a professional angler and you only make tourney money if you win, I'd say he does have a commercial interest in any good lure.  But he is not sponsored by these folks and is not on their pro staff.

Hi Newt.. Jeremiah has always come over as a very nice guy, and I know everyone's gotta make a living, but I can't wholly agree with the opinion that you expressed, which I only quoted in part. If you look at Jeremiah's article "Using science to catch more fish" I think you'll have to agree it reads like a complete "product placement" advertisement, with almost more product mentions than a James Bond film. Reading that article, followed by his latest article on how to attract sponsorship, does nothing to corroborate the general feeling of the views that you expressed, namely that Jeremiah is not primarily motivated by commercial interests. But hey, like I said, everyone's gotta make a living somehow.

 

[ 09. April 2003, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Graham X ]