The 300 PRO-Matic

A Case In Point

By: James Partridge & Dennis Roberts

______________________________________________________________________

From the time the 300 PRO-Matic reel (a mix of the 300 Pro body and 440A rotor) came into existence up to this writing, the debate over the particulars of its engineering or lack of has been ongoing. Many articles, including segments in books and on-line website exchanges, have collectively contributed to a better understanding of this reel but have also deepened the mystery as to the how’s and why’s of its construction. We thought a more arranged approach of events and engineering protocols might be in order to assist with demystifying this reel.

JL Bunel, a well established tackle / sports store located outside of Paris, marketed the PRO-Matic exclusively. As to why JL Brunel decided to sell the PRO-Matic is a mystery and quite frankly, is not that relevant in determining what constitutes a legitimate 300PRO-Matic and the many fraudulent pieces that are now so prevalent in the hobby. Prior to 1999, the PRO-Matic was not well known except to a handful of collectors. A Bunel PRO-Matic reel can be identified by using the information contained in this document.

Mitchell allowed clients / vendors to make changes to their orders to some measure. This usually consisted of non intrusive identifying features such as the vendor logo / inscription. These options, from what we know, were very limited. Usually well established licensed vendors, i.e. Garcia, Arca, Balzer, etc. had privileges for such changes. A case in point was the distributor of Mitchell reels in the United Kingdom. Mr. Barrie Welham the owner of Garcia-Tackle Ltd had the word ”Match” inscribed by Mitchell on the side cover of the 440 model at his request to identify his creation, the “Mitchell Match reel”. This is an excellent example of vendor request for changes by Mitchell.

The question remains, would an establishment like Bunel’s be privy to such significant changes as exampled by the PRO-Matic?  Did Bunel have an agreement with Mitchell to make changes for such a nominal order? At first glance, it would seem improbable that Mitchell would have entertained the idea of mixing two models to form one bastardized model without first considering the engineering necessities for proper operation, and take into consideration their manufacturing requirements, product standards and warranties!!  Collectors would also have to consider the request by other vendors for the same reel and the impact this would have if the reel was poorly designed.   Studies to-date have shown numerous design inconsistencies when viewing various samples of the 300 PRO-Matic: (see photos).

In the past we offered the following possibilities as to what may or may not have transpired with the fabrication of the reel. The PRO-Matic was produced at the end of Mitchell’s era of manufacturing parts / reels in France.  The Marignier facility in France was destined to become primarily a R&D location with manufacturing being optioned to Taiwan and later China. Production was winding down in France as parts and reels were in excess. The possibility of Mitchell accepting this unusual request to build the PRO-Matic seemed unlikely even during this chapter in the company’s history. The first consensus was that Mitchell produced the reel for Bunel. At this juncture we are not sure about that early conclusion especially knowing the information we have available to us at this time.

Let us examine what we have todate based on each theory. If Mitchell manufactured the reels as proposed by some, then we have the issue of why we have two holes on the axle that appear to be inadequately engineered. Another area of design irregularities is the lack of sufficient threads extending from the locking nut that holds the rotor in place.  From what can be determined, the problem with the locking nut stems from the poor fit between the rotor and the body. Was it a quick fix to save money for Masseur Bunel in lieu of Mitchell redesigning new axles / using the OTO axle; doubtful. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that Mitchell would have issued substandard workmanship, especially when Mitchell was trying to move inventory and be competitive with Japan; unlikely. These are questions that may never be answered satisfactorily. Therefore, we as collectors have to draw conclusions based on common sense and the preponderance of facts of what we think transpired at that moment along with realistic manufacturing practices. Is it reasonable to presume that Mitchell made these reels by assembling the two models and modifying the axles to satisfy a client and forsake quality; very improbable.

Based on what we know, accurate or not, JL Bunel originally wanted Mitchell to name the reel PRO-Matic but due to extra costs, did not pursue this with Mitchell. Maybe, the cost for these proposed 500 reels was cost prohibitive thereby causing JL Bunel to take matters into his own hands. The following is probably what transpired in the formulation of this reel. JL Bunel purchased newly manufactured 300 PRO models with the original boxes at trade prices of approx 50% of the RRP and reworked the reels in house. This explains why he had the boxes. This also provides a good reason why he used the existing axles from the Pro model; part #81007 and not the “OTO axle” that would have been a better fit thus eliminating the need to modify the axle. Even with the correct axle we would still have an improper fit as a result of rotor-to-body spacing problems. This would explain many of the unanswered questions regarding the various discrepancies with its construction. As to where he obtained the 440A rotors, is another unanswered question. We saw the advertisements from JL Bunel’s establishment which clearly shows he sold the reel and box. The warranty was issued by Bunel exclusively. As to how many were made, we doubt it was 500 as we originally thought.  Bunel probably sold as many as he could build but much less than first estimated. This may be in contradiction of some prior perceptions, but it is our collective opinion that the PRO-Matic was probably built in-house by Bunel.  A PRO-Matic built by Bunel should have a serial number that is predicated by the fact Bunel used original 300 PRO bodies in the construction of the PRO-Matic.

Unfortunately, there is a caveat to the above theory.  The question stands, why would Bunel go through the trouble to assemble this reel? For the minimal reels produced, the profit margin would have been nominal; therefore, we cannot justify the rationale for Bunel to undertake this project.  Secondly, if he did make these reels, how would that affect his relationship with Mitchell as a vendor / supplier of Mitchell products?  Even though we have good evidence as to who built these reels, for the sake of balance, it is still not 100% conclusive that Mitchell did not have some measure of involvement.

Should this reel be considered a true Mitchell in the sense we as collectors value originals? In our opinion, definitely not!  The 300 PRO-Matic is a nice reel that has a place for collectors but should not be considered an authorized original Mitchell. This entire process was most likely a private venture not involving Mitchell of France.  The 300 PRO-Matic was advertised in a French sporting catalog, and translated by fellow collector Christian Lhermitte to  read “improved and transformed by Bunel”.   I think this gives ample validation that these reels were indeed built by JL Bunel.

A special thanks to Christian Lhermitte for providing some of the photography and translation of the Bunel advertisement.   

MRCC