T&T vs Winston vs Orvis

[Gene C]

I consider myself an intermediate fly fisherman. I can cast
reasonably well and really enjoy the sport. My question deals with
getting a more upscale rod. I have a couple of St. Croix's that I
like a lot. This is for fishing for trout- a rod in the 4 , 5 or 6
weight. Would I be able to FEEL the difference if I got a Thomas and
Thomas, a Winston, or an Orvis rod? Would it help me to improve my
casting even more?

If so, then what are the differences in the 3 brands listed? A
friend has a lower level Scott that I tried out and PUUUU, the St
Croix was hands over hands above it. Is the step from a St Croix
(Ultra) to a 'premium' rod worth the climb/price. Would my 'socks be
knocked off' in a way similar as going from the inexpensive Scott to
the St. Croix.

Thanks in advance.

[Dave LaCourse]

rw writes:

<snippage>

My senility must be getting worse; that's the second post you've made today
that I agree with. (Dapping was the other.)

The home can only be around the corner.......
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Jeff Taylor]

"Gene C" > wrote in message
om...
Would I be able to FEEL the difference if I got a Thomas and
> Thomas, a Winston, or an Orvis rod? Would it help me to improve my
> casting even more?

Until you cast the rods in question, you won't know whether they feel
(better or worse) than what you have.

I have been fly fishing for 25 years and the warranty that RW mentioned had
never been an issue for me or something I had come to appreciate. Last fall
I purchase a Winston LTX 3 piece 9/5 (first rod I have purchased with a
warranty) and my cousin tested it for me this spring on the Bitterroot
(broke the rod at the ferrule). In this case, it was well worth the extra
bucks, the only charge for the repair was shipping to Winston, they took
care of everything else.

Pretty fitting, yes they are pretty. Prestige... To each his own, I have
never looked at it that way...

If you are going to step up to the pay window, I suggest try then out first.

Good luck,
Jeff

[rw]

Gene C wrote:
> I consider myself an intermediate fly fisherman. I can cast
> reasonably well and really enjoy the sport. My question deals with
> getting a more upscale rod. I have a couple of St. Croix's that I
> like a lot. This is for fishing for trout- a rod in the 4 , 5 or 6
> weight. Would I be able to FEEL the difference if I got a Thomas and
> Thomas, a Winston, or an Orvis rod? Would it help me to improve my
> casting even more?

You'd most likely feel less weight in your wallet. :-)

If you like your St. Croix rods "a lot," why do you feel you have to go
more "upscale"? IMO, the casting quality of rods is only weakly
correlated with price (if at all). You pay for pretty fittings, a
warranty, and prestige.

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

[rw]

Dave LaCourse wrote:
> rw writes:
>
> <snippage>
>
> My senility must be getting worse; that's the second post you've made today
> that I agree with. (Dapping was the other.)

Hope springs eternal, Dave. :-)

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

[Graham Knight]

Greg Pavlov wrote:
> If you're interested
> in buying another rod or two and like the Ultras, you
> should be able to purchase one at a very good discount
> for the next few months.

Thanks for mention this. :-)

I've often wondered myself if I should step up from my St. Croix Ultra,
but the answer is always no ' cause I do like the rod under almost all
conditions, now I can get a really cheap 2 wieght for the rest of the
conditions. :-)

Graham

--

And as an afterthought, this must too be told,
Some people are taking pure bull****, and turning it into gold.
- Grandpa Green (Greendale, CA USA)

What's happening in Idledale? Not Much! http://www.idledale.com/

[Larry L]

>
> And as an afterthought, this must too be told,
> Some people are taking pure bull****, and turning it into gold.
> - Grandpa Green (Greendale, CA USA)
>


Gramps must read Fly Fishing magazines ads .... many actually make me
ashamed to admit being a fly fisher, they are such pure, pure bull**** ...
but fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can .... and, for lots
of gold


That, btw, is my answer to the original rod question <G>

[Tim J.]

"Larry L" wrote...
> >
> > And as an afterthought, this must too be told,
> > Some people are taking pure bull****, and turning it into gold.
> > - Grandpa Green (Greendale, CA USA)
>
> Gramps must read Fly Fishing magazines ads .... many actually make me
> ashamed to admit being a fly fisher, they are such pure, pure bull**** ...
> but fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can .... and, for lots
> of gold

Every fly fisher but you, of course. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Larry L]

"Tim J." > wrote

>
> Every fly fisher but you, of course. ;-)
> --


Of course not ... certainly by age 14 we all know that we recognize, best,
in others, what we see in ourselves, good or bad.

I'm a total sucker for hype ... but I fight it in myself.

I'm an alcoholic too, and , I often recognize drunks ( real drinkers often
hide it well for years ) that others don't, too ... but I quit drinking
many many years ago... same type deal if you can see my point.

Having a "problem" doesn't make commenting on it any less appropriate, imho.

I, personally, greatly dislike "image ads" for anything, but this is (
honest ) a Fly Fishing list so I dislike "image" fly fishing ads on this
list. Yes, I have ( bet you have too :-) tried to buy image at times in
the fairly distant past. It didn't work, didn't serve me well, indeed I
feel it harmed me in many ways. My "been there, done that" advice on
"image buying" is, therefore, "don't go there" ..... exactly like my "been
there" heavy drinking advice is ..... "don't go there"

Does the fact I've been there make my opinion of "there" less worthy ?

[slenon]

Larry:
>Does the fact I've been there make my opinion of "there" less worthy ?

Experience seems, to me, to lend authority to one's view.

----
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

[Tim J.]

"Larry L" wrote...
>
> "Tim J." wrote:
> >
> > Every fly fisher but you, of course. ;-)
>
> Of course not ...
<snip>
> Does the fact I've been there make my opinion of "there" less worthy ?

I didn't say anything about your opinion being worthy or otherwise, but your
wording lumped all fly fishers into one big box. I have not bought anything I
can think of on image alone. That's one of the reasons I like this group is that
I can get a consensus, er. . . many opinions about the worth of goods or
services without the added element of hype. Sure, some of the opinions of some
of the people may have been swayed one way or the other by hype, but the
people's opinions I most value have served me well. This includes the opinions
of several outfitters in the group when their wallets would have been better
served otherwise.

What I'm trying to say (finally) is that this group as a whole sees through the
hype pretty well.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[slenon]

Tim:
> That's one of the reasons I like this group is that I can get a consensus,
er. . . many opinions about the worth of goods or
>services without the added element of hype.

Are you going to tell me that fish aren't really attracted to red shirts?

And yes, if I'm being honest, I bought my only red shirt from LL Bean
because I like the style and cut, but also because the advertising photo
reminded me of when I was young and thin and actually fished from a beaten
up aluminum boat, rented at a weathered dock, on mornings when the lake was
hidden by mist. I've managed to overlook how many times I broke the shear
pin on submerged trees and had to row back to the damned dock.

Fish really aren't attracted to red shirts?

----
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

[walt winter]

Gene C wrote:
> I consider myself an intermediate fly fisherman. I can cast
> reasonably well and really enjoy the sport. My question deals with
> getting a more upscale rod. I have a couple of St. Croix's that I
> like a lot. This is for fishing for trout- a rod in the 4 , 5 or 6
> weight. Would I be able to FEEL the difference if I got a Thomas and
> Thomas, a Winston, or an Orvis rod? Would it help me to improve my
> casting even more?
>
> If so, then what are the differences in the 3 brands listed? A
> friend has a lower level Scott that I tried out and PUUUU, the St
> Croix was hands over hands above it. Is the step from a St Croix
> (Ultra) to a 'premium' rod worth the climb/price. Would my 'socks be
> knocked off' in a way similar as going from the inexpensive Scott to
> the St. Croix.
>
> Thanks in advance.

gene, if you are going to spend big bucks, why settle for less?

consider this "sage" advise.

wally, unabashed purveyor of the bad boy plastic sticks ;-)

ps.... hook up with friends.... cast their rods... go to a
flyshop and testdrive all the models that fit your needs and
budget.... find one you really like and decide....

pss.... the sage vps light series are wonderful small water
sticks. the xp is pure kick ass and overall, the slt's fit my
erratic style the best.

[JR]

"Tim J." wrote:
>
> "Larry L" wrote...
> >
> > "Tim J." wrote:
> > >
> > > Every fly fisher but you, of course. ;-)
> >
> > Of course not ...
> <snip>
> > Does the fact I've been there make my opinion of "there" less worthy ?
>
> I didn't say anything about your opinion being worthy or otherwise, but your
> wording lumped all fly fishers into one big box....

Where in Larry's original wording did you read "every" or "all"?

[Tim J.]

"JR" wrote...
> "Tim J." wrote:
> >
> > "Larry L" wrote...
> > >
> > > "Tim J." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Every fly fisher but you, of course. ;-)
> > >
> > > Of course not ...
> > <snip>
> > > Does the fact I've been there make my opinion of "there" less worthy ?
> >
> > I didn't say anything about your opinion being worthy or otherwise, but your
> > wording lumped all fly fishers into one big box....
>
> Where in Larry's original wording did you read "every" or "all"?

Where did you read otherwise?
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[JR]

"Tim J." wrote:
> "JR" wrote...
> > "Tim J." wrote:
> > > I didn't say anything about your opinion being worthy or otherwise, but your
> > > wording lumped all fly fishers into one big box....
> >
> > Where in Larry's original wording did you read "every" or "all"?
>
> Where did you read otherwise?

The part that read

> Gramps must read Fly Fishing magazines ads .... many actually make me
> ashamed to admit being a fly fisher, they are such pure, pure bull**** ...
> but fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can .... and, for lots
> of gold

> That, btw, is my answer to the original rod question <G>

[Tim J.]

"JR" wrote...
> "Tim J." wrote:
> > "Larry L" wrote...
> > > "Tim J." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Every fly fisher but you, of course. ;-)
> > >
> > > Of course not ...
> > <snip>
> > > Does the fact I've been there make my opinion of "there" less worthy ?
> >
> > I didn't say anything about your opinion being worthy or otherwise, but your
> > wording lumped all fly fishers into one big box....
>
> Where in Larry's original wording did you read "every" or "all"?

Let's try this another way:
"Fly fishers only fish with nymphs."
"Fly fishers never buy store bought flies."
"Fly fishers only wear Simms waders."
"Fly fishers only drink Bud."

See how the word "some" at the beginning of these sentences might make a
difference in the statements?
;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"JR" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim J." wrote:
> > "JR" wrote...
> > > "Tim J." wrote:
> > > > I didn't say anything about your opinion being worthy or otherwise, but
your
> > > > wording lumped all fly fishers into one big box....
> > >
> > > Where in Larry's original wording did you read "every" or "all"?
> >
> > Where did you read otherwise?
>
> The part that read
>
> > Gramps must read Fly Fishing magazines ads .... many actually make me
> > ashamed to admit being a fly fisher, they are such pure, pure bull**** ...
> > but fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can .... and, for lots
> > of gold

Yup, that's the part I read, too, and I still say there's a difference in
meaning between "fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can" as
opposed to "some fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can".
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[JR]

"Tim J." wrote:
>
> Let's try this another way:
> "Fly fishers only fish with nymphs."
> "Fly fishers never buy store bought flies."
> "Fly fishers only wear Simms waders."
> "Fly fishers only drink Bud."
>
> See how the word "some" at the beginning of these sentences might make a
> difference in the statements?

I see....

..... but where did you read "never" or "only" in Larry's post? ;)

[JR]

"Tim J." wrote:
>
> Yup, that's the part I read, too, and I still say there's a difference in
> meaning between "fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can" as
> opposed to "some fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can".

Yup, just as there's a difference in meaning between "fly fishers snap
up the hyped poop, fast as they can" as opposed to "all fly fishers snap
up the hyped poop, fast as they can".

[Tim J.]

"JR" wrote...
> "Tim J." wrote:
> >
> > Yup, that's the part I read, too, and I still say there's a difference in
> > meaning between "fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can" as
> > opposed to "some fly fishers snap up the hyped poop, fast as they can".
>
> Yup, just as there's a difference in meaning between "fly fishers snap
> up the hyped poop, fast as they can" as opposed to "all fly fishers snap
> up the hyped poop, fast as they can".

By inference, saying "fly fishers" is akin to saying "all fly fishers" just by
naming the group as a whole. Stating something like "men are weaker than women"
indicates all men and all women. The meaning changes drastically when changed to
"some men are weaker than some women."

EOT for me, last word to you.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Charlie Choc]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:51:06 -0400, "Tim J."
> wrote:

>EOT for me, last word to you.

That means *all* last words, right? <g>
--
Charlie...

[Stan Gula]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
> By inference, saying "fly fishers" is akin to saying "all fly fishers"
just by
> naming the group as a whole. Stating something like "men are weaker than
women"
> indicates all men and all women. The meaning changes drastically when
changed to
> "some men are weaker than some women."
>
> EOT for me, last word to you.

BOT for me, because all this nit-picking is just fascinating, especially
since my minds deadlocked because of those damned Red Sox...

> Stating something like "men are weaker than women"
> indicates all men and all women.

Well, my take on that one is more a statistical viewpoint - I'll imagine two
(theoretically) normal curves with the peaks at different points (and
thinking that measuring strength is easier than measuring weakness, I'll
plot strength - say dead lift tonnage), but with sections where curve A
(women) is higher, and some where curve B (men) is higher. I would not
think that *all* women are stronger than the strongest man. It's certainly
possible that there's are women that are stronger than every man - hell I've
met a few who could throw my ass in the river, and there are a few who will
just threaten same over the Internet.

--Stan

[Scott Seidman]

"Stan Gula" > wrote in
:

> but with sections where curve A
> (women) is higher, and some where curve B (men) is higher. I would not
> think that *all* women are stronger than the strongest man.

Many women are curvier than many men

Scott

[Stan Gula]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Stan Gula" > wrote in
> :
>
> > but with sections where curve A
> > (women) is higher, and some where curve B (men) is higher. I would not
> > think that *all* women are stronger than the strongest man.
>
> Many women are curvier than many men
>
> Scott

OK, I'll agree with that one, however, sometimes the counterexamples are
interesting too. (not curvy men, not-curvy women)

[JR]

Stan Gula wrote:
>
> OK, I'll agree with that one, however, sometimes the counterexamples are
> interesting too. (not curvy men, not-curvy women)

Well turned.