| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 troutist |
Orvis 7-1/2 ft 3-1/4 oz Superfine - taper vs Battenkill.. |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 162 08/06/2008 05:16 |
Hi, just picked up a nice 7.5' Superfine, 50,xxx and fished it. It seems like the action is different than a 7-1/2 ft Battenkill/Madison (which I don't
have anymore) marked for a 6 wt with a slower more parabolic feel. Btw, a wf5 fished very nicely. Am I correct or just imagining it?
Thanks, Paul |
|||
|
|
||||
|
steeldog94 |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 63 08/06/2008 07:09 |
Yes they are different. I believe the superfine is based off the Deluxe which was designed by Lee Wulff; designed to be able to handle a salmon but delicate
enough for a brook trout. The Deluxe/Superfine is one my favorate Orvis tapers; of course I love the Battenkills also.
|
|||
|
|
||||
 Flyman615 |
7 1/2' Superfine | #2 | ||
|
Posts: 2842 08/06/2008 12:19 |
I agree. The 7 1/2-foot Superfine is probably my favorite Orvis taper.
Mine is #48xxx. I also fish it with a DT-5-F. It definitely has that "parabolic" feel. As far as I'm concerned, it's the quentessential Orvis trout rod. Regards, Flyman 
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Greg Reynolds |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 1759 08/06/2008 18:40 Orvis Database Founder |
FWIW, I think the 3 7/8-oz Battenkill and the 3 1/4-oz Superfine are built on the same 12/64-ferrule taper. I've cast both and own the latter. The catalogs
described both actions as medium and give no indication that the Superfine is anything other that a lightweight version of the Battenkill.
The three 2-piece Superfines were first cataloged in 1967. I believe this was an introduction in name only, and that they're built on the last iteration of the Deluxe tapers introduced in 1963. Orvis revised many of their tapers in 1963 in response to AFTMA line standardization. The Lee Wulff -Wes Jordan collaboration was on the original 6 1/2-foot, 2-oz Deluxe introduced in 1952. It's a more delicate taper than the later 2 1/4-oz version. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
slw |
Superfine/Battenkill | #4 | ||
|
Posts: 91 08/06/2008 19:05 |
For about 4 1/2 years from 1975-79 I worked my way through college by managing the tackle/fly tying section of the Orvis Shop in Indianapolis, IN. During that
time I had the opportunity to own, use, and handle a bunch of Orvis rods. Among the rods I owned and fished were both the 7 1/2' 2 pc. Superfine and
it's 7 1/2' Battenkill counterpart. The Superfine was was my favorite of the two. Don Owens was the Orvis rep for the Shop program at that time and was
as well plugged in with all things Orvis as anyone could be.
I brought up this very subject with Don one day when he was visiting. He winked and said they were the same rod except for the obvious difference in grip and reelseat. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Flyman615 |
My imagination? | #5 | ||
|
Posts: 2844 08/06/2008 19:21 |
Maybe it's the grip. Or perhaps the lighter reelseat. Or could it be just what is (or isn't) between my ears?
In any case, I sure like casting my 7 1/2-foot Superfine a lot better than a 3 7/8 oz. 7 1/2-foot "99" I once owned. Regards again, Flyman 
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
slw |
Superfine/Battenkill | #6 | ||
|
Posts: 92 08/06/2008 20:00 |
It could be most anything.
 The Superfine that I liked so much
seemed...uhmmm...faster, quicker..than it's Battenkill cousins that I also fished. Perhaps because of the lighter weight or the shorter grip. I think
it's worth considering that there can be a fair amount of difference between individual rods within a particular model (particularly in production rods?)
to account for any of us finding a favorite rod.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
RonT1 |
#7 | |||
|
Posts: 456 08/06/2008 20:17 |
It is my understanding that the 7 1/2' Battenkill is/was available with either 12 or 13/64 ferrules. How does the superfine compare with the smaller
(12/64ths) of the two ?
R |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Greg Reynolds |
#8 | |||
|
Posts: 1760 08/06/2008 21:03 Orvis Database Founder |
The 7-1/2-foot, 4-oz, 13/64 model has graphite-fast action. I have one and it's a cannon--not at all like the 12/64 taper. I really like it and can justify
having both tapers.
The 7 1/2-foot Superfine is my current favorite, but it took time and a fairly heavy reel (3 1/8-inch Uniqua) before I was comfortable with it. I think it's at the design limit for the lightweight "Superfine" concept and was extremely tip-heavy with the LRH Lightweight I initially used. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Flyman615 |
Superfine balance | #9 | ||
|
Posts: 2847 08/06/2008 22:37 |
Hey Greg:
One of the best things about my Superfine is that I really like its "tip heaviness". No kidding...I'm not saying that just to pull your chain! In fact, I use a CFO III on it because my LRH is way too heavy. 
Best regards, Scott 
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Boo.fiberglassflyro... |
Superfine vs Battenkill | #10 | ||
|
Posts: 26 08/06/2008 23:50 |
My experience with both rods has been the same as the others, and I did side by side comparisons. The Superfines and Deluxe rods felt faster/stiffer than the 7
1/2ft Battenkill.
I actually prefer the Battenkill, one reason is because of the fuller flex, it felt lighter, less tip heavy than the Superfine I believe because of the walnut reel seat which to me balances the whole rod better. And I really don't like those Superfine grips to fish all day. They're just too small. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
RonT1 |
#11 | |||
|
Posts: 457 08/07/2008 13:37 |
Greg Reynolds wrote:Hot dang.... Have been fishing a DT 4 on my 12 ferrule with satisfactory results. Thanks for the info. R |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Greg Reynolds |
#12 | |||
|
Posts: 1761 08/07/2008 18:17 Orvis Database Founder |
Hi Ron. I also found that the Superfine casts a DT4 as well as the DT5 I've been using. I hadn't expected it. It's a great thing as it gives me a
good excuse to buy another vintage Hardy to load with a 4-wt line...
|
|||
|
|
||||
