8 1/2' Granger vs 9'

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Armchair Angler	8 1/2' Granger vs 9'		Lead	[-]
Posts: 44 05/16/2008 22:40	Tags : None I've got a 9 ft Granger Victory that I really like with a 6 wt line. Its heavy but I can really feel the rod load, which is why I like it. I've not had an opportunity to try an 8 1/2 ft, 6 weight. People seem to rave about them and they are twice, if not three times, more expensive than the 9 footers. Are they that much "sweeter" than the 9 footers? Or is the price difference just reflective of the number of 9 footer's made and the fact that, the longer the rod; the cheaper they get?? Thanks, Bob
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
teter		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 958 05/16/2008 23:09	I'm speaking only generally, but yes, I would say the difference in the very large price disparity is MOSTLY because the longer the rod, the less demand there is for it. For people who like longer fly rods, this is a good thing. The difference between an 8642 and a 9050 is, of course, half an ounce - not something most people are going to notice. All in all, I would rather have an 8 1/2-foot rod than a 9-foot rod. But then I generally prefer 8 1/2-footers even over 8-foot and 7 1/2-foot rods, for reasons that I can't clearly explain.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Ben Kann	8 1/2' vs 9 1/2' grangers	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 72 05/17/2008 00:37	I've used (and praised) my 9 1/2' granger for some time--mostly for the same reasons you give. I recently acquired an 8 1/2' granger and think it is a much sweeter and more versatile rod--it can do almost anything well from dry fly with 5 wgt to weighted wooly buggers with 6 wgt. It's worth the extra money (as a tool; not just a "collectible") Ben
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Nympher1	GG 8642	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 250 05/17/2008 09:05	As I've stated in other Granger threads, I can't say enough about my GA 8642... it is a sweet sweet rod, one of the lightest feeling 8.5 footer I've handled.. very crisp caster that, as Ben stated, handles DT5 and DT6 equally well, though my preference is the 5wt...If you try one I think you will love it.. regards, ron
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
doloresboy		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 360 05/17/2008 09:17	I would like to preface this by saying I am not a Granger fanatic. I have 7 1/2 and 8' rods of other makers that I like more than the Grangers that I have. However, I have not found a better 8 1/2' rod that I like better than the 8642. In fact, I've gotten rid of a Payne 204 and quit looking for other 8 1/2' rods just because the 8642 works so well in so many applications. Can't say I have tried the 9050. Matt
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Boonut		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 199 05/17/2008 09:51	While on this subject. Did Granger weigh their rods differently than others? Maybe the weight is just the blank? I cast a 9050, and though I didn't weigh it. I thought it was heavier than 5 oz.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
doloresboy		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 361 05/17/2008 10:12	I recall reading somewhere that the weights listed in their catalogs were withour the reel seats. I just weighed my 8040, 7633 and 7030 on a postal scale and here are the results: 8040 4.5 oz. 7633 3.9 oz. 7030 3.6 oz. All have the uplocking reel seat AND all have been refinished so the above weights may be inconsistent with originals. Matt
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
arkriver	81/2 and 9' Grangers	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 26 05/17/2008 11:01	One of the 9 footers that I like to use is my GS9043. It is only 1/4 oz heavier than the 81/2 foot Grangers. Casts great with a DT5 and has a little more guts when the wind is howling. I have seven 81/2 footers, 4 Grangers and 3 Phillipsons and I use them all, they are the best western river rods ever made.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
bobbeegee		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1639 05/17/2008 11:26	As I recall from reading Colorado Classic Cane, Granger and Wright and McGill ads stated you needed to add 1/2 oz. to the weight of the rod for the reel seat. That would be approximate. As to the 8 1/2' Granger taper, in my opinion, you would be hard pressed to find a better one. Maybe equal, but not much better. Love my old GC8642. Bob
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
flyfisher43		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 9 05/17/2008 11:31	After purchasing an 8 1/2' Victory over ten years ago, I sold my 9' Aristocrat because the 8642 was so much more versatile and fun to cast. I also love my 7 1/2' and 8' Grangers...but "Oh, you 8 1/2' kid!"
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Armchair Angler	looking for comparisons	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 45 05/17/2008 12:12	Thank you for your replies - I do appreciate your time! However... your replies are mostly praising the 8 1/2 footers. I guess what I'm looking for is/are direct comparisons between the 9' vs 8 1/2', 6 wts. i.e. "the 9 footer is nice but the 8 1/2' blows its doors off". Over the yrs, I've read countless praises for the latter and very few discussions about the former. Maybe there inlies my answer. On the other hand, very few 9 ft rods are ever discussed. I was just wondering if the 8 1/2 footer really is head and shoulders above the 9' or is that just a perception because the upper limit for many bamboo users is 8 1/2'. Maybe my answer is in Ron's and Matt's replies: Ron - "my GA 8642... it is a sweet sweet rod, one of the lightest feeling 8.5 footer I've handled". & Matt -" I've gotten rid of a Payne 204 and quit looking for other 8 1/2' rods just because the 8642 works so well in so many applications". The 9 footer is a bit heavy (although, I get used to it after about 15 minutes) and I've handled a 204 and thought it was Heaven on Earth. I really do have to get my hands on one of these things!! Thanks again, Bob
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Armchair Angler		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 46 05/17/2008 12:32	Thanks F.F.43! You slipped that post in while I was writing my last reply. Can I ask - what makes it so much more "versatile"? Thanks, Bob Last Edited By: Armchair Angler 05/17/2008 12:36. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
flyfisher43		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 10 05/17/2008 14:12	I consider it versatile because it allows me to cast close in, using little more than leader, on smaller streams but also to reach out on larger water. Depending on the kind of water and conditions--e.g., wind, room to backcast--I've successfully used a 5 WF, 5DT (mostly), or 6 WF. The 9050's weight didn't bother me; but I sold it because the 8642 loaded as well and gave me more options during the course of a day's fishing in the high country (when I knew I wouldn't be limited to the type of water better suited to my 7633 or 8040. Hope this helps, Bob.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Flyman615	8642 vs. 9050	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2706 05/18/2008 17:08	Some good points have been made on this thread. IMHO, however, comparing the 9050 and the 8642 is a bit like apples and oranges. I've fished both for over 30 years and frankly, I've never found the 8642 to be a true 6 wt. ("They're five weights," according to my late friend Phil Snyder, and I tend to agree), while most 9050's perform best with a DT 6. I also believe the 8642 taper to be more versatile in most trout fishing situations. But on a big river, or when there's wind, the 9050 comes into its own. Finally, I find the 8642 to be less tiring to fish all day. Is there an 8 1/2-foot rod that's comparable? Yes, the two-piece Orvis Limestone Special. Regards, Flyman
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Armchair Angler		#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 49 05/18/2008 22:47	Thanks for elaborating FF43! Flyman, good stuff. I guess whether the 8.5 footer is a 5 or a 6 was less important to me. I've seen it (as we've seen here) get discussed as both a 5 and/or a 6 wt. I guess what I was getting at was this - as far as I know the 9050 is the next model up the line from the 8642. The 8642 has gotten a lot of positive ink and is much more expensive. I really like the way my 9050 handles and feels, so I was wondering if the 8642 really is that much sweeter or if they're actually pretty close and maybe the 9 ft rods just aren't as popular (just because it's 9 ft) and therefore they don't get talked about much and are consequently cheaper. Your comments and many of the other folks who responded convinced me that I need to take a look at one of these things (and apparently a Limestone Special too.) Thanks to all that responded! Bob
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

8 1/2' Granger vs 9'

8 1/2' Granger vs 9'

Quick Reply