Classic Disappointments

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Joel Anderson	Classic Disappointments		Lead	[-]
Posts: 93 03/03/2009 23:07	Tags : None There's a great quote from John Gierach's "Fishing Bamboo" about his first experience casting a Garrison: "I'll never forget the day I got to cast a real, by God, 8-foot 6-weight Garrison. It was the first genuinely classic rod I'd ever gotten my hands on and when I walked out on the owner's lawn with it and began to cast, I thought the sky would open up, a shaft of light would descend, and everything would suddenly become clear. What beame clear was that I was casting a perfectly seviceable 6-weight, maybe a little on the slow side for my taste." Having had similar experiences myself, I wonder how many others have felt the same way. In our quest to find the romance in our sport and passion, do we want to believe these rods possess supernatural powers that in reality don't exist? With all due respect to the our rod making forefathers who laid the groundwork with their tapers, my own experience has been that while most "classics" are fine casting instruments (except that one Payne Parabolic, yuck!), there hasn't been one that made me think it's truly a better casting rod than a well-made rod from a modern day maker. To the contrary, some of the best rods I've ever cast ARE the products of modern day makers. joel Last Edited By: Joel Anderson 03/03/2009 23:10. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Booman2		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 553 03/04/2009 00:25	In my experience, a few classics stand out, but I think that when I cast them, I'm casting good memories as well as the rod. For example, my third Winston 9 footer for a #9 is, in my estimation, the greatest steelhead rod ever built. Think Stoner, Merrick, Howells and Brackett, the builders. Others include Howells 8'3" #5-6, his 7'3" #3, and (believe it or not) the slow Orvis tapers in the 8' #6, 4 1/4 oz. and the ultra slow 8' #4 nymph rod which are great just because they broke a mold. F.E. Thomas made better rods IMO than Leonard - for me, at least- and PHY's Para 15 is classic. I own a 8' Granger 8040 that is outstanding in a 3 piece, normally not my choice. I agree that some of the greatest builders don't really light my fire. For example, my personal fishing style doesn't highlight anything outstanding that Payne, Dickerson and Leonard (with exceptions) has shown me. I once fished a Garrison steelhead rod that was a dud for me, and the glue lines were a minus as well. Today's best builders may be making the finest bamboo rods of all time, but we need to see them about 20 years down the road, and after landing 1000 fish, before we know if they are truly the best.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
cutthroattroutnm	First time with a classic	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 38 03/04/2009 01:56	I had cast several reproduction classic tapers and some rods from modern makers (Mike Clark, Jack Howell, John Pickard) and they were all really wonderful casting instruments. Then I got to cast a couple of real Dickerson's (801510, 7613), and the heaven's almost did open and the sun come out. When I strung up the 801510, I was a bit disappointed as it seemed a bit limp in the hand. But when I began to cast, it all became clear what Lyle was trying to achieve - 10 foot casts with not much more than the leader out of the tip top were automatic, and single haul 60 foot casts were smooth, crisp, and elegant. The 7613 was nothing short of amazing, pinpoint rocket shots from 15 to 60 feet, and likely much more if I ever need it. Today's makers owe much to the early Masters like Lyle Dickerson and Jim Payne, especially for this generation of fly fishers, most of whom (like myself) grew up in the sport on graphite. Their tapers (especially those of Dickerson and Payne) were well ahead of their time in anticipating the future of modern fly fishing tackle. Some might say it was all serendipity. I don't buy it. Genius is timeless, their creations are enduring.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
quashnet		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2486 03/04/2009 02:54 Moderatus Muscae	We never can be objective, because in fact we do want the heavens to open when we make our first cast with a classic rod. Who wouldn't want that experience? The problem with Gierach's story is that it applies to only one rod, but still it makes us wonder whether all Garrisons are therefore underrated. We have no idea whether that particular rod had a problem, or whether the owner chose a different line than would have been Gierach's preference, or whether Gierach so deeply anticipated and romanticized the first cast of a Garrison rod that no actual experience could possibly measure up to his imagined experience. Only one rod of mine - my Martha Marie - has given me that epiphany experience on the first cast and each cast thereafter. Banjo's Kushner was an absolute marvel to lawn cast. Other rods have been wonderful at first, but still I needed to find the proper line or make an adjustment to my cast in order to get the optimal result. In short, I needed to learn something about most of the rods I've owned - which is no bad thing, and certainly not a mark against any maker, whether classic or contemporary. Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of over 430 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories, etc. Thank you to all who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
bbamboo		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 147 03/04/2009 04:57	I think the other point is you can use and abuse any rod until it really has very little bearing on what the original rod cast like. And you should always if possable cast more then one (Vintage Rod) Sometimes to find the correct way to cast a different rod cannot be found in half a dozen cast, and simply means you have to learn to find the pace and style required to get the rod to perform as the original maker intended. Don't give up on a rod because it does not work for you straight away. www.nichobamboorods.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Gnome		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1949 03/04/2009 09:17 King of the Gnomes	The butter smoothness of an original KOSMIC gives me goose bumps and raises the hackle every time I cast one. And in some ways that is the epiphany as you are casting a piece of work by Thomas, Edwards ,Payne, and Hawes It does not get much better than that. Jeff
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Eric Peper		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 174 03/04/2009 09:41	bbamboo wrote: I think the other point is you can use and abuse any rod until it really has very little bearing on what the original rod cast like. And you should always if possable cast more then one (Vintage Rod) Sometimes to find the correct way to cast a different rod cannot be found in half a dozen cast, and simply means you have to learn to find the pace and style required to get the rod to perform as the original maker intended. Don't give up on a rod because it does not work for you straight away. Agree with this completely. It took me years before I began to appreciate my Pezon Fario Club and now I love it. Also -- and this is strictly opinion -- it is always best to remember that irrespective of whether it is a modern or vintage label you are casting a single rod, not a legacy or a standard. Keep expectations at a modest level and you'll experience fewer disappointments. EP
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
thegubster		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1587 03/04/2009 10:21	Eric Peper wrote: -- it is always best to remember that irrespective of whether it is a modern or vintage label you are casting a single rod, not a legacy or a standard. Keep expectations at a modest level and you'll experience fewer disappointments. I'm trying to let this soak into my head. It's certainly been ringing true from some of lifes trials and tribulations of late. And not just casting rods but in many apects of life, especially as I get older... A season or two ago now, I had the privilege of casting a rod that I initially thought to be "useless". The maker, Dave Norling (I'm not trying to push Dave's rods. I don't neeed to.) is a maker who continually..continually...plays around with his tapers, his hollowing and his efforts. He's got a bin full of "slivers" for the ones that didn't make it for whatever reason. When you get to toying around this is a given! Not every one's a winner!! Anyhow, he tried one rod in a longer length and hollowed more than most. This 8' 7" rod was a buggy whip on my first wiggle and I never expected it to be anything more. What a piece of junk! That was Daves conclusion too, hence the reason he gave it to my son rather than stash it in a back closet..or worse, the bin! This rod was put into my hands and I little hope of taking to it. It's kind of a niche rod...a buggy-whip thing (a former graphite guy like me would hate it!!) and I knew it'd never make it with me. My son, an excellent, effortless, smooth caster (really!) grinned at me and said to just go out and cast her. He liked it. We differ in many tastes! It took me two, maybe three casts and this "noodle" showed me such a smooth, gentle, buttery smooth cast that all I could do was grin. Nate gave me this "Told ya!" look with his smile. I never expected to find such a joy in such a buggy-whip-feeling rod as this. It's not a rod for everyone but it taught me to keep an open mind. That's hard for me for some reason. Nice surprise. Dave hates it. We're different! I'm lucky to have a good friend who's also a rodmaker and to have him live close by. Dangerous! Eric's post brought back some smiles. That "expectation" thing... Edit: Joel, my apologies if this strayed a bit off course from your posted question. This isn't a "classic rod" or by a classic maker. I just added a thought to something the posted topic lead into. Jeremy. Last Edited By: thegubster 03/04/2009 10:27. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Canewrap	Re: Classic Disappointments	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 939 03/04/2009 10:28	Its actually what you mention that contributed me to getting rid of the old rods I have and sticking with my modern, finished ones. None of the rods I could afford lived up to what I found when I cast somebody's Payne or Thomas. The modern made bamboo is serving me just fine.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
creakycane		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2108 03/04/2009 11:00	Have had similar experiences, not just with classic vs modern but also those ultra-derirable modern rods that the minute they were assembled, felt all wrong. At least, not right..... Some of this is dreamy expectations that can't possibly be met, peppered with reality, some is that it might take years to learn the nuances of a great rod. Some is that some rods are overrated. Some is that subconscously, a piece of us might want to boast or promote the rods we own (some have bigger piecs of this than others!) and others really want that classic to live up to its reputation, hence influencing a response. It's very complex and very interesting! An example: One of my first cane rods was the original green wrapped Duracane 7' 4 wt with 2 tips - the low level Leonard. I have fished that rod harder than about any I have owned (when I owned a couple of rods), and still find it a perfect small 4 wt, so much so that I prefer it to varnished Leonards 7 footers as well as just about any small 4 wt I've ever owned or cast. Is it that this is an excellent rod, or that the action of this rod has worn channels in the part of the brain that involves casting that makes me think its the best 4 wt I've cast? Who knows. Similarly, is a Gillum a such an outstanding rod on its own, or is it so desirable because everyone who has read Atherton's reference to it in "The fly..." forever-after wants one? Probably some of both. Same thing for all of the classics mentioned and not mentioned....... Maybe it takes years to learn a rods greatness, or maybe we change to live up to its potential? again, who knows - probably a few PhD theses in there......
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Chuck441		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 30 03/04/2009 11:02	Many moons ago I bought a Leonard 39. Wow- I owned a real, genuine Leonard! Then I tried to fish with it. Wet noodle, all the way. I'm sure it was perfect for many other fishers, but it sure didn't suit me. I've since cast current makers' versions of a Payne 98 and Young Perfectionist. Those suited me far better. My fave for little waters is a Dickerson 6611 clone made by local rod maker Ed Miller. This I like! Chuck
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
bbamboo		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 148 03/04/2009 12:02	Different strokes different folks www.nichobamboorods.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
gooseberryrods		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 586 03/04/2009 13:30	The performance of a fly rod should be judged on how it performs on the water you fish not by lawn casting. Too many people, myself included, have put too much stock into how it casts a line in the back yard. It's always best to test-drive the rod under practical fishing conditions to discover its true merits or shortcomings. gooseberry Last Edited By: gooseberryrods 03/04/2009 13:34. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
pvansch1		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4427 03/04/2009 14:32 Moderator	Of the few I cast on the lawn or wherever, I have yet to meet and Orvis Rod that asked me to take it to a river and fish me. Pete
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Housatonic Quill		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 729 03/04/2009 14:44	For me, length is the principal factor - With one exception, I've never yet met a rod under 7 1/2 feet that I enjoyed casting. On the other hand, my two favorite long rods are a 9-foot 3-piece varnished Orvis Manchester ( very crisp, very accurate) and an 8-foot 2-pieceCharles Daley Parataper by Gene Edwards (lo-o-ong effortless casts, with a smooth no-kick action). The exception, by the way, is a seven-foot, 3-piece Carlson hex, which does everything I could possibly ask of it, but which I'll never fish, because it's too rare and too beautiful. The more I think I know, the less I know I know.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ibookje		#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1508 03/04/2009 15:22	gooseberryrods wrote: The performance of a fly rod should be judged on how it performs on the water you fish not by lawn casting. Too many people, myself included, have put too much stock into how it casts a line in the back yard. It's always best to test-drive the rod under practical fishing conditions to discover its true merits or shortcomings. Amen!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
B52 bugger	I had the opportunity to cast	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 103 03/04/2009 18:16	I was at Phil Horowitz's son high school graduation party. Phil ask me to cast two Leonards and another rod I don't even remember. I have a few bamboo rods but have cast many. Usually out of courtesy I will cast another man's fly rod. I have to tell you - I fell in love with this Leonard Ausable, the other Leonard didn't even come close to performance. The line just flowed. I don't think I was even casting. I was hoping Phil would put me in his will - fat chance I have to deal with his son Matt and his brother in law steve. I was told not many Ausables were made? What is your thoughts and experience about Leonard Ausable?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Greg Reynolds		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1900 03/04/2009 20:05 Orvis Database Founder	Because of friendships made on the forum and the resulting outings we've had, I've had the opportunity to cast a wide spectrum of rods. It's always a treat and there haven't been too many that I didn't enjoy. I still lust for a few like the lovely pre-fire Leonard 38L owned by Sal Fontanalis. The thing that strikes me though, is that one of the few rods that I truly dislike--a major disappointment-- is one of the most popular models here on the forum. I won't mention which one for fear of hate mail or being run off the board...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
bobbeegee		#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2455 03/04/2009 20:50	Greg Reynolds wrote: Because of friendships made on the forum and the resulting outings we've had, I've had the opportunity to cast a wide spectrum of rods. It's always a treat and there haven't been too many that I didn't enjoy. I still lust for a few like the lovely pre-fire Leonard 38L owned by Sal Fontanalis. The thing that strikes me though, is that one of the few rods that I truly dislike--a major disappointment-- is one of the most popular models here on the forum. I won't mention which one for fear of hate mail or being run off the board... Ah, come on Greg. Tell us which one. If you don't like a particular rod, I don't think anyone is going to ostracize you for your opinion! bobbyg Go Heels!!!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
OnlyTrout		#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 55 03/04/2009 22:26	All this is very good reading and tells us how many different type of casters there are and proves why so many different rod makers can produce so many different types of rods to satisfy. I know I have become a better caster with age and that helps evaluate rods today much easier. I recall years ago casting a Dickerson received from M. Keane and hating it. I only lawn cast it and that was my first mistake. Also, bbamboo is right IMO in that you have to "find" the casting style for that rod and I did not give that rod enough time to find that out. So - not trying to offend anyone, I have owned two Howell rods, both 8 feet, one a 5 wt and one a 4 wt. I loved the 5 wt. and caught many fish with it. I tried for a number of years but hated the 4wt - just too slow for me. Some Leonards, Winstons and most all Youngs fit me well and I adore Jenkins.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
flyflingerandy1		#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 43 03/04/2009 22:27	Housatonic Quill, I have to ask, why would you own a rod and never fish it? Every fishing rod ever built was meant to be fished, and fished hard. I honestly couldn't live with myself buying a rod and NOT fishing it. Andy
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Classic Disappointments

Classic Disappointments

Quick Reply