Bantam 100

[oc1]

As noted, the predecessor to the Shimano Bantam 100 was the Shimano Lew's Speed Spool BB1.  


The example I have is date stamped January 1977. The levelwind and drag did not work and the medallion is missing so it was cheap.

Given its predecessor, the Bantam 100 was aptly named as it is physically much smaller.





The Bantam 100 weighs about one third less; 7.7 ounce versus about 12.6 ounces for the BB1.  The BB1 spool has a larger arbor, larger diameter and is slightly narrower, but the line capacity is about the same as the Bantam 100.
The BB1 was the most unusual looking reel of its time.  Many thought it was just ugly.  Even after forty years of further deviation from the traditional round reel it is still just ugly.... in my opinion.  The odd shape of the BB1 is at least partially due to moving the disengaging levelwind guide out away from the spool as much as possible. The tail plate is about a quarter inch shorter than the headplate but it still feels as large as an ABU 5000 in the hand.  The faux leather grain pattern embossed into the plastic tailplate is strange.  If I'm not mistaken, the BB1 was the first low profile reel (although they didn't call it that) because the side plate dropped down about a quarter inch below the foot.  

The Bantam side plates do not drop below the foot but, overall, it is more stylistic.  It has an elongated shape that is very different from a typical round reel, but is not much more radical than some of the older direct drive reels such as the Shakespear President.  The uncomfortable sharp corner on the upper rear portion of the tailplate and frame is stylistic, but not ergonomic.  The Bantam rosewood knobs are another example of Shimano's attention to aesthetics but they failed to make the handle strong enough.  Then, there is the European style coat of arms emblem on the tail plate.  The Ambassadeur's coat arms is weird enough, but to put similar coat of arms on a Japanese reel?  Having "Designed for Professionals" engraved on both side plates seems a unusual too.

I purchased my last ABU during this period and both the Speed Spool BB1 and Bantam 100 were probably there in the display case too.  I must have dismissed them and went straight to the ABU out of habit and prejudice without evaluating or understanding the potential advantages of the Bantam 100 and Speed Spool BB1.  If I was forced (either then or now) to choose the Bantam or Speed Spool based on looks, weight and feel alone, I would choose the Bantam.

Looking inside the BBI......

-steve

[nelz]

The odd shape of the BB1 is at least partially due to moving the disengaging levelwind guide out away from the spool as much as possible.

Nice to see they did that, as it was really needed in order to compensate for the severe line-lay criss-crossing that this and the Bantam reels suffered from. (Too bad they shortened the Bantam.)  Btw, have you noticed the current Daiwa Lexa also extends the line guide out further than usual? Good, especially with the high drag numbers and non-synced wind on those reels.

[oc1]

Hi Netz.  I had a beef with Diawa way back and swore I would just ignore them forever.  Same with Sears Roebuck.  But, I finally went back to buying some stuff at Sears because it is so convenient and should probably bury the hatchet with Diawa too.

oh yeah.... .... three thumb screws separate the headplate on the original Lew's Speed Spool BB1 to reveal an ABU style centrifugal brake.


Like the Bantam, the tail plate is plastic.  But, unlike the Bantam, the left-side bearing is mounted in the plastic plate rather than the metal frame.  I don't now what kind of plastic it is or whether it is prone to warping or instability.  The bearing is held in place by an internal retaining C clip.  It's the kind of clip that requires a tool (looks like a pair of pliers with pointed tips) to compress the clip and remove it.  It was a struggle to get the clip out without the tool and the thing shot across the room.  Since I clean bearings often this would never be acceptable to me.  But, the C clip can be replaced with the familiar pentagonal wire clip.



The spool is plastic and has a large arbor.  There is a pin that secures the plastic spool to the metal shaft but I would be afraid to try to remove it.


Under the cast control know is the familiar square shim that that the tip of the spool shaft contacts.  There is a brass bushing with a compression tab but I don't think the shaft actually touches the bushing.  Below the bushing is a ball bearing.


The spool disengages with a thumb button.  The yoke is an extension of this push button.  The mechanism looks very much like that of an Ambassadeur.  Its almost a knock-off, but built a bit stronger.  There are no plastic parts here. The Bantam has a plastic yoke and the pinion disengages more like modern baitcasters.  The BB1 main gear is really heavy duty magnetic metal but I don't know what kind of steel.  


No surprises in the dog.  The drag stack includes a thick stainless bushing/spacer and a plastic spacer.  There is one large fiber drag washer and a washer under the main gear.  The example I have may have been modified because the washer under the main gear looks like carbontex and there is no belleville.


The levelwind has a heavy gear that is pinned to the worm.  The levelwind guide appears to be aluminum (its silver and relatively soft metal) but it has brass or bronze inserts that ride on the worm cover and guide bar.


Forgot to mention that the BB1 handle is larger and much stronger than the Bantam and the BB1 has hard plastic knobs.
 
My understanding is that the innovation in the BB1 is the disengaging levelwind.  The narrow spool helped optimize the disengaging levelwind since it reduces lateral movement of line as it peels off the spool.  But with the large arbor the spool also had to be tall (large diameter) to retain the line capacity.  I was always led to believe that wide spools started up quicker and, therefore, cast further; hence the squidder and similar shapes.  If true, this would create a conflict and a need for a compromise between width and diameter.  I don't know if the large spool arbor is required to make the plastic spool strong enough or if is to designed to further reduce weight and increase start-up speed.  Despite the plastic tailplate, weight did not seem to be a major concern in the BB1.  It seems that weight savings in the plastic spool and tail plate were offset by sturdy, heavy components elsewhere.  

I have not yet cast this reel.  That would be the acid test since casting is/was what it's all about with these things.
-steve

[Alex from GA]

I'm mostly a bass fisherman and use a 100 several times a week.  Like you I buy them on ebay or friends give them to me.  The shaft that's staked to the right side plate sometimes needs re-staking as it breaks loose.  I use carbon drag washers under and in the main gear as the original ones are very jerky.

[festus]

This is a very interesting thread, especially the modification of the level wind. I had no idea that at one time Lew's and Shimano were affiliated.

Today I worked on a similar Shimano (1987 BantamProMag 100X SG) and got the anti-reverse going again.

[wfjord]

I always like hearing about the old '80s Bantams as they are the primary baitcasters I've used for bass fishing for the past 34 years.  I was into some schools of hotly feeding lake stripers this past Saturday with a Bantam Mag Plus 250SG XHS and a 714Z.

[thorhammer]

No idea Shimano made some Lew's...coincidentally I have at this moment a Lew's open for repair on my bench that I picked up at a yard sale for $5. It's a Ryobi-made BB-1., which is basically a V-Mag3. Bantam 100 was my first baitcaster; I still have it.

I recently nailed a VGC Lew's BB1NG (Gold version) on a basically new BPS Classic IM8 rod at a pawn shop, $20 for the combo. score.

[oc1]

John, I can take or leave the Ryobi BB-1 because they feel a little clunky and larger than they need be.  But I think the V-Mag 3 is one of the coolest little reels ever.  They both hate the saltwater though.
-steve

[thorhammer]

 I also have a Vmag, I guess it would be a "1", the tiny one, I've been sort of hunting a drag star for, for some time. These guys will only go sweetwater bass fishing.

[Tightlines667]

I inherited an early Lew's speed spool from my grandfather.  This was his best reel ever, and he took great care and pride in this reel.  I continued to fish the reel as my baitcaster throughout my youth.  I tried Shimano, and Diawa, but preferred the high quality/solid feel of the Lew's.  I used ambassador for musky and trolling, and Cardinals as my spinners.  I still consider 8t one of the great leap forward in freshwater reel design.

John

[festus]

I always like hearing about the old '80s Bantams as they are the primary baitcasters I've used for bass fishing for the past 34 years.  I was into some schools of hotly feeding lake stripers this past Saturday with a Bantam Mag Plus 250SG XHS and a 714Z.

l got this Bantam Mag Plus 250SG for 8 bucks a couple weeks ago.  Does anyone know the difference between it and the Bantam Mag Plus 250SG XHS?

l think this is a 1982 model.  Does anyone know the off the shelf price of a Mag Plus in the early 1980s? This reel is really smooth and quiet and casts very well to be 35 years old.

[wfjord]

l got this Bantam Mag Plus 250SG for 8 bucks a couple weeks ago.  Does anyone know the difference between it and the Bantam Mag Plus 250SG XHS?

l think this is a 1982 model.  Does anyone know the off the shelf price of a Mag Plus in the early 1980s? This reel is really smooth and quiet and casts very well to be 35 years old.

The Mag Plus 250SG has a 4.7:1 gear ratio. I believe the Mag Plus 250SG XHS is 5:1.

Don't know the cost of the 250SGs back then, but I do have a receipt for a Bantam 1000SG I bought in 1984 for $60.

[oc1]

John, I have a V-Mag 3 parts reel that may still have a star.  It is the tiny one.  I'll check tomorrow.
-steve

[thorhammer]

Steve !

[oc1]

Just a test.  Trying to fix all my photos.
-s