Direct answer
A guide is useful in proportion to what it refuses to contain. This page states what is inside, how to use it in the right order, and the four things it deliberately does not do.
Key facts
A guide is useful in proportion to what it refuses to contain. This page states what is inside, the order to use it in, and the four things it deliberately does not do — because a sourcing guide that fills those gaps is less useful than one that leaves them visible.
| Part | Question it answers |
|---|---|
| Product families | What can be made in each sub-category, and where |
| Reference price bands | What a sub-category normally trades at, with the unit stated |
| MOQ ranges | What quantity a factory will actually run, by sub-category |
| Specification fields | Which fields change the price, and which are cosmetic |
| Cluster comparison | Which supply base fits which product, and why |
| Quotation checklist | What has to be on a quote before it can be compared |
| Verification standard | The four gates a factory passes before it is published here |
Everything in the guide is drawn from the same records behind the rest of this site, which is also why the numbers move: bands are restated on the 90-day re-check cycle rather than reprinted annually.
A band is a range for a sub-category, with the unit stated and the order quantity it applies to. That is the whole of it. It is a plausibility check rather than an offer: it tells you whether a corrected quotation sits inside the normal range for that product, which is the question a buyer actually has before committing to a supplier.
Three things a band is not. It is not binding, because a price depends on the specification, material, hardware and quantity in front of the factory. It is not a quote for your product — it is a range for the sub-category, and a specification with a named hook and ring can sit well above it. And it is not a market size, because a range per unit says nothing about volume.
The order matters more than the content, because each step narrows the next one.
Start with the product families to place your product in a sub-category rather than a category — "lures" is too broad to quote and "soft plastic, 75 mm, salt-loaded, paddle tail" is not. Then use the specification fields to build the line items a factory needs, since these are what make two quotes comparable. Then read the band for your sub-category to get a plausibility range before you talk to anyone, which is what stops an anchoring problem later. Then compare clusters on the product rather than on price. Only then send a requirement, and send it with the quotation checklist attached.
Used in that order the guide takes an hour and saves a fortnight. Used backwards — band first, supplier second — it produces a shortlist chosen on the least informative number in the document.
Four things, and each absence is a decision.
No supplier rankings. There is no order that means "better", because the factories published here all passed the same four gates and the differences between them are in the fields rather than in a grade.
No invented market sizes. Where a figure is published it carries a source, and where none exists the guide says the value is unknown. A market size nobody measured is worse than no number, because it cannot be checked.
No prices without a basis. A number that does not state FOB or EXW, and the quantity it applies to, is not a price and is not printed as one.
No product test data presented as a verdict. A test report states what was tested and under what method; it does not say a product is safe or compliant for your market, and the guide is explicit about that gap rather than letting a certificate imply it.
Three things worth having in hand: your specification written out with the material, the named hardware and the packaging; the quantity and destination market you are buying into; and the quotations checklist so that the first reply is comparable rather than a conversation. A first enquiry carrying those three gets a usable answer, and one that does not produces a reply asking for them.
If you would rather work from structured records than a document, the supplier data is published as JSON and refreshed with every build.
| Section | The decision it settles |
|---|---|
| Four-gate verification standard | Which factories to remove before spending time on quotes |
| Specification checklists | Soft lures, hard lures, jigs and rods —what to lock before asking for a price |
| MOQ and tooling economics | Why the floor moves, and when tooling pays back |
| FOB versus EXW | What the two numbers include, so quotes become comparable |
| Inspection points | The checks that stop a batch arriving in the wrong colourway |
| Sub-category | Sample size | Reference price band (US$ / unit) | Median low | MOQ band (pcs) | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fishhook | 9 | 0.07 – 2.40 / piece | 0.65 | 100 – 2,000 | Fishing Accessories |
| Spoon & Spinner | 6 | 0.31 – 6.00 / piece | 1.25 | 50 – 500 | Fishing Lures |
| Other Hard Lure | 6 | 0.56 – 12.04 / piece | 2.95 | 20 – 500 | Fishing Lures |
| Soft Lure | 6 | 0.20 – 3.85 / piece | 1.55 | 50 – 1,000 | Fishing Lures |
| Hard Lure | 6 | 1.85 – 3.20 / piece | 2.60 | 100 – 100 | Fishing Lures |
| VIB | 6 | 0.24 – 2.50 / piece | 1.39 | 100 – 500 | Fishing Lures |
| Minnow | 6 | 0.37 – 3.17 / piece | 1.40 | 50 – 500 | Fishing Lures |
| Metal Jig | 5 | 0.97 – 2.01 / piece | 1.39 | 100 – 200 | Fishing Lures |
| Fishing Rod | 3 | 9.15 – 132.55 / piece | 28.05 | 20 – 100 | Fishing Rods |
| Crankbait | 3 | 0.30 – 0.85 / piece | 0.66 | 200 – 500 | Fishing Lures |
| Octopus Skirt | 3 | 0.08 – 2.80 / piece | 0.98 | 100 – 2,000 | Fishing Lures |
| Fishing Accessory | 3 | 0.62 – 60.00 / pack | 9.62 | 5 – 200 | Fishing Accessories |
| Measure | 2024 | 2023 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| All fishing tackle (HS 9507) | US$1.93 bn | US$1.77 bn | +9.0% |
| Fishing rods (HS 950710) | US$0.66 bn | US$0.62 bn | +6.5% |
| Fish hooks (HS 950720) | US$0.11 bn | US$0.11 bn | flat |
| Destination countries served | 196 | 197 | -1 |
| Largest single destination | US$546 M | US$445 M | +23% |
Rods account for about 34% of the total and hooks about 6%. The largest single destination takes roughly 28% of the 2024 total — which is why the export markets already on a supplier record are worth reading before you ask for a price.
| Source | 2024 import value | Share of total |
|---|---|---|
| China | US$538 M | 59% |
| Japan | US$74 M | 8% |
| Malaysia | US$53 M | 6% |
| Viet Nam | US$42 M | 5% |
| All other sources (65 countries) | US$199 M | 22% |
| Total US imports | US$906 M | 100% |
The United States bought US$906 M of fishing tackle under HS 9507 in 2024 from 69 source countries. China supplied US$538 M of it — 59% of the total, and roughly 7 times the next largest source. That concentration is why specification discipline matters more than factory discovery: the factories are not hard to find, the comparable quotation is.
Figures retrieved from UN Comtrade (reporter China and United States, HS 9507, 2024) and aggregated across partner countries. They are historical customs values, not offers.
This page is one topic out of the verification standard. The overview is Download the sourcing guide.
Send the format, quantity, material and destination market. We answer against verified records — and tell you when the data is not good enough to answer with.
Last reviewed: 2026-09-12 · build 2026-09-18-k1o8l
