| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 czkid |
PHY Perfectionist Action |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 4126 08/06/2007 19:11 Moderator |
Please iterate your impressions of your experience casting the various Perfectionist originals AND clones please. I finally got an opportunity to cast my 5wt clone for a few hours on stream and I want to verify my impressions.
Petri Heil, Ralph |
|||
|
|
||||
 tapermaker |
Re: PHY Perfectionist Action | #1 | ||
|
Posts: 841 08/06/2007 23:10 |
May i ask who made your clone ?
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
czkid |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 2914 08/08/2007 17:36 Moderator |
OK what happened to all the other replies????? Hopefully the migration isn't over???
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
bobbeegee |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 981 08/08/2007 19:50 |
May I also ask who made the clone?
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
poudre1 |
#4 | |||
|
Posts: 47 08/08/2007 23:37 |
I would pretty much agree with Rob's description of the the PHY Perfectionist. Even comparing a Summers 275 to the original, the original is more powerful
but still sweet casting. I have cast a few "improved" versions of the PHY family and only the Summers 856 is superior to the original. I have two
Perfectionists, a 2 1/2 oz and a 2 7/8 oz (the famous 275 version) both of these rods have size 14 ferrules and are from 1967 in Bob Summers hand. I like them
with a Rio Selective Trout WF4 line.
I disagree with the Martha Marie assessment however, owning one and casting my buddies 1950's rod. I feel that the late '50s rod is very full flexing parabolic. My rod which is a '67, feels like a Para 15 with the dry tip that is 6" shorter. Mine is almost clubby feeling and heavy in the tip. My two least favorite of the PHY rods is the Para 15 (I have a 1967) and the Martha Marie. They certainly cast well and have tremendous power, however, you have to work for it. These are just my thoughts, Dave |
|||
|
|
||||
|
quashnet |
#5 | |||
|
Posts: 1361 08/09/2007 01:31 Moderatus Muscae |
It's worth keeping in mind the variety found in the Young rod models, never mind the clones to which they may be compared. Young continued to experiment
and build variations even on his standard, cataloged models. There were at least two basic PHY Perfectionists, on which the Summers 260 and 275 models are
based. Both the Driggs and the Martha Marie started out as lighter rods than they later became. The Martha Marie began as a rod with a 13/64 ferrule and 4
tiptop, became a 14 ferrule and 4-1/2 tiptop rod, and then in the late 1950's the MM could be ordered in a "Featherweight Deluxe" model with
aluminum ferrules and two different tips, one for HDH and one for HEH lines. Bob Summers has said that there were no less than six different versions of the
PHY Para 15. A three-tip Para 15 model was offered in the 1952 catalog. I have owned a lightweight, aluminum-ferruled, four-piece Para 15 (Young-built) and a
heavy Summers-built Para 15 with two wet tips designed for night fishing for big browns on the Manistee River; two very different rods. This can be distressing
if you seek standardization, and exciting if you value experimentation.
Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of 290 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories,
etc. Thank you to all who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
creakycane |
#6 | |||
|
Posts: 967 08/09/2007 10:07 |
In these various incarnations of the Young rods, changing the butt swell (or regression), as well as the tip diameter - either even a little bit - can change
what one might call a "parabolic" feeling rod to a more dry fly action rod pretty fast. If the tip is thin, the rod will work off the tip and feel
tippy and crisp (unless the butt gives with only a minumal amount of line out - then the worry is that the tip might be too fine). If the tip is thick
(relatively), then the rest of the rod starts to activate at even short distances - and if design is not optimized - the rod will have that loggy feeling
associated with some full- parabolics. As the Young catalogs discuss, I have no doubt that the compund tapers (and selection of Ferrule stations and spacing)
can impact the feel. However, my conversations with Marty Keane over the years always seemed to come back to Marty's feeling that it was the cane
selection. Even the description of the Perfectionist in a Young Catalog I have here (blue cover, date unknown) discusses the cane selection, power fibers etc.
All business, very technical about the culm size and cross section and power fibers.. As a matter of fact, this excellent catalog is a revelation in terms of
cane selection, rod construction, rod action etc etc. Not alot of babble about wraps colors, or engraved ferrules, or how much you will be gouged for a fancy
case
 They mention in the catalog that none of the rods are full
parabolic, but all are modified parabolic action rods, to varying degrees. So this term "parabolic" is not black or white - it's shades of gray,
in practice. None are fully parabolic. IMHO, the Para 15 and Driggs I would describe as "parabolic feeling"; the Midges or Perfectionists I have seen
I would not describe as "parabolic feeling" - to me, to call them parabolic is misleading solely because in my mental classification there are so
many other rods that are "more" parabolic. Another inviduals mental library of tapers and how they feel may differ!......The MM (one orig and 3
copies) I would not describe as parabolic either - but reduce the butt dia by .02" and I may change my mind in a hurry!
I just received a Spittler 8' 5 wt 3 pc from a board member (what a pleasant transaction) and took the rod in the yard with a few others. I strung it up with a DT5 along side a Jennings 8' 5 wt and Jenkins 8' 4/5 wt both with DT5's. Wiggling the Spitter in the house, I would not generally describe it as parabolic feeling, but casting it, compared with the Jennings (a crisp, medium fast action with most of the fex in the upper half of the rod) and the Jenkins (a little more full flexing but similar), the Spittler felt quiteparabolic to me (powerful, rythmic full rod action). Definately a heavier feeling rod, also a quad, also hollow-built - so lots of variables here, but the general feel, in comparison, is parabolic. Again, I'm talking feel here, not science. Now, string up a Summers 260 with a DT4 and cast next to the Spittler, and my tendency to describe the Spittler as a parabolic-feeling rod diminishes with the MORE parabolic 260, arguably the most parabolic rod I own. Wow, a bit too much coffee today......... So, does Marty get his emphasis on cane selection from the Young catalogs, or is there really something about the Young rods that the copies aren't capturing adequately, or is it all romantic bs?
Last Edited By: creakycane 08/09/2007 19:06.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Tom Smithwick |
#7 | |||
|
Posts: 331 08/09/2007 10:55 |
The two tapers are from rod DNA. There are real differences in the tapers. Rod 1 is .203 in the middle, which is a 13 ferrule. I would consider this to be a mild progressive rod, similar to a Garrison. Rod 2 is .218 in the middle, which is a 14 ferrule. The strong middle and strong tip would qualify this as a parabolic design for sure. Yes, you can get into "when does a knife become a sword?" type of arguments. Some rods do feel more parabolic than others. I think length has something to do with it, too. To get the full slow flexing, but still powerful feel of a parabolic a certain amount of length is necessary. There would certainly be other factors, too. You can argue about tolerances and variations between rods, but in the case of these two rods, I think you are looking at deliberate design differences. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
canerodscom |
#8 | |||
|
Posts: 1385 08/09/2007 11:00 Bamboo preacher |
Folks,
A few replies to this thread were made during the transition from EZ Board to Yuku. If your response no longer appears here, would you mind reposting your thoughts? Thanks, Harry Boyd
Harry Boyd
maker@canerods.com http://www.canerods.com |
|||
|
|
||||
|
nohackle |
#9 | |||
|
Posts: 532 08/09/2007 13:24 |
Harry,
I had one of those posts which vanished. I was agreeing with Jaybird, a very fine builder in his own right and someone who has cast a whole lot of rods in his time, that the description of semiparabolic given to most perfectionist clones has me scratching my head as well. I fully understand that Mr. Young's rods varied quite a bit and that everyone's own idea of ideal rod action will influence how they make their own copies but I've cast a bunch of perfectionist clones and some originals and I have yet found one that is anything but a very nice medium fast progressive taper and much more similar than dissimilar. The only exception is that rod of yours which is the only "perfectionist" I've fished that I would classify as a 4 wt ( ok, 4.5 wt  )
My guess is the Ralph had picked up that perfectionist with an expectation based on the usual " got to get your timing just so", "flexes well into the butt when you push it " reviews most folks here use when talking about their new perfectionist clone. It is a great classic taper, especially nice for someone new to bamboo but not usually close to common descriptions. Curious dichotomy and I have my own evil theories . 
that was about the gist of my post and not to embarrass you any that rod of yours has become a true extension of my right hand. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
bobbeegee |
#10 | |||
|
Posts: 983 08/09/2007 18:51 |
P.S. Sorry for the double post! Thought the first one was lost. This new format appears to be a little slow at present!
Last Edited By: bobbeegee 08/09/2007 19:16.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
czkid |
#11 | |||
|
Posts: 2918 08/09/2007 21:23 Moderator |
This string goes a long way to accentuate the fact that you need to cast a rod before you buy it. Not a "similar" rod, but the very rod you intend to
purchase. The learned discussions go a long way to illustrating how rods with the same name may have extremely different casting characteristics. The
Perfectionist case may be a bit extreme, but if we consider the variations of opinion on various Orvis rod's casting characteristics I think we start to
get an appreciation of how much difference the culm might contribute. Wouldn't it be interesting to have Orvis build 10 copies of the same taper, at the
same time, with the same process... and then cast the results? I would suspect we'd all be amazed at the results.
One of the folks here mentions the fact that making rods on forms with taper variations at different centers produces a very different rod. Mike Brooks has commented on a couple of rods that I had him work with that they were of a "compound taper" where the variations were introduced every 2 inches. Some folks poo-poo things like that, but believe me, if a thud like I am can feel the difference, there has to be a real difference. What we need to really know from this is: "What's in a name?" Obviously with products with a supposed PHY pedigree a wide variation of things. Ralph |
|||
|
|
||||
|
uniphasian |
#12 | |||
|
Posts: 1681 08/13/2007 20:26 Moderator |
poudre1 may have one
- Uni
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
spruce grouse |
#13 | |||
|
Posts: 709 08/13/2007 22:44 |
uniphasian wrote: at least
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
poudre1 |
#14 | |||
|
Posts: 50 08/13/2007 23:18 |
uniphasian wrote: What's a Driggs?
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
quashnet |
#15 | |||
|
Posts: 1374 08/13/2007 23:28 Moderatus Muscae |
What's a Driggs?
Sort of a cross between a pool cue and a cattle prod, with some funny metal loops attached. I hear it's used for catching those fish with spots on 'em.
Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of 290 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories,
etc. Thank you to all who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
slomoshun27 |
#16 | |||
|
Posts: 24 08/14/2007 00:19 |
The closest I can come to relevance in this conversation is to thank Bobeegee because I am also unable to generate those Martin
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Bucky |
#17 | |||
|
Posts: 23 08/15/2007 09:05 |
The first rod I built was a Perfectionist using Howell's taper from "The Lovely Reed". Since then I have wiggled and casted at least 5 other
clones and a couple with altered dimensions. One was made as a true 4 weight. Every one of them are different than the true taper I was able to cast last
year. As a hobbiest builder, one of the things I have discovered about cane is that a similar taper built by different hands will all feel different. Some of
them were nice tapers and some seemed not to have a lot of backbone.
Eric |
|||
|
|
||||
|
bobbeegee |
#18 | |||
|
Posts: 996 08/15/2007 20:47 |
I would agree that the major contributor to the different actions experienced on supposedly the same taper would be the bamboo culm used to make the rod. I
would suppose that Mr. Young used the same aged Tonkin Cane for his Perfectionists? Most all clones are made of Tonkin, but not necessarily
the right Tonkin for Mr. Young's Perfectionist taper. I can think of no other material used in construction that would cause this
anomaly? Of course, no two rodmakers have the same hand. Even Mr. Young's hand may have been slightly lighter or heavier on any given day. Just a thought. Bob 
Last Edited By: bobbeegee 08/15/2007 21:35.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
quashnet |
#19 | |||
|
Posts: 1379 08/15/2007 21:57 Moderatus Muscae |
On page 6 of the circa 1954-55 PHY Co. catalog (photo of Ned Jewett on the front cover, holding an Atlantic salmon), Paul Young stated four rodmaking
considerations that guided his work:
"The critical selection of cane, the precision with which it is worked, the perfection of glueing and, equally important, the design of each model for a specific use...." An illustrated essay titled "How the Finest Rods are Made" reviewed Young's efforts in these four areas. Regarding the cane, Young was looking for "dense thick-walled butts, from which all rods we turn out, even the little ones, are made." Young stated that "our importers receive orders only for extra select, 2-1/4" - 2-1/2" butts, 9'3" long, which are infinitely better than the cane imported in quantity and in general use." Perhaps a rodmaker or angling historian could say whether these culms truly were "infinitely better," but clearly they were quite good. I believe that even within that stockpile of cane, some culms were rated better than others. Bob Summers told me that my Martha Marie (built by Summers) was a special order for an important client, and so the best cane in the shop was used, implying that some culms were judged to be better than others. But the best material in the world was of no use without the tools and the skills to work it. It is true that "Mr. Young's hand may have been slightly lighter or heavier on any give day." Aside from random variances, it is also true, as I have already pointed out, that Young kept experimenting with tapers while retaining model names. He seems also to have varied rod designs for clients with specific needs; for example, he reduced weight and modified tapers to try to get better results for clients with shoulder bursitus or other physical challenges.
Quashnet's Paul H. Young Rod Database has photos and descriptions of 290 PHY Co. rods, plus catalogs, accessories,
etc. Thank you to all who continue to send me PHY rod photos and info.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
canerodscom |
#20 | |||
|
Posts: 1396 08/15/2007 22:05 Bamboo preacher |
Interesting too, that it is widely rumored that the infamous "ring of fire" was designed not only to temper the cane, but also to disguise certain
cosmetic blemishes. All manor of variables result in different feelings rods; tapers, glues, heat treating, cane density, phase of the moon, and the list goes
on. Please don't take this as a criticism of Young rods. I just think the mojo is the chief factor in what makes them so special.
Harry
Harry Boyd
maker@canerods.com http://www.canerods.com |
|||
|
|
||||
