Favorite Payne Rod(s)

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
kmgunn		#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 618 05/08/2008 09:07	I think the point is that a beveler allows the maker to adjust the changes as gradually or dramatically as desired, and to place those changes at any point on the rod. This is why the advent of the beveler produced great leaps in taper and action. Many Payne tapers change aggressively over a short section of the rod. This is especially true of the faster rods developed in the late forties and used through the end of the factory. Other rods, like the Parabolics, subtly go flat for a section before returning to a tapered section. Neither of these nuanced taper changes can be emulated identically if the changes are being implemented on a straight line in increments of five inches. Again- the intent is not to discredit a hand planed version of a Payne taper, only to recognize that they are different. Hal comes from the Catskill tradition, knows the tapers well, and uses this knowledge to make accurate and authentic recreations of classic Payne (and Leonard) tapers (on a beveler). I would love to hear his thoughts as well, but I don't think the concept is subjective.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Soft Hackle		#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1048 05/08/2008 13:20	I wasn't implying anything subjective about the process employed by Payne, just wondering how many deviations would be designed versus a straight taper measured every 5". I am probably over my head not having any rodmaking experience.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
canerodscom		#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1708 05/08/2008 15:22 Bamboo preacher	Interesting question, So I did some comparisions. Here are the numbers from Payne; figured in five inch increments for one of their popular 8' 4 weight rods. Tip Mid Butt 0 .052 .154 .238 5 .068 .168 .248 10 .088 .188 .260 15 .102 .198 .282 20 .116 .216 .298 23 .328 25 .130 .222 .328 30 .138 .232 .328 35 .144 .236 .328 Here are the numbers every three inches: 0" .052 3 .062 (5) .068 6 .072 9 .084 (10) .088 12 .094 15 .102 18 .110 (20) .116 21 .119 24 .127 (25) .130 27 .133 30 .138 33 .154 (35) .168 36 .163 39 .166 (40) .178 42 .186 45 .193 48 .200 (50) .207 51 .211 54 .218 (55) .219 57 .221 60 .227 63 .233 (65) .238 66 .240 69 .246 (70) .248 72 .253 75 .260 78 .273 (80) .282 81 .285 84 .294 (85) .298 88 .328 (90) .328 91 .328 94 .328 (95) .328 96 .328 Doggone if they don't match up nearly identically, within .001" or so at every station. The numbers get kinda screwy at the ferrules and the swell, but that's due to the drop over the ferrules and the placement of the swell in the butt. Still, I defy anyone to differentiate between the rod on 3" centers and the rod on 5" centers just by casting them. Now that's not to say that hand-planed copies of Payne rods are going to cast exactly like real Paynes. They probably will not. But the reason isn't the 5" taper vs. the 3" taper, it's the other magic that Payne built in. Sorry for the continued hijacking of this thread, Harry Harry Boyd maker@canerods.com http://www.canerods.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
kmgunn	hijacked!	#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 619 05/08/2008 15:57	Harry- I don't think you are Hijacking the thread at all. I think its fun to learn more, and I think your perspective is probably more valid than mine since you actually make rods. It looks like the rod you measured is a 200. This rod had more than one incarnation, but was traditionally a light to medium action rod during all of the major Payne (no pun intended) eras. The 200 is one of those rare rods that stays close to the same taper in the 30's, 50's and 70's. with some slight variation. I'd be interested to see how your test holds up to a Parabolic, and a post 50's model 98. The Parabolic series has significant changes through the taper. I heard two things from Dave Decker which may or may not be applicable. He said that the Payne beveler was set in regular one inch increments, but the rod patterns were rectified on three inch centers. I don't know what this means. Perhaps you do since you are a maker. Dave helped me identify a 7 foot 6 inch parabolic, and later helped me determine the model of another rod suspected to be a Canadian Canoe rod. It was not in fact a CC rod, but the differences in the taper between my rod and a CC were very subtle, and the changes in taper very close together. In doing both exercises, he showed me the places where the taper changed subtly, and explained how Payne's beveler changed in one inch increments. The Canadian Canoe was very similar to two other Payne tapers with some very slight differences that Dave pointed out. Again he said that the "patterns" were "rectified" on three inch centers, but the beveler had the ability to change on one inch increments. Perhaps you can clarify what he meant by "pattern" and "rectify" in this instance. Dave also said that all Payne rods are built in three inch increments for this reason. He said they had to test measure the rods at those points to let a rod go out. Could this be the rectifying he was talking about? Sadly, I can't ask Dave now... Marty- its time for you to come back to this. Like Soft Hackle, I am not a maker, but am fascinated with the process and the consistency achieved by makers like Jim Payne, and look forward to learning more... Last Edited By: kmgunn 05/08/2008 17:50. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
canerodscom		#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1709 05/08/2008 18:06 Bamboo preacher	kmgunn, I'm not sure what is meant by "rectified" either. But a "pattern" is a taper bar, or taper board. In using a mill to cut bamboo, a "pattern" passes under a roller. As the pattern increases in size it raises the cutter head and vice versa. The pattern can be made from nearly anything, but obviously metal patterns are more dimensionally stable than wood. I have only seen the Payne mill in pictures, but seem to remember that it used square metal pattern bars to raise and lower the cutters. Good catch on the Payne taper. It's part of the 200 family. I don't have the 3" pattern bar dimensions here for too many other Payne tapers, but agree that it would be interesting to check some of the other tapers. Harry PS -- I have cast several original Payne 101's and some really good copies made on 5" centers, and could not tell much casting difference, but that's just anecdotal. Harry Boyd maker@canerods.com http://www.canerods.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
amazingwoody	204L	#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 154 05/09/2008 07:10	I only own one Payne so my answer is easy. I have a MINT 204L refurbished by John Bradford. I fish it with a 4wt DT Sylk on an old twenties something St. George I bought from Hoagie. It, they, are an absolute joy to fish. I also owned an AJ 197 that I sold to a forum member. I really liked it but needed some cash at the time. Wish I never sold it. Just my two cents worth.................... the ever Amazingwoody "Far from being able to tie a fly, I can barely unzip one." John Voelker
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
mer		#27	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2993 05/09/2008 07:16	Thanks for posting that Harry, interesting fuel for the fire. I think Kirt may be onto something; it all depends on the rod. If one were to design a straight line taper rod (Howell?) it shouldn't make a difference if you made it on 1 inch stations or 12 inch stations as long as the forms were capable of holding the slope between the stations. Having 1 inch stations allows for greater tweaking, if desired. I imagine that depending on the material you made planing forms out of there is a practical limit on the spacing of the stations. The steel that is typically used (cold rolled), in the dimensions typically used (3/4 or 1 inch square), is a 5 inch spacing about the practical limit? What if you made them out of aluminum stock, say 1/2 x 1, oriented "tall" (1 inch vertically)? I think you could space adjusting screws a lot closer and have it actually work. Or make them out of a high density plastic. Based on the descriptions I've read of most bevellers, the cutters are fixed, the material is forced between them, how far into the cutters it goes is what sets the dimensions of the cane. One of the books on my shelf (don't recall which one) the rodmaker talks about getting one of the old timers bevellers and the original patterns, then tweaking tapers by filing off a little bit on the patterns. In theory, you could make a pattern that was on 1/4 centers, but is there a practical limit on how much is "too much"? I don't think I'd care to try and setup a set of 6 foot forms on 1 inch centers very often. Maybe once a year. Again, just random thoughts. This signature left intentionally blank.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
canerodscom		#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1711 05/09/2008 08:51 Bamboo preacher	mer, Steel planing forms work well with stations as close as 2.5". Some commercially available forms have adjustment screws every 2.5" on one end to accomodate placement of swells. They might work closer than that, but again, I'm not sure that working closer is necessary. (see #'s above) Besides, I don't want to make clones anyway. None of the rods I make is an exact copy of someone else's taper, or cosmetics. It's fun to think for one's self. Also, when we study the numbers above on 3" stations, we see that like most Payne tapers, this one is nearly exactly a straight taper in the butt section until you hit the beginning of the swell at 78". A little time with a micrometer and some graph paper will show that to be the case for Payne rods of every era and ilk. Harry Harry Boyd maker@canerods.com http://www.canerods.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
kmgunn	ok	#29	[url]	[-]
Posts: 620 05/09/2008 10:12	Harry- Somehow the " a little time with graph paper and a micrometer" sounds a bit condescending. I am not sure if you meant it that way, but I don't think its the spirit of this discussion. I also don't believe it's accurate to say that Paynes of "every era and every ilk" are "nearly exactly straight". As I mentioned, I sat with Dave Decker (who worked at Payne) and went over a Parabolic whose taper was markedly not nearly exactly straight. To address a separate point, I don't think anyone is impuning your right to interpret a taper, or to put your own personal stamp on it. This was never a qualitative discussion about the inferiority of hand made clones of Payne tapers though it was noted that there are differences. I think you acknowledged in an earlier post that Payne's rods are different from those made by hobbyists and professional makers who emulate his tapers, and attributed this to Payne's "magic". I think there is probably a bit of magic reflected in a combination of things: cane selection, tempering, taper, and other elements of workmanship learned over 50+ years of experience. That said, there are some tapers that are not "nearly exactly straight", and there are big changes in the tapers from the rods of the thirties to the rods made in fifties and later. I hope this thread can go on, and encourage new opinions, contributions and learning. I appreciate your input, and again acknowledge the value of your perspective as a maker, but I don't think that means the conversation should stop, and we should all be relegated to private time with graph paper and a micrometer...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
mer		#30	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2996 05/09/2008 10:41	Since Harry was responding to my comment, let me state that I did not find his "graph paper and micrometer" to be anything other than a statement of fact. I read it as Harry saying that if one had the time and opportunity to measure the butt section of as many Payne rods as they could and graphed them, that they would show a straight line taper from the ferrule up to the swell in the butt. Did he mean that there were no variations at all? Probably not, but given that most parabolics don't increase or decrease in dimension in the butt section, an engineer could very easily make the case that they do show a straight line taper, just one with a zero slope. I'm taking away two things from Harry's reply: 1. If one is interested in making rods as a serious business or hobby, you really should measure and graph every rod you can get your hands on. Not just the ones you want to build or the ones you like, but every one. It builds your knowledge base, eventually something clicks and lets you make sense of the data. 2. It may or may not make a difference if you measure/build on 1 inch stations than on 5 inch stations. "In theory (where everything works)" it probably does, practically it may not. I'm sure that even with Terry A's CNC machine there is a limit as to the delta that can be cut between 2 points. It may be more of a practical limit that takes into account binding and gluing, but I'm pretty sure there is some limit. But, if everyone here that has an original Payne would send them to me, I will gladly spend some time with graph paper and micrometer, measuring at every half inch, and graphing them. If you also send along the appropriate reel and line I will test them on the water too. This signature left intentionally blank.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
canerodscom		#31	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1712 05/09/2008 10:53 Bamboo preacher	kmgunn, Sorry if that sounded condescending. I did not mean it that way at all. If it sounded that way, please forgive me. And perhaps I painted with too broad a brush. Still, all the Payne tapers I have seen -- in the butt sections -- are largely straight tapers from the ferrule to swell. They aren't perfectly straight, but pretty close. And as almost straight tapers, as Mer says, it matters not whether they are cut on 1" or 10" centers. Tip sections on Payne rods are different critters. They are difficult to replicate exactly on 5" centers. The major change in two piece Payne tip sections doesn't fall at a multiple of 5" from the tiptop. Sometimes one can get closer by starting from the big end of the tip section, but not always. Like you, I hope the discussion will go forward. And again, if I sounded condescending I apologize. I'm far from an expert on Payne tapers. I just know I love them. They're such good tapers that they translate well into almost any format. Harry Harry Boyd maker@canerods.com http://www.canerods.com
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
czkid	Ain't Just Applicable to Payne... Either	#32	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3431 05/09/2008 11:03 Moderator	It should be pretty obvious to all... but much of the foregoing discussion applies to other makers as well... in particular Young, and probably Orvis, etc. I'm surprised that Mike Brooks has not jumped in here. He has worked on a number of my rods and comments on the fact that there are some surprising "complex tapers" (as he calls the blanks cut on less than 5 inch centers). Mike is a big Payne fan, so I would hope he jumps in here with both feet. Ralph
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
kmgunn		#33	[url]	[-]
Posts: 621 05/09/2008 11:04	Thanks Harry. Communication is a two way street, and it sounds like some of the misinterpretation might have been on my end. Your most recent description also sheds some light on my earlier question. Some of the more aggressive tapers of the later Paynes have extreme changes in the tapers of the tip. Knowing that you were only referring to the lower sections helps me bridge the gap between my questions and your answers. If anyone has put a micrometer to a Payne parabolic, or Canadian Canoe rod, please speak up. I'd like to hear how the taper carries over regular measurements on those two rods. While some of the Payne tapers might have straight or gradual changes, I don't think that is true on many of their rods. Last Edited By: kmgunn 05/09/2008 11:44. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
mer		#34	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2997 05/09/2008 11:11	Ralph, Mike does a very nice job with Payne tapers. When we were out at Potter Cty (probably 3 years ago now) Rolf cast my Mike Brooks Payne100 against his original Payne 100; seems Mike pretty much nailed the rod. This signature left intentionally blank.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Soft Hackle		#35	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1049 05/09/2008 11:29	I would bet that Harry is correct. I trust his experience and feel it very likely most trout rods other than parabolics are straight tapers, allowing for swelled butts of course.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
mvbrooks		#36	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1653 05/09/2008 13:15	Not necessarily true. I have had the privilege to mic a lot of Payne's and most were compound tapers. And, they were not cut on 5" or 6" stations. Anyone with a planing form (Payne didn't even own one) can plane a compound taper by "slipping" the strips in the form. I have done this for "one off" rods and experimental tapers and know of several builder's who only plane and do this all the time...e.g. plane compound tapers. By moving the strip and inch forward and back, you can easily plane the most complex taper. A good hand planer can do anything anyone with a saw or beveller can do.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
mer		#37	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2999 05/09/2008 14:55	I'd bet the handplaner would have a bigger smile when they're done. Actually, going way back, pre Holden perhaps, weren't most of the "planing forms" actually shorter taper blocks with multiple grooves and you had to move the strip around to get the desired taper? This signature left intentionally blank.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
john channer		#38	[url]	[-]
Posts: 575 05/09/2008 22:30	I just thought I would point out that while it's true that bevellers can be set to 1" increments, it's not entirely true that steel forms cut a series of straight lines. When you adjust one station more than the ones on either side of it you will get a curve in the bars rather than a kink, so when you set a taper that is anything other than an even increase in dimension you will get a series of waves , not zig zags(excuse the scientific language). This makes a hand planed taper not quite the simplistic series of straight lines 5" long that it appears to be. This is most notable in swelled butts, when you look at a large swell made on a planing form, the bamboo curves upward from the smaller dimension to the larger. Those who have forms who want to play with this effect, set a large swell in the forms that you can easily see, then see what happens when you play with the next station that would be under the cork. If you set it to the same dimension as the one in front of it, you will get a concave curve in the swell, if you adjust it smaller than the one in front you will start to get a convex curve to the swell. john
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Al Nixon		#39	[url]	[-]
Posts: 15 05/09/2008 23:35	Here's one part of the test of how close planing forms can hit the 3-inch or 1-inch increment dimensions. A couple of us could do this and report our results: We use the dimensions for that #200 and set our forms to .5 of them at 5 inch increments. Use an extra fine Sharpie pen to mark the forms at 1-inch intervals (easily removed with alcohol). Then measure at each station with our depth gages, compare to the target dimensions and report our results, estimated to the 1/10-thousands. This suggests how close we can get to the targets for a certain Payne rod, reveals stations that prove to be problematic, and starts a dialog on how to better hit the numbers; EG: maybe set up the 5" lines away from the adjusting screws for some sections, etc. This is a bit of work to do this, so maybe we could do the mid and the tip only. By the way, I'm looking at an Excel chart with seven 8-1/2 foot rods plotted at 5-inch increments, including Garrison, Gillum, Payne, Dickerson, and Halstead. Though none of the rods have sections that are straight, per se, the Garrison and Dickerson have the straightest butt tapers by far. The Garrison rod is "quite straight" looking through all 3 sections. The Payne #204 butt taper is not straight; it's generally concave with changes to the slopes. The mid section is generally convex. The tip is complex; overall it could be said to be convex, but that is an over-simplification since it probably has 5 identifiable slope changes. It's a challenge on planing forms. And you need to place that final slope change located nearest the tip top correctly. Those of us who own the rods that we attempt to replicate have an advantage, but I can tell you that I do not cherish the idea of applying my metal dial caliper jaws to the original varnish on a James Payne rod. Add to that the further risks of taking readings across all three spots per station, and doing this at 1-inch increments....YIKES.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Al Nixon		#40	[url]	[-]
Posts: 16 05/10/2008 00:05	Oh, yeah. Realizing that I contributed to the hi-jacking of the topic of this thread, now I'll answer the original question: # 98. It was 39 years ago, and I was only 18 years old at the time, but if there ever was a rod that was well suited to an impatient, high strung teenager, that's it. I only hope it was as good as I remember ( I no longer have it). I had a Payne 98 when I was 18. 18! Looking back, that's just wrong. Cost me 42 dozen dry flies; a bargain. Fished the Beaverkill River with a Payne #98. Time. stood. still.
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

Favorite Payne Rod(s)

Quick Reply