Old vs. New

[Sylvaneous]

I know I pound-on about rods, but they are so incredibly expensive and have so much mythology generated around them.
2 things: 1) Long ago, a well-known FFing shop owner, an early Sage seller told about how rod technology works it way 'down-scale' over time
2) What is your experience from casting earlier rods?
4-piece rods are de regur so you might say it's a bit of apples and oranges, but I don't care. I only care how it feels, fishes and casts. 2 of my favorite rods are a 2002 Sage SLT 8.5 5 wt. It is a beautiful caster, but I basically never fish it anymore. Even though so much is only 9 ft, I still would put it up against anything. It's a joy to fish.
The other is a 1998 (?) LL Bean DBL L(double L) 9 ft 5 2 pc that is a great rod. Not as delicate at the tip as the best rods today, but I still go for it frequently today, usually early season and find it no compromise. I mean, I could live with it as the only kind of 5 wt I ever use NO problem.
The Powell LGA 8.5 5 wt that I PRIZED, I now don't have as much regard for. The change in design and materials over 20+ years are evident. It has a more 'tippy' action. I remember that from the mid-90's Loomis GLX: It was a catapult. Load the tip and ZING!, but not smooth like today's best rods. Punchy. That's my Powell LGA.

Putting #1 and #2 together brings me to a thesis that I have forwarded before. We know what rods could do with 20 year old materials at those price points. We see iterations of mid-price fly rods that miss the mark in some way: It's a bit too fast, a bit too heavy, a bit too slow.
Not that we can do much about it besides speak with our $$$, (I'm not a person that runs to a fly shop with arm-fulls of money at the introduction of the next best thing) but I would like to find a consensus if this is so. I just scratch my head with some of these mid-priced rods and think "This is how you improved your last model?" [EX: Orvis Recon1 only strong flaw was being too fast. Just slowing it a TAD would have made a great trout rod. That's not what the Recon2 became.]

Marketing is so, so powerful. It convinced so many to replace vests with shoulder sling bags, and then all the cliips, hooks, clamps, zingers and holders to go along with them. And giant, GIANT nets and the belt holders to bear their weight and size.
Do what suits your fancy, but its fashion. It's trend. And curmudgeons like me see it coming. No matter how many YouTube videos made at trade shows by marketing reps and sponsored guides, it won't convince me to functionally roll-up my vest into a bag, surrender my back compartment and other pockets to buy crap to solve problems that didn't otherwise exist.

 

[poopdeck]

Well, since you asked, my rods are incredibly cheap by fly rod standards. I refuse to spend a lot on rods because I don’t feel a single itty bitty difference between an 800 dollar rod and a 200 rod outside of maybe a tad bit of inconsequential weight. some who carry 20 lbs in flies and gear seem to think it’s important to save an ounce off the rod. I can see a difference in the finish and general look of the rod but from a casting/sensitivity/fishing/catching perspective it don’t make one bit of difference TO ME. it’s the benifit of being a big oaf.

I own Cabelas, TFO, St. Croix, redington and one custom fly rods. i think my one TFO cost a little over 200. My reels I also keep under 200 and most were under 100. I just bought a new 5 wt.it’s a TFO Lefty Kreh signature Pro II that cost 169.00. I paired it with an Orvis Battenkill and splurged with the disk drag. I think that was about 180. Of course I paired it with a peach Cortland 444. To me this is a whiz bang high end set up and I love it. I buy cheap and I keep and use them forever so to me I feel everything young or old fish the same.

again, I’m a big oaf, but I’ve fished with expensive outfits owned by those I fish with. I just don’t feel the same hype the owners seem to have for them. in a sense I’m glad I am an oaf because I would not lay out that kind of cash for an outfit. On the other hand perhaps I’m not an oaf. Perhaps they hype it up so they don’t feel foolish after spending a weeks pay (my measly pay anyway) on one outfit. After all, keeping up with the Jones is alive and well in the fly fishing business.

my gear is the same. I buy something and I use it and rarely upgrade. I like sling packs so I’m glad I got away from a vest. My sling pack is a 34 dollar cabelas that holds about three fly boxes, a snack and two bottles of water. Good enough for me. I have no interest in the new model year packs, bags and gear And don’t look at them or read about them. I’ll replace my sling when it rots and falls of my shoulder. that’s me. To each their own.

 

[RLeep2]

I bought expensive rods back when graphite was relatively new and still prefer older or slower graphite in my trout rods and maybe a little bit more zip, but not much in my warm water rods. Other than my old Orvis Premium series rods, I've never spent more than $200, no take that back, $250 for a fly rod. My rod buying process is pretty simple. I find a rod that feels good to me at an acceptable price. Then I buy it and make it do what I want it to do. I think there is an over reliance on the supposed attributes of a given rod and an under reliance on our creativity and ability to make the rod we already have perform in a way that meets our needs and desires. We bought the rod, not vice versa. My view, anyway..

 

[use2wuz]

I know I pound-on about rods, but they are so incredibly expensive and have so much mythology generated around them.
2 things: 1) Long ago, a well-known FFing shop owner, an early Sage seller told about how rod technology works it way 'down-scale' over time
2) What is your experience from casting earlier rods?
4-piece rods are de regur so you might say it's a bit of apples and oranges, but I don't care. I only care how it feels, fishes and casts. 2 of my favorite rods are a 2002 Sage SLT 8.5 5 wt. It is a beautiful caster, but I basically never fish it anymore. Even though so much is only 9 ft, I still would put it up against anything. It's a joy to fish.
The other is a 1998 (?) LL Bean DBL L(double L) 9 ft 5 2 pc that is a great rod. Not as delicate at the tip as the best rods today, but I still go for it frequently today, usually early season and find it no compromise. I mean, I could live with it as the only kind of 5 wt I ever use NO problem.
The Powell LGA 8.5 5 wt that I PRIZED, I now don't have as much regard for. The change in design and materials over 20+ years are evident. It has a more 'tippy' action. I remember that from the mid-90's Loomis GLX: It was a catapult. Load the tip and ZING!, but not smooth like today's best rods. Punchy. That's my Powell LGA.

Putting #1 and #2 together brings me to a thesis that I have forwarded before. We know what rods could do with 20 year old materials at those price points. We see iterations of mid-price fly rods that miss the mark in some way: It's a bit too fast, a bit too heavy, a bit too slow.
Not that we can do much about it besides speak with our $$$, (I'm not a person that runs to a fly shop with arm-fulls of money at the introduction of the next best thing) but I would like to find a consensus if this is so. I just scratch my head with some of these mid-priced rods and think "This is how you improved your last model?" [EX: Orvis Recon1 only strong flaw was being too fast. Just slowing it a TAD would have made a great trout rod. That's not what the Recon2 became.]

Marketing is so, so powerful. It convinced so many to replace vests with shoulder sling bags, and then all the cliips, hooks, clamps, zingers and holders to go along with them. And giant, GIANT nets and the belt holders to bear their weight and size.
Do what suits your fancy, but its fashion. It's trend. And curmudgeons like me see it coming. No matter how many YouTube videos made at trade shows by marketing reps and sponsored guides, it won't convince me to functionally roll-up my vest into a bag, surrender my back compartment and other pockets to buy crap to solve problems that didn't otherwise exist.

Well said all - FWIW - My Sage RPLs are the finest casting rods for me because I made the leap from glass to the RPL (and original LL) and learned to cast all over again with them - it didn’t hurt that as one of only two Sage dealers in the Harrisburg area at the time (circa 1987) I could buy two rods from Sage at their special pricing program - and of course I did - $300 bucks for me was more than a week’s pay and that was the price point of the flagship models - our discount brought them down to $88 (with full warranty but without tube) … what would you have done? I’ve picked up a few more since then at very reasonable prices as nobody seems to think much of the GIII tapers nowadays. They were feather light - TRUE TO LINE size and are still the finest rods I own - they are NOT for sale either. Most modern “fast action lineandahalf” rods feel like a broom stick to me regardless of manufacturer. Though I will give a nod to Redington / Far Bank / Sage for remaking similar tapers to the SAGE LL with the Classic Trout series. Their Trace series feels very much like the RPL taper of old and at the same (much devalued) dollar figure at the $300 price point. As said by so many - it’s about what you like - I’ve caught thousands more fish on my Fenglass / Pflueger Sal-Trout combo (pictured) anyway and will probably fish that rig until the end of my days - more than any other. Don Green was my rod design hero!

 

[Tigereye]

Agree. R

 

[Tigereye]

Oops.. agree. Rods are tools we use to catch fish. As mentioned countless times by many, the difference between a $50 rod and a $200 rod is much more evident than between a $200 and an $800 rod. The incremental quality advances get more expensive as you rise through the price ranges. Over time the standard quality of all rods increase and price decreases. Isn't capitalism great.

I do own a 1980s vintage sage that was all the rage at the time. I seldom use the rod now.

For the most part, higher end rods are a bit more aesthetically pleasing ie finish, cork, wraps and real seat. None of which makes catching fish ( the purpose of the tool) any easier.

If you follow some of the competitive anglers, you will notice they are not gear junkies. Especially the Europeans. They seemed to have mastered the art of fishing with just modest tools.

It's the Indian not the arrow.