fiberglass rods?

[Mu Young Lee]

Anyone out there recently purchased a modern fiberglass rod? Your
thoughts?

Mu

[Wayne Knight]

"Mu Young Lee" > wrote in message
td.umich.edu...
> Anyone out there recently purchased a modern fiberglass rod? Your
> thoughts?
>

A "modern" fiberglass rod would be just like graphite rods Mu, many makers,
different actions, and of course different prices so a generalized answer is
hard to give. I've seen glass rods by the recently departed Russ Peake go in
excess of $750 (while he was still alive and making them) and they are fine
rods. I love my Winston Retro glass rod and my Winston Stalker but there is
a definite difference in the action in both rods in spite of the maker with
the Stalker being the slowest rod I've ever cast but these cost as much as
as most high end graphite rods . Scott used to make a decent glass rod and
the Hardy model is almost as sweet as the Winston retro models for much less
$$$ ( i assume Scott and Hardy still sell them). My personal favorite modern
glass rod is made by a guy named Dennis Franke who was making small numbers
out of Wisconsin but I think that endeaver has shut down but the rods can be
found. On the lower cost end Lamiglass still makes a fine casting stick.

I like fiberglass rods, especially when dry fly fishing but folks use to
fish the old Wonderod with big lines and bugs. Not that there's nothing
wrong with those old wonderods, they are still wonderful sticks.

[Bill Kiene]

Boy, we can't keep them in stock.........only kidding. I sold those old
fiberglass rods sense 1965 and they don't compare to a graphite for casting
or weight.

In small, short, light line rods, bamboo/split cane and fiberglass are
great.

Right now Cortland/Diamondback rods are making a nice series of small, soft
fiberglass rods that are $275US. They are wonderful on small water but not
for everyone. Kind of like the little 28 gauge shot gun.

--
Bill Kiene

Kiene's Fly Shop
Sacramento, CA
www.kiene.com

"Mu Young Lee" > wrote in message
td.umich.edu...
> Anyone out there recently purchased a modern fiberglass rod? Your
> thoughts?
>
> Mu

[Sierra fisher]

I built one a few years ago out of a modern blank. It was a 7' 4 wt for
fishing in brush. This is considered an ideal application for the more
flexible glass. The rod was way too flexible for me and I only used it once
or twice. My preferences are for fast rods, and this was just too much of a
contrast. I you're interested in a very lightly used 7' 4 wt for less than
$100, let me know
"Mu Young Lee" > wrote in message
td.umich.edu...
> Anyone out there recently purchased a modern fiberglass rod? Your
> thoughts?
>
> Mu


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/19/2003

[rw]

I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod, except maybe to hang it up on
the wall to impress other elitist snobs. Graphite fiber composite is a
far superior material.

I have three fiberglass flyrods, all dating from pre-graphite days. They
suck in comparison to graphite, so I don't even use them. They just take
up space. A fishing rod is a tool -- nothing more and nothing less --
and graphite fiber composite is the best available material at this
moment in time for making those tools.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Brimbum]

Mu wrote:>Anyone out there recently purchased a modern fiberglass rod? Your
>thoughts?
>

The last fiberglass rod I bought was built on an old Fisher blank and I found
it on e-bay. I like it a lot, but wish it were for a lighter line. it prefers a
6 weight weight forward line. I used Tom Brown's little Hardy 6.5 foot 3 weight
rod for an hour or so a couple of years ago and liked it a lot, but Hardy's
reel seat is butt ugly as far as I am concerned. You might want to check out
the new line of ?Glass rods that Diamondback is making. I cast one about a year
ago, but the day the rep came thry town the wind was blowing at least 40mph and
I could not tell a whole lot about it since it was a 4 weight rod. I have a
friend that had a little Scott 7 foot 3 weight rod that I loved...wonder what
happened to it after he passed away. Probably went to his son who never cared
anything about flshing. That **** happens. I like using fiberglass rods, but
seldom cast more than about 40 feet to play with the bluegills or silly little
trout that I prefer to catch. I find either the Fisher, Scott or Hardy in a
whole different class than the old Wonderods that I grew up with in the 50's.

Big Dale

[Frank Church]

"riverman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Warren" > wrote in message

re: Warren and riverman's advice to Shawn......about the best advice I've
read on roff in many a year, every now and then this "sludgepit" (sorry
wayno) :) is worth the time it takes to wade thru a lot of the "sludge". I
apologize for the flippant remark I made in reply to Shawn's posting about
his pending divorce. I'm going thru my 3rd one now and have forgotten the
absolute misery I went thru on the first one many years ago, with 3 small
children involved. Hang in there Shawn, and heed the good advice you have
already been given. Knowing I'm about to be thrown out in the cold once
more, my friends in ROFF are even more important now. I hope one day we can
meet up and wet a line together.

If this sounds maudlin, sue me. ;-)

Frank Church
....who will follow this with a military type joke, gotta lighten up this
morning.

[Yuji Sakuma]

I am not now, or ever have been, a sal****er fly fisher but I recall reading
in earlier times that some guides favored fibreglas over graphite because
fibreglas was less prone to breakage when playing large, powerful fish. If
this was ever true, it might not be true now since graphite rods have
presumably been under continuous development and improvement while fibreglas
has not.

Best regards,

Yuji Sakuma

================================================== ============
"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
> rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod, except maybe to hang it up on
> the wall to impress other elitist snobs. Graphite fiber composite is a
> far superior material.
>
> I have three fiberglass flyrods, all dating from pre-graphite days. They
> suck in comparison to graphite, so I don't even use them. They just take
> up space. A fishing rod is a tool -- nothing more and nothing less --
> and graphite fiber composite is the best available material at this
> moment in time for making those tools.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>

[Wayne P]

Had a rod blank manufacturer come to our fly fishing club meeting. When
asked about future technologies, he predicted that we would be seeing more
fiberglass rods. He said that todays resins/glues/etc are much better than
in the past and they think they can get fiberglass rods today that are way
better than any glass rods of past. . . . . we will see . . .

wayne


"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
> rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod, except maybe to hang it up on
> the wall to impress other elitist snobs. Graphite fiber composite is a
> far superior material.
>
> I have three fiberglass flyrods, all dating from pre-graphite days. They
> suck in comparison to graphite, so I don't even use them. They just take
> up space. A fishing rod is a tool -- nothing more and nothing less --
> and graphite fiber composite is the best available material at this
> moment in time for making those tools.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>

[Mu Young Lee]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, rw wrote:

> I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
> rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod,

Why does anyone buy an antique? Why buy a $12K Honda and then pay for
radical modifications when you could've just gotten a BMW? You see where
I'm going.

Anyway, I'm looking for a rod with slower action. Sage VPS Light or
Orvis Superfine may be suitable alternatives to fiberglass. Something in
5 or 6 wt.

Mu

[Ernie]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
> rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod, except maybe to hang it up on
> the wall to impress other elitist snobs. Graphite fiber composite is a
> far superior material.

Don't knock bamboo until you have fished up a small stream with a silk line.
It's classic.
Ernie

[CB]

If you like the VPS light, (old LL series), try a Sage SLT. I cast one at a
local show and it is a sweet rod in a 5wt.

Chris Brown


"Mu Young Lee" > wrote in message
pcc.itd.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, rw wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
> > rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod,
>
> Why does anyone buy an antique? Why buy a $12K Honda and then pay for
> radical modifications when you could've just gotten a BMW? You see where
> I'm going.
>
> Anyway, I'm looking for a rod with slower action. Sage VPS Light or
> Orvis Superfine may be suitable alternatives to fiberglass. Something in
> 5 or 6 wt.
>
> Mu

[Cornmuse]

"Mu Young Lee" > wrote in message
pcc.itd.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, rw wrote:> Anyway, I'm looking for a rod with slower
action. Sage VPS Light or
> Orvis Superfine may be suitable alternatives to fiberglass. Something in
> 5 or 6 wt.
>
> Mu

I own and have fished an Orvis Superfine "Far and Fine" for six years. It
is a lovely small stream rod. 5wt, full flex action that I love to cast.
Very easy to get into that groove. The rod serves well at distances to 50'
fishing smallmouth/trout/panfish on streams. I also have a couple old
Heddon and Shakespeare glass rods as well as a custom Lamiglass or two in
similar sizes that I either purchased new 30 years ago or more recently on
Ebay. The glass rods I own are workable, but no where near as delightful in
the hand as the F&F.

My $0.02. YMMV.

Joe C.

[Ernie]

"Cornmuse" > wrote in message
...
> I own and have fished an Orvis Superfine "Far and Fine" for six years. It
> is a lovely small stream rod. 5wt, full flex action that I love to cast.
> Very easy to get into that groove. The rod serves well at distances to
50'
> fishing smallmouth/trout/panfish on streams. I also have a couple old
> Heddon and Shakespeare glass rods as well as a custom Lamiglass or two in
> similar sizes that I either purchased new 30 years ago or more recently on
> Ebay. The glass rods I own are workable, but no where near as delightful
in
> the hand as the F&F.
> Joe C.

Joe,
My favorite glass rod is a six weight Fenwick Ferrulite which I built. I
put Fujii single foot guides on it and an up lock reel seat. It has
traveled a lot of trout streams with me.
Ernie

[Wayne Knight]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
> rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod,

How many times do you have to be reminded? there is nothing a graphite can
do better than a cane rod except they are easier to make, adapt better to a
3 or greater piece configuration, and have a faster action for those folks
who cannot learn or do not want to learn how to cast a fly properly.
Fiberglass rods, especially a well made one are joys to fish with, they tend
to be ugly as sin but still a joy.

> to impress other elitist snobs.

tell me, what makes an elitist snob? seems to a fairly common insult around
here.

>
> I have three fiberglass flyrods, all dating from pre-graphite days. They
> suck in comparison to graphite, so I don't even use them. They just take
> up space.

Why don't you do something useful with them like donate them to a fishing
club, scout troop, or some such group that might be able to use them.


> A fishing rod is a tool -- nothing more and nothing less

I've got a set of planes and an old set of lathe tools which are fairly old
and nothing more than tools. But they are better than any similar tools I've
ever used and they were given to me by a now long dead relative and
craftsman. In his hands they helped create some beautiful woodwork, they may
be tools but they are special tools. A rod may or may not be any different.
--
> and graphite fiber composite is the best available material at this
> moment in time for making those tools.
>

Oh bull****, it's the easiest and cheapest thing to work with.

[Wayne Knight]

"Mu Young Lee" > wrote in message
pcc.itd.umich.edu...
>
> Anyway, I'm looking for a rod with slower action. Sage VPS Light or
> Orvis Superfine may be suitable alternatives to fiberglass. Something in
> 5 or 6 wt.
>

Check out the Lamiglass rods, I think you'll like them. If you go with
graphite consider a T&T paradigm. I keep hearing rumors that T&T is cutting
back or discontinuing the paradigm series of rods and there may be some good
buys soon on them. For a graphite rod, it is one sweet fishing stick, imo, a
better stick in some respects to the Winston WT/IM6.

[Peter Charles]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:51:15 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
>rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod, except maybe to hang it up on
>the wall to impress other elitist snobs. Graphite fiber composite is a
>far superior material.
>
>I have three fiberglass flyrods, all dating from pre-graphite days. They
>suck in comparison to graphite, so I don't even use them. They just take
>up space. A fishing rod is a tool -- nothing more and nothing less --
>and graphite fiber composite is the best available material at this
>moment in time for making those tools.

rw

Well, you obviously haven't fished a Hardy glass rod on a little North
Carolina or Pennsylvania stream. IMHO, nothing beats the little Hardy
for the ability to make casts in the 0' to 25' range. The damn thing
will cast just the leader as the action on a slow, glass rod is
self-loading -- it doesn't need a line. It's a specialized
application rod and I only take the Hardy out for itty-bitty streams
but when I do . . . heaven.

Mu

I've tried the Scott, I've tried the Winston -- save your money and
buy the Hardy. If your stream is small enough to jump across in
spots, go for the 6'6" 3 wt. and if it's large enough to need the odd
30' cast then go for the 7'6" 4 wt.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply
Eastern Spey Clave, October 4th and 5th, 2003
http://www.easternclave.ca

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Ernie]

> wrote in message
...
> I've tried the Scott, I've tried the Winston -- save your money and
> buy the Hardy. If your stream is small enough to jump across in
> spots, go for the 6'6" 3 wt. and if it's large enough to need the odd
> 30' cast then go for the 7'6" 4 wt.
> Peter

Mas Okui wrote an article about fishing Hot Creek CA with a dry fly in The
California Flyfisherman. I found it interesting because this is normally a
wet fly stream. His method is best accomplished using a fiberglass rod. He
talks about an under powered upstream cast where the line and leader lands
in a straight line behind the rod. He then has a drag free drift as he
points the rod down stream.
Ernie

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...


> ...A fishing rod is a tool -- nothing more and nothing less -- ...

Odd, isn't it? Till now, I had never noticed (let alone appreciated) the
striking similarity between fishing rods and people.

Wolfgang

[rw]

Wayne Knight wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>I don't understand why anyone would even consider buying a fiberglass
>>rod, or, for that matter, a bamboo rod,
>
>
> How many times do you have to be reminded? there is nothing a graphite can
> do better than a cane rod except they are easier to make, adapt better to a
> 3 or greater piece configuration, and have a faster action for those folks
> who cannot learn or do not want to learn how to cast a fly properly.

Graphite rods are considerably lighter than bamboo rods and
significantly lighter than fiberglass rods of equivalent "line weights".
That's the most significant advantage, IMO (in addition to providing the
moderate-to-fast actions I prefer, but that's a subjective preference).
They also require virtually no care compared to bamboo rods, and a very
good graphite rod is much cheaper than a very good bamboo rod.

I can see how someone could get all misty-eyed about a beautifully
crafted bamboo rod. It's not in my nature, but I can understand it. How
someone could admire an obsolete fiberglass composite rod is totally
beyond my comprehension.

> Fiberglass rods, especially a well made one are joys to fish with,
they tend
> to be ugly as sin but still a joy.

If I'm on a trout stream and the fish are cooperating, any rod is a joy
to fish. It could be made of asbestos composited with congealed pig snot.

BTW, I never realized that a preference for faster action rods means
that someone "cannot learn or do[es] not want to learn how to cast a fly
properly."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wayne Knight]

"rw" > wrote in message
. ...
>
> BTW, I never realized that a preference for faster action rods means
> that someone "cannot learn or do[es] not want to learn how to cast a fly
> properly."
>

Never said a preference for fast action graphite them meant that someone
cannot learn or does not want to learn to cast a fly properly.

I have stated before and the rodmakers' propaganda on their fast action
rods often mentions longer casts, bigger flies in the wind etc.....people
were doing that with greenhart rods long before graphite, boron, glass, and
split cane.

Face it, you just ain't the sentimental type. <g>

[rw]

Wayne Knight wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> . ...
>
>>BTW, I never realized that a preference for faster action rods means
>>that someone "cannot learn or do[es] not want to learn how to cast a fly
>>properly."
>>
>
>
> Never said a preference for fast action graphite them meant that someone
> cannot learn or does not want to learn to cast a fly properly.

You wrote:

"How many times do you have to be reminded? there is nothing a graphite
can do better than a cane rod except they are easier to make, adapt
better to a 3 or greater piece configuration, and have a faster action
for those folks who cannot learn or do not want to learn how to cast a
fly properly."

In oter words, you wrote (paraphrasing) "IF you cannot learn or want to
learn how to cast a fly properly THEN you prefer a faster action rod."

That does not imply "IF you prefer a faster action rod THEN you cannot
learn or want to learn how to cast a fly properly." That would be a
backward modes ponens, and obviously unsound.

So, you're right. I apologize. Now let's debate the meaning of "is." :-)

> I have stated before and the rodmakers' propaganda on their fast action
> rods often mentions longer casts, bigger flies in the wind etc.....

That's all true, Wayne. It's not just propaganda. That's the main reason
I prefer faster action rods. In calm conditions casting light-weight
and/or windcutting terminal rigs, a slow action rod is a pleasure.
Fortunately, I often find myself casting big stonefly and hopper
patterns and heavily weighted nymphs in windy conditions. Since I only
carry one rod, and I often don't know what the conditions will be, I
carry the rod that is the most versatile.

> people
> were doing that with greenhart rods long before graphite, boron, glass, and
> split cane.

So why isn't everyone fishing with greenhart rods today? Might it have
something to do with the fact that they weigh several pounds?

> Face it, you just ain't the sentimental type. <g>

You are dead-on right. I'm in one tail of the bell curve, and the people
who are sentimental about fiberglass rods are in the other. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Conan the Librarian]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message >...

> "rw" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > A fishing rod is a tool -- nothing more and nothing less
>
> I've got a set of planes and an old set of lathe tools which are fairly old
> and nothing more than tools. But they are better than any similar tools I've
> ever used and they were given to me by a now long dead relative and
> craftsman. In his hands they helped create some beautiful woodwork, they may
> be tools but they are special tools. A rod may or may not be any different.

I was hesitant to join in this thread, but rw's words struck a
nerve, and now that you've raised the issue of woodworking tools, I
have to jump in. I woodwork almost exclusively with handtools, a lot
of them old. If tools are just tools, then I shouldn't even bother
using these things, as there are plenty of electric tools that "do the
job" just fine.

But, I woodwork for a hobby, and as such, I choose the
methods/tools/whatever that bring me the most pleasure. So why would
we question if someone gets more pleasure out of throwing a silk line
on a bamboo rod rather than the latest "wonderline" on a high-tech
graphite rod?

If fishing is all about using the tool that is most effective, then
why aren't we all discussing bassboats and baitcasting, or even
better, dynamite?


Chuck Vance (yeah, I know that's extreme, but it's all a matter
of degree, no?)

[Wayne Knight]

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> So, you're right. I apologize. Now let's debate the meaning of "is." :-)
>

no need for apologies, and there's enough dick swinging lately around here
over what is and what isn't so I'll pass for now. Apologies if my initial
response was a little strongly worded.

>
> That's all true, Wayne. It's not just propaganda. That's the main reason
> I prefer faster action rods. In calm conditions casting light-weight
> and/or windcutting terminal rigs, a slow action rod is a pleasure.
> Fortunately, I often find myself casting big stonefly and hopper
> patterns and heavily weighted nymphs in windy conditions. Since I only
> carry one rod, and I often don't know what the conditions will be, I
> carry the rod that is the most versatile.

If that's what you're comfortable with and it works for you than that's all
that matters. A friend likes to say something corny like "everyone's
different thats' why they make menus." But to some of us, and at least me
personally, I find some of the older materials more fun to work with. And
that's what floats my boat.

>
> So why isn't everyone fishing with greenhart rods today? Might it have
> something to do with the fact that they weigh several pounds?
>

Modern fly fishers are such sissies, that's the one thing that I never
understand, seems to me a few ounces just ain't that important. I think a
little extra weight helps me keep the casting/mending/playing process in
synch just a little better. I've got an arthritic shoulder which rejoices in
reminding me when I do things wrong.

>
> You are dead-on right. I'm in one tail of the bell curve, and the people
> who are sentimental about fiberglass rods are in the other. :-)
>

Well I guess that makes us in the 1% of something, even if on opposite ends.
<g>

[Wayne Knight]

"Conan the Librarian" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I was hesitant to join in this thread, but rw's words struck a
> nerve,

Steve mentions this pov almost everytime a cane or glass conversation
develops. He was smart and or lucky enough to retire relatively young and
fishes almost as many days as some of us spend in an office making a
paycheck. He has a style but I don't think he usually means anything hostile
towards, he's just straightforward in his viewpoint.

>
> But, I woodwork for a hobby, and as such, I choose the
> methods/tools/whatever that bring me the most pleasure. So why would
> we question if someone gets more pleasure out of throwing a silk line
> on a bamboo rod rather than the latest "wonderline" on a high-tech
> graphite rod?
>

Some of us feel the same way, others don't. Then again we're probably both a
little hypocritical in that we might admire and enjoy the "old fashioned"
way, that doesn't mean on a coast to coast flight we wouldn't rather fly in
a 767 vis a vis an old DC3.

> If fishing is all about using the tool that is most effective, then
> why aren't we all discussing bassboats and baitcasting, or even
> better, dynamite?
>

We're all a little different, which makes this place interesting.

Wayne
hoping to finally get his shop unpacked and back into use soon.

[slenon]

>that doesn't mean on a coast to coast flight we wouldn't rather fly in a
767 vis a vis an old DC3.

After my last overbooked commercial flight, I'd take the DC3. As long as it
didn't fly through a rainstorm.

----
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar
Save a cow, eat a PETA

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[rw]

Wayne Knight wrote:
>
> Steve mentions this pov almost everytime a cane or glass conversation
> develops. He was smart and or lucky enough to retire relatively young and
> fishes almost as many days as some of us spend in an office making a
> paycheck. He has a style but I don't think he usually means anything hostile
> towards, he's just straightforward in his viewpoint.

Once again, Wayne, you've nailed it. I have my opinions and others have
theirs. Ain't diversity great? One of the strange and often amusing
things about Usenet in general, and ROFF in particular, are the
blowhards who have die-hard opinions on things as trivial as the merits
of fiberglass rods, and act like anyone with a different opinion must
have his head up his ass. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Conan the Librarian]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message >...

> Steve mentions this pov almost everytime a cane or glass conversation
> develops. He was smart and or lucky enough to retire relatively young and
> fishes almost as many days as some of us spend in an office making a
> paycheck. He has a style but I don't think he usually means anything hostile
> towards, he's just straightforward in his viewpoint.

I've got no problem with that. Heck, that's what Usenet's all
about, no? :-) I just have to react when someone makes blanket
statements about someone else's motivations for pursuing their
hobbies.

> >
> > But, I woodwork for a hobby, and as such, I choose the
> > methods/tools/whatever that bring me the most pleasure. So why would
> > we question if someone gets more pleasure out of throwing a silk line
> > on a bamboo rod rather than the latest "wonderline" on a high-tech
> > graphite rod?
>
> Some of us feel the same way, others don't. Then again we're probably both a
> little hypocritical in that we might admire and enjoy the "old fashioned"
> way, that doesn't mean on a coast to coast flight we wouldn't rather fly in
> a 767 vis a vis an old DC3.

Yes, and I use electric lights in my shop, too. And then there's
the fact that we're "talking" to each other via the Internet. :-)

As I stated in my previous post, it's a matter of degree. I choose
to woodwork with handtools, not because I've got an aversion to
electricity, but because I get enjoyment from planing and sawing and
chopping mortises by hand, etc. Some of the tools I use also have a
history to them, and I like the idea that I am using them (hopefully)
as they were intended to be used before they got stuck away in
someone's garage for years.

I could get power tools to do the same thing, but it wouldn't give
me the same level of relaxation and pleasure I get from creating with
non-'lectrical tools. I don't pretend that my way is the right
way for anyone else, and I certainly don't do it hoping to feel some
sense of superiority.

> > If fishing is all about using the tool that is most effective, then
> > why aren't we all discussing bassboats and baitcasting, or even
> > better, dynamite?
> >
>
> We're all a little different, which makes this place interesting.

Absolutely. That's what threw me off when Steve was assigning some
other motives to folks who choose to choose to use bamboo or
fiberglass. Especially since I think of flyfishermen as being kindred
spirits to folks who woodwork with their hands. I.e., there are other
ways to do it that might be more efficient, but we choose our methods
because we enjoy the "journey" as well as the "destination".

> Wayne
> hoping to finally get his shop unpacked and back into use soon.

Go for it. It's still my favorite way to unwind after work.


Chuck Vance

[Conan the Librarian]

rw > wrote in message >...

> Once again, Wayne, you've nailed it. I have my opinions and others have
> theirs. Ain't diversity great? One of the strange and often amusing
> things about Usenet in general, and ROFF in particular, are the
> blowhards who have die-hard opinions on things as trivial as the merits
> of fiberglass rods, and act like anyone with a different opinion must
> have his head up his ass. :-)

I'm assuming the same holds true for those who thinks that graphite
is the only way to go? :-)


Chuck Vance (who hasn't even fished a fiberglass fly rod,
although my ca. 1980-vintage Fenwick HMG might come close :-)

[Wayne Harrison]

"Conan the Librarian" > wrote

> Go for it. It's still my favorite way to unwind after work.
>
>
> Chuck Vance

wow. apparently you've never tried consuming two or three
"see-throughs".

yfitons
wayno (after all, that's the source of the famous phrase, "hailfar, i just
come unwound...")

[Tim J.]

"Wayne Harrison" wrote...
>
> "Conan the Librarian" wrote
>
> > Go for it. It's still my favorite way to unwind after work.
>
> wow. apparently you've never tried consuming two or three
> "see-throughs".
>
> yfitons
> wayno (after all, that's the source of the famous phrase, "hailfar, i just
> come unwound...")

It's not the first one or two that do the unwinding. :)
--
TL,
Tim
who always thought it was the third olive that did the trick, though I rarely
make it that far these days.
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[rb608]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
> Modern fly fishers are such sissies, that's the one thing that I never
> understand, seems to me a few ounces just ain't that important. I think a
> little extra weight helps me keep the casting/mending/playing process in
> synch just a little better.

I'll chime in here to add more on that point. In the
bamboo/fiberglass/graphite debates, there is much said against the weight of
the first two materials as though that were automatically a negative. I'll
admit up front that I'm a graphite guy; but I also disagree with that
"weight is bad" generalization.

Especially in the recent decade, much progress(?) has been made in replacing
metal parts with plastics or composites, sometimes to reduce cost, sometimes
to add functionality. In many instances, however, I simply prefer the
weight and feel of a heavier tool, regardless of its equal or lesser
functionailty. My old Canon FTb camera is an example. You could pound
nails with the SOB, but I find I prefer the weight, despite it being far
less sophiticated than its modern counterparts.

Joe F.

[Ernie]

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
> rb608 wrote:
> If I have to lug something around for miles in the mountains I want it
> to be as light as possible, without unduly compromising durability. That
> goes for cameras as well as fly rods. It's especially important for a
> fly rod because you're working with it for hours on end. Weight adds
> nothing to the functionality of a fly rod. My ideal fly rod (and reel)
> would weigh nothing. I'd rely on the weight of the line (where weight is
> actually crucial to functionality) to keep the rig from floating away. :-)
> Just my opinion, of course.

rw,
I thought your horse lugged you and your equipment around the mountains.
Ernie

[rw]

rb608 wrote:
> "Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
>
>>Modern fly fishers are such sissies, that's the one thing that I never
>>understand, seems to me a few ounces just ain't that important. I think a
>>little extra weight helps me keep the casting/mending/playing process in
>>synch just a little better.
>
>
> I'll chime in here to add more on that point. In the
> bamboo/fiberglass/graphite debates, there is much said against the weight of
> the first two materials as though that were automatically a negative. I'll
> admit up front that I'm a graphite guy; but I also disagree with that
> "weight is bad" generalization.
>
> Especially in the recent decade, much progress(?) has been made in replacing
> metal parts with plastics or composites, sometimes to reduce cost, sometimes
> to add functionality. In many instances, however, I simply prefer the
> weight and feel of a heavier tool, regardless of its equal or lesser
> functionailty. My old Canon FTb camera is an example. You could pound
> nails with the SOB, but I find I prefer the weight, despite it being far
> less sophiticated than its modern counterparts.

If I have to lug something around for miles in the mountains I want it
to be as light as possible, without unduly compromising durability. That
goes for cameras as well as fly rods. It's especially important for a
fly rod because you're working with it for hours on end. Weight adds
nothing to the functionality of a fly rod. My ideal fly rod (and reel)
would weigh nothing. I'd rely on the weight of the line (where weight is
actually crucial to functionality) to keep the rig from floating away. :-)

Just my opinion, of course.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Conan the Librarian]

"Wayne Harrison" > wrote in message >...

> "Conan the Librarian" > wrote
>
> [woodworking]
>
> > Go for it. It's still my favorite way to unwind after work.
>
>
> wow. apparently you've never tried consuming two or three
> "see-throughs".

I admit I've never tried that. I tend to go for a darker sort of
unwinder ... amber or brown ales come to mind.

Speaking of which, while I was in Moontana I got to taste my first
Moose Drool ale. I couldn't resist the name (hey, how often do you
get to say, "Bring me some more moose drool, please"?), and it turns
out it's a damned good brown ale.

ObFF: I also tried the Troutslayer Ale, but it didn't help me fish
any better.


Chuck Vance (maybe I should have tried the Grizzly Wulff
instead?)

[rw]

Ernie wrote:
>
> rw,
> I thought your horse lugged you and your equipment around the mountains.
> Ernie

Sometimes. Not always. There are lots of places they can't get to.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[LesYoung]

Mu - I thought u were on the Left Coast.

Anyhow, I have some glass stix, including some Lami Brush Creeks and a
DiamondGlass. I'm looking to get a Hardy Perfection.

For small stream trouting, these are neat tools, and different than cane or
boron.

tl
les

[Mu Young Lee]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2003, LesYoung wrote:

> Mu - I thought u were on the Left Coast.

I am. The streams of the eastern Sierras flow into the high desert. Many
of them are just a few feet wide.

Mu