Orvis H 3 D or F in a 9' 5wt

[mattwolf]

Does anyone have experience with the Orvis H3 series? I'd like to buy one and am torn between the D and F. It will be a 9' 5wt for mainly dry fly fishing stream/rivers in central PA like Spring, Fishing, Penns, Little J and Big Pine. Any help or suggestions appreciated. I know one is for feel and the other for distance, but I haven't found a good review yet on them. Every review says they are both good at short casts and long casts. I plan on casting each one soon, but wanted opinions from others as well. Thanks,

 

[krayfish2]

Think mid flex vs tip flex. I'm guessing that unless you are making lots of long casts or love faster actions, the "F" should be fine for most applications in PA. Probably more enjoyable to use as well. Test cast in a few weeks at Lancaster show

 

[Canoetripper]

I recently bought the 9' H3 D but haven't fished with it yet. I plan to use this rod/reel/line combo on pretty big water with two streamers where I know that fineness is much less important than distance.

I am a lapsed fly fisherman of intermediate skill at best on a good day.

I just can't wait for some warm March days to get out there and fish with this rod/reel/line combo.

If I can find a deal on an a 9' Orvis 9' 5 wt Recon at the Lancaster fly fishing show. I will buy it since I already have the reel and line that I want to fish with it.

 

[afishinado]

Like K-fish wrote, you may be able to test cast both at the Lancaster show. If not, any Orvis store or dealer should have one to try out.

From your description, I would guess the H3-F would work well for the fishing you plan to do.

Good luck with your new rod.

 

[dano]

I've played around with both and for bigger water like Pine, the D would be my choice, especially if there is wind.
The D is darn accurate at distance but to me, it had no feel whatsoever. It took a while to find my timing. At the end, I felt like I could drop a fly in a shot glass at 60 feet.
Personally, the F didn't quite feel right for me and my casting stroke me but that could have been due to the Orvis line that was strung up on the rod. The rod felt sluggish with that particular line at medium distance and beyond. Wish I could have tried it with a different line.
I may have over used the word "feel" in the above personal review but that is what it really comes down to. Which rod feels best to you?

 

[sage]

My wife bought me a 9' 5wt H3 D. I fished with it all last year. I threw anything from a 4in long weighted articulating streamers to a #20 BWO. Some of the water I fished on with it. J, Spring, Penns, Fishing Creek, Bitterroot, blackfoot, clarks fork and even played with some pigs on Spruce. It held up fine and I love the action. My only grump is orvis looks like they are getting cheap. No eye keep, plastic reel seat and the graphite blank is uncoated. Hope you know a orvis rep for a discount. I give it a 9.5/10

 

[allan_s]

sage wrote:
My wife bought me a 9' 5wt H3 D. I fished with it all last year. I threw anything from a 4in long weighted articulating streamers to a #20 BWO. Some of the water I fished on with it. J, Spring, Penns, Fishing Creek, Bitterroot, blackfoot, clarks fork and even played with some pigs on Spruce. It held up fine and I love the action. My only grump is orvis looks like they are getting cheap. No eye keep, plastic reel seat and the graphite blank is uncoated. Hope you know a orvis rep for a discount. I give it a 9.5/10

I preferred the F in the 9’5 but either way I think they are the best performing rods Orvis has made. Too bad that don’t look like 900 dollar rods... they look like they are made in Asia. Only people I hear talk about how they like the look and how other people like them are people who are paid to say it

 

[krayfish2]

Save $200 and get a zephrus.

 

[mattwolf]

krayfish2 wrote:
Save $200 and get a zephrus. [/quote]

I can get the H3 cheaper.

 

[Tiogadog]

I know it does not affect the casting qualities of the rod, but I find all Orvis rods to be way too garish these days. Not sure why the Orvis label needs to be readable from across the stream

 

[krayfish2]

Well if you can get the Orvis Rod cheaper, go test them. I have no idea of your casting stroke or your ability level to make a recommendation. I've seen two people by tip Flex Helios that absolutely hated them. I had fish with both of those gentlemen and told them they needed a mid Flex and would find it much more enjoyable to use. One just sold the rod while the other exchanged it at an Orvis store for a mid Flex which he loved and still has today

 

[mattwolf]

krayfish2 wrote:
Well if you can get the Orvis Rod cheaper, go test them. I have no idea of your casting stroke or your ability level to make a recommendation. I've seen two people by tip Flex Helios that absolutely hated them. I had fish with both of those gentlemen and told them they needed a mid Flex and would find it much more enjoyable to use. One just sold the rod while the other exchanged it at an Orvis store for a mid Flex which he loved and still has today

As mentioned in my 1st post I plan on casting them, but wanted others opinions on the H3 D and H3 F. I had an H2 tip and mid flex and didn't seem to have a big problem casting either of them, just had to adjust and go with the feel like any rod.

Thanks,

 

[PennKev]

Tiogadog wrote:
Not sure why the Orvis label needs to be readable from across the stream

The question kinda answers itself. So you can see it from across the stream.

Also makes it easy to pick out in all the Instagram fish porn. Yeah it's ugly, but it's a marketing step no one had really done yet with fly rods until now.

I'll probably never buy one, at least not at full price. But I'd be much more inclined to if they offered a "classic" style rod. If they can offer two different action in every configuration, why not offer a rod that omits the big white sticker and maybe offers a more traditional look?

They are tremendous rods though. Orvis has really come a long way since just trotting out the same tired fly rods every year a decade or so ago.

 

[afishinado]

PennKev wrote:

Tiogadog wrote:
Not sure why the Orvis label needs to be readable from across the stream

The question kinda answers itself. So you can see it from across the stream.

Also makes it easy to pick out in all the Instagram fish porn. Yeah it's ugly, but it's a marketing step no one had really done yet with fly rods until now.

I'll probably never buy one, at least not at full price. But I'd be much more inclined to if they offered a "classic" style rod. If they can offer two different action in every configuration, why not offer a rod that omits the big white sticker and maybe offers a more traditional look?

They are tremendous rods though. Orvis has really come a long way since just trotting out the same tired fly rods every year a decade or so ago.

For many decades Orvis and nearly all other US rod makers offered > nickel silver hardware...exotic wood spacers...earth tone colors...shiny finish on rods. Also cars back in the day had lots of chrome, velour seats, vinyl roofs and wire wheels....

I really worry little about such things. I've always thought of a rod as more of a tool than a work of art. Anyway, they cast well and fish well, and that' all that really matters, to me anyway. If anyone has seen "Forged in Fire" on the History channel, they know what this means > "That rod can feesh!"

I agree that Orvis was behind the pack a decade or more ago, but the new lines of rods in the past few years have zoomed past the competition, IMO. I worked for Orvis for 7 years and never owned an Orvis rod before then. Now I think thy are one of the top rod brands out there, even after I no longer work for them.

BTW, I hate the white butt section and huge logo on the rod too, but the flat finish is great. Close your eyes or tape over the butt and just fish....my 2.

 

[PennKev]

Afish - Everything you said in regards to looks makes sense... until the price of the rod is taken into account.

A high end fly rod costs as much as a mid to high end compound bow these days and most archery companies give the buyer a choice of several camo or color combinations. There is just not that much to a fly rod when compared to other goods in the same price range. I don't think it is too much to ask that fly rods look appealing when they are priced in the $1k territory. Also this is not a situatuon where it is modern vs classic aesthetics. The rod just looks stupid with that big white decal.

 

[afishinado]

PennKev wrote:
Afish - Everything you said in regards to looks makes sense... until the price of the rod is taken into account.

A high end fly rod costs as much as a mid to high end compound bow these days and most archery companies give the buyer a choice of several camo or color combinations. There is just not that much to a fly rod when compared to other goods in the same price range. I don't think it is too much to ask that fly rods look appealing when they are priced in the $1k territory. Also this is not a situatuon where it is modern vs classic aesthetics. The rod just looks stupid with that big white decal.

When Orvis launched to Covert Rod in between the H2 and H3 introductions they were blacked out and dull and really sold well.

Check out the hot cars and trucks > blacked out and satin finish.

A millennial generation angler will tell you "I don't want my grandpa's rod."

I'm old and I like the blacked out look + it's cool looking and stealthier when used on a fly rod.

But each to his own on appearance preferences.

Check out the difference of spacers and (wood vs graphite) and nickle silver vs anodized aluminum reel seats. Not a lot of difference in price.

I too hate the white butt section and logo, but it does get a lot of attention.

If the rod casts and fishes well, who cares?!

 

[PennKev]

Who cares?

Uhhh, potential customers???? I've yet to hear anyone say, in person, they like the look of the rod. The fact the rod sales well is indeed a testament to performance. Now I have no problem with the matte, blacked out look, but that's not what we're talking about. The new Clearwaters have the same aesthetic and look just fine. The craftsmanship and components are not quite as nice, but it's the same overall look.

 

[allan_s]

Anyone that values their money would care what it looks like.

That’s like saying only personality matters when dating.

 

[mattwolf]

I don't sleep with my fly rod ????

allan_s wrote:
Anyone that values their money would care what it looks like.

That’s like saying only personality matters when dating.