|
|
Replacement for sage 590 RPL
Just got back from a trip and broke the tip on my sage 590 RPL rod. This
rod had a life time guarantee. When sage replaces it I will sell it. I have 2 rods the 590 RPL and a #3 LL. I have never liked the RPL. The tip just does not flex enough for me. What rods could you suggest for a #5 replacement which has a softer feel? My #3 Sage LL is my favorite rod. The soft tip is what I am after. Do any of you have a newer sage which is like the older LL series? The RPL was a fine rod I just did not like the feel, others I fished with tried it and thought it was great, it was just not my style. |
Replacement for sage 590 RPL
Hi Sundog,
Actually Sage still produces the 'LL' or 'Light Line' series but they now call it the 'VPS Lite' series. They are in many sizes from 2 to 5 weight in 3 piece only. The one you want is the 'Sage 590-3 VPS Lite'. This is still one of the finest 5 line trout rods made for the angler who wants a delicate tip for lighter tippets. -- Bill Kiene Kiene's Fly Shop Sacramento, CA, USA Web site: www.kiene.com "sundog" wrote in message ... Just got back from a trip and broke the tip on my sage 590 RPL rod. This rod had a life time guarantee. When sage replaces it I will sell it. I have 2 rods the 590 RPL and a #3 LL. I have never liked the RPL. The tip just does not flex enough for me. What rods could you suggest for a #5 replacement which has a softer feel? My #3 Sage LL is my favorite rod. The soft tip is what I am after. Do any of you have a newer sage which is like the older LL series? The RPL was a fine rod I just did not like the feel, others I fished with tried it and thought it was great, it was just not my style. |
Replacement for sage 590 RPL
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:36:12 -0600, sundog wrote:
Just got back from a trip and broke the tip on my sage 590 RPL rod. This rod had a life time guarantee. When sage replaces it I will sell it. I have 2 rods the 590 RPL and a #3 LL. I have never liked the RPL. The tip just does not flex enough for me. What rods could you suggest for a #5 replacement which has a softer feel? My #3 Sage LL is my favorite rod. The soft tip is what I am after. Do any of you have a newer sage which is like the older LL series? The RPL was a fine rod I just did not like the feel, others I fished with tried it and thought it was great, it was just not my style. I have the SLT and love it.. l |
Replacement for sage 590 RPL
sundog wrote:
snip The RPL was a fine rod I just did not like the feel, others I fished with tried it and thought it was great, it was just not my style. I have a 590-4 RPL and it's not my style either, but there are times when it sees almost constant use while the 490-4 LL, the Winstons and the 'boo sit idle. It is my favorite trout rod in a wind, or a gale, or a friggin' late afternoon western typhoon. Try casting a hopper into a gale with a slow rod and then fire up the RPL. Big difference. And speaking of the RPL, where did the notion come from that silk lines were the exclusive province of slow rods ? I put one of the modern silk lines from Phoenix in 5DT on the RPL and I think the lower profile silk line works very well on a relatively fast rod like the RPL, especially in the wind. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter (was "Replacement for sage 590 RPL")
Ken And speaking of the RPL, where did the notion come from that silk Ken lines were the exclusive province of slow rods ? I put one of the Ken modern silk lines from Phoenix in 5DT on the RPL and I think the Ken lower profile silk line works very well on a relatively fast rod Ken like the RPL, especially in the wind. I assume that with lower profile you mean smaller diameter, right? I've heard and read this about silk lines before, but I've never understood it. ROFF is probably the best place to ask dumb question, so please help me out. Let's take two floating 5wt DT lines, one ordinary (plastic or whatever), one silk. We know that their weight is the same for the first 30'; let's cut the lines at 30', and let's denote the weight of this 30' of line by the symbol m (don't worry, I'm not getting geared up for a debate about adherence to the AFTM standards :-)). So we have two pieces of line, each with weight m. Now let's assume that these lines _float equally well_. This means that their densities must be the same, right? So let's denote this (common) density by d. Density is defined as the ratio of mass and volume, which we denote by symbol V. That is d = m/V. Let's denote the volume of the ordinary line (the 30' piece) by V1 and the volume of the silk line by V2. With the assumptions that we had - both lines are 5wt and float equally well - the volumes must be the same, since their masses and densities are the same, and V1 = m/d = V2. If the lines have the same volumes, their average diameters must be equal. In fact, if they are both DT lines with similar tapers, then they must have exactly the same profiles. So, in my small mind it seems that in order for a 5wt silk line to have a smaller diameter (lower profile) than an ordinary line, one of the following must be true: 1. The silk line does not float as well as the ordinary line (because it has a higher density). 2. The volume of the silk line is greater in water than in the air. How would this be possible? Well, it just occurred to me that air bubbles might attach themselves to the surface of the silk line, thereby increasing its volume in water. Theoretically, that is. Or maybe it's really something completely different. You tell me. -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter (was "Replacement for sage 590 RPL")
Jarmo Hurri wrote:
equations snipped So, in my small mind it seems that in order for a 5wt silk line to have a smaller diameter (lower profile) than an ordinary line, one of the following must be true: 1. The silk line does not float as well as the ordinary line (because it has a higher density). ... I think this is it. A silk line won't float at all unless you dress it, usually with red Mucilin. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter
equations snipped So, in my small mind it seems that in order for a 5wt silk line to have a smaller diameter (lower profile) than an ordinary line, one of the following must be true: 1. The silk line does not float as well as the ordinary line (because it has a higher density). ... Ken I think this is it. A silk line won't float at all unless you Ken dress it, usually with red Mucilin. And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line? -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter
Jarmo Hurri wrote:
Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you Ken dress it, usually with red Mucilin. And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line? It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day like a plastic line will. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter
Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you dress it, usually Ken with red Mucilin. And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line? Ken It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day Ken like a plastic line will. I guess that as scientists, we need experiments: this is just all too imprecise. :-) But if it were to float just the same, then the density explanation would not hold. I think that the task of the dressing is just to keep the line from soaking water, that is, to keep its density the same all the time. -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter
Jarmo Hurri wrote:
Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you dress it, usually Ken with red Mucilin. And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line? Ken It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day Ken like a plastic line will. I guess that as scientists, we need experiments: this is just all too imprecise. :-) But if it were to float just the same, then the density explanation would not hold. I think that the task of the dressing is just to keep the line from soaking water, that is, to keep its density the same all the time. I'll leave the physics to others. All I know is I fish with it as long as it floats and then I go drink Budweiser. I had the conceit at one point that after the line started to sink I would strip it off the reel, turn it around and fish the other end of the double taper until it too started to sink, but that's when I felt I had to fish all day. I rarely fish more than 3-4 hours at a time anymore and the silk line will float just fine for that long. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter
Ken I'll leave the physics to others. All I know is I fish with it as Ken long as it floats and then I go drink Budweiser. I had the Ken conceit at one point that after the line started to sink I would Ken strip it off the reel, turn it around and fish the other end of Ken the double taper until it too started to sink, but that's when I Ken felt I had to fish all day. I rarely fish more than 3-4 hours at Ken a time anymore and the silk line will float just fine for that Ken long. Enjoying it while it lasts is a good principle. The reason why I wanted to ask about this is that I've been intrigued by silk lines, but they're pretty damn expensive, so I wanted to think about the situation first. Quite another thing is that silk lines rhyme with bamboo, and that's a road where I can not afford to go... -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter
Jarmo Hurri wrote:
snip The reason why I wanted to ask about this is that I've been intrigued by silk lines, but they're pretty damn expensive, so I wanted to think about the situation first. Quite another thing is that silk lines rhyme with bamboo, and that's a road where I can not afford to go... Bamboo is the reason I bought it in the first place. I have a vintage 'boo rod and I didn't want to replace the original small guides with modern guides large enough to accomodate a Cortland peach. I had the idea to use it on a slow rod because I think a silk line presents long leaders and small flies better than plastic lines. The idea to use the silk line on a relatively fast Sage RPL to do battle with the wind was, how shall I say it, "herbally inspired". ;-) It is something of a hassle however. When I lived in a cabin on the stream all summer I installed cup hooks under the eaves of the cabin so that I could take it off the reel every day, string it up under the eaves and let it dry overnight. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter
Ken I had the idea to use it on a slow rod because I think a silk Ken line presents long leaders and small flies better than plastic Ken lines. The idea to use the silk line on a relatively fast Sage Ken RPL to do battle with the wind was, how shall I say it, "herbally Ken inspired". ;-) The traditional way to create pieces of art and make significant discoveries. Even some real ones. Ken It is something of a hassle however. When I lived in a cabin on Ken the stream all summer I installed cup hooks under the eaves of Ken the cabin so that I could take it off the reel every day, string Ken it up under the eaves and let it dry overnight. Yes, it sounds like something to do when having access to reasonably good facilities. Ideal on daytrips on small streams near home. I have heard that when taken good care of, the silk lines can last at least twice as long as the plastic ones, so maybe I could justify it like that. It's like explaining my own actions afterwards: I've always been creative enough to find an acceptable story. -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter (was "Replacement for sage 590 RPL")
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:29:09 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote: Ken And speaking of the RPL, where did the notion come from that silk Ken lines were the exclusive province of slow rods ? I put one of the Ken modern silk lines from Phoenix in 5DT on the RPL and I think the Ken lower profile silk line works very well on a relatively fast rod Ken like the RPL, especially in the wind. I assume that with lower profile you mean smaller diameter, right? I've heard and read this about silk lines before, but I've never understood it. ROFF is probably the best place to ask dumb question, so please help me out. Let's take two floating 5wt DT lines, one ordinary (plastic or whatever), one silk. We know that their weight is the same for the first 30'; let's cut the lines at 30', and let's denote the weight of this 30' of line by the symbol m (don't worry, I'm not getting geared up for a debate about adherence to the AFTM standards :-)). So we have two pieces of line, each with weight m. Now let's assume that these lines _float equally well_. This means that their densities must be the same, right? So let's denote this (common) density by d. Density is defined as the ratio of mass and volume, which we denote by symbol V. That is d = m/V. Let's denote the volume of the ordinary line (the 30' piece) by V1 and the volume of the silk line by V2. With the assumptions that we had - both lines are 5wt and float equally well - the volumes must be the same, since their masses and densities are the same, and V1 = m/d = V2. If the lines have the same volumes, their average diameters must be equal. In fact, if they are both DT lines with similar tapers, then they must have exactly the same profiles. So, in my small mind it seems that in order for a 5wt silk line to have a smaller diameter (lower profile) than an ordinary line, one of the following must be true: 1. The silk line does not float as well as the ordinary line (because it has a higher density). 2. The volume of the silk line is greater in water than in the air. How would this be possible? Well, it just occurred to me that air bubbles might attach themselves to the surface of the silk line, thereby increasing its volume in water. Theoretically, that is. Or maybe it's really something completely different. You tell me. The silk line absorbs water at a different rate than the plastic line -in fact, the plastic line should not absorb it at all from a practical standpoint of the average person's fishing time, but it's still at a different rate than the silk. Hence, treating of silk lines, which doesn't "seal" them as "plastic" does, and so, they will reach a "sink" stage faster than plastic, but more important to the discussion at hand, be of a different weight (and for the truly picky out there, a different diameter as well, based on factors not germane here, IMO) than that from which they started. So, what you've got, basically, is a line that is fluid in weight because of, well, fluid. However, they are of a lesser diameter at a given weight, starting out, of course, so they do have advantages. Frankly, I just like them, and wouldn't even attempt to truly defend their "necessity," only their appeal to me, and then, again for myself, only on cane. As to diameter, the original letter system was based on diameter, and because there was (basically) only one material, silk, and since silk pretty much all weighs the same at a given diameter, at least for our purpose of discussion here, it worked. (As a sidenote, the "letter" system went from A to I, with the A being largest at .060", and I the smallest at .020", IIRC - but I'm sure it's on the 'net somewhere for the curious.) Then, came "plastic" lines and diameters were no longer usable as accurate indicators of weight. So in the late 60s, the AFTMA came up with, surprise, a weight standard that had nothing to do with diameter. They used a reasonable amount of line for average fishers, settled on 30 feet, did some math with the silk lines to keep some order between the letter-diameters and the number-weights, and ta-da! The AFTMA weight standard was born. Well, that was fine for a time, as things were fairly easy to compare for those using equipment during the transition phase and with limited choices available, anyway. But now, everybody has to be all cutting-edge, high-tech, and keep up with the Krehs, so we are faced with nonsense like "heavy 5s, light 6s," etc., and in the midst of it all, silk (new and vintage) and older rods becomes (moderately) popular again. So, now, one must convert one way or the other, i.e., a new rod marked with a weight standard, but original silk standards are diameters, or the rod is older and marked with a diameter, and convert to a weight standard. Clear as mud? Well, OK, so it's probably some of my description, true enough, but it is also the fact that what would (and should) be a "quick mental conversion" situation has been made into a friggin' 3-field math problem by fishers asking for w-a-a-a-a-a-y more than they need and manufacturers only too happy to oblige. The bottom line (pardon the pun): Silk has its place and plastic has its place, and personal preference plays a large part in an informed decision, but just like with the "5.5" nonsense, close will be more than adequate for all but a VERY limited few fishers - if you have a rod marked "5," a line marked "5" or starting with "HE.." will be fine or if you have a rod marked "HEX," a line marked "5" will probably do you just dandy. Granted, the letter-to-number conversions aren't EXACT, again, close is gonna work for the GREAT majority. HTH, R "...gee, honey, your waistline isn't a medium, it's merely in the larger end of the small+ range..." SLAP! |
Silk line diameter
rdean However, they are of a lesser diameter at a given weight, rdean starting out, of course, so they do have advantages. Do you mean "lesser diameter than plastic lines at a given line weight"? If so, then why "of course"? -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter
Jarmo Hurri wrote:
Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you dress it, usually Ken with red Mucilin. And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line? Ken It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day Ken like a plastic line will. I guess that as scientists, we need experiments: this is just all too imprecise. :-) But if it were to float just the same, then the density explanation would not hold. I think that the task of the dressing is just to keep the line from soaking water, that is, to keep its density the same all the time. Let an amateur scientist poke his nose in here for a minute. There are two components of flotation, one is density, the other is surface tension. If you treat the silk line, you do 2 things for it, 1) you reduce it's tendency to get wet and pass through the surface film, and 2) you delay the time when water starts to enter the line and add weight. We see the same effect with flies that we add floatant to. The fly is still too heave to float, but until it's pushed through the surface film it floats beautifully. Sinking agents work like soap, making the surface like water, and eliminating the surface tension. Floatants are the opposite, resisting the water and using the surface tension. Chas remove fly fish to reply http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html San Juan Pictures at: http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html |
Silk line diameter
Chas Let an amateur scientist poke his nose in here for a minute. Chas There are two components of flotation, one is density, the other Chas is surface tension. If you treat the silk line, you do 2 things Chas for it, 1) you reduce it's tendency to get wet and pass through Chas the surface film, and 2) you delay the time when water starts to Chas enter the line and add weight. We see the same effect with flies Chas that we add floatant to. The fly is still too heave to float, Chas but until it's pushed through the surface film it floats Chas beautifully. An excellent point, Chas, and this could very well be the key to explaining this difference between silk and plastic lines. It never occurred to me that maybe these lines land so softly that they can utilize surface tension. Heck, 30' of a 2wt line weighs approximately 5 grams, so weight per inch, for example, is ridiculously small, and surface tension might very well be the key. So, hmm, perhaps the difference really is that it is easier to increase the surface tension of a silk line. Since its surface is porous, you can treat it easily with floatants. Once again impressed by what a curious man can learn here. :-) -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:37:33 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote: rdean However, they are of a lesser diameter at a given weight, rdean starting out, of course, so they do have advantages. Do you mean "lesser diameter than plastic lines at a given line weight"? If so, then why "of course"? Yes, I did mean lesser diameter than plastic at a given (and equal) weight. Or better yet, let's use "rod-appropriate loading weight" in place of merely "weight" - IOW, a silk line whose weight will properly load rod X will be lesser in diameter than a plastic line that will properly load that same rod - sorry for being unclear. And "of course," because as I understand it, the lesser the diameter of the line traveling through the air, the lesser the resistance. Does any or all of this make THAT big a difference for the average fisher at average fishing distances under average fishing conditions and where silk would be appropriate? Probably somewhere between, "no, not really" and "well, maybe a little bit," but again, I'm not trying to _justify_ (scientifically, practically, or otherwise) the use of silk (beyond "I like it"), only attempting to offer answers to your questions. TC, R |
Silk line diameter
In article , Jarmo Hurri
wrote: An excellent point, Chas, and this could very well be the key to explaining this difference between silk and plastic lines. This *is* the reason. At least, for the fact that they float for different reasons. Silk lines aren't better than plastic ones. In fact, really, they're worse, just as bamboo is really worse than carbon. I use both cane rods and silk lines, but I'm not trying to make my fishing as technologically efficient as possible. I think it's crazy when people justify their use of outmoded technology by arguing that it's more efficient. It isn't. But it may be nicer. Lazarus -- Remover the rock from the email address |
Silk line diameter
Lazarus Cooke wrote:
snip ... I think it's crazy when people justify their use of outmoded technology by arguing that it's more efficient. It isn't. But it may be nicer. Well, call me crazy, but I can cast a size 14 hopper on a 8' leader more "efficiently" into and against a howling wind with a 5DT silk line than with any plastic line I've ever used on the same rod. Nice doesn't have anything to do with it, it just flat ass works better. And if you find yourself in a situation where you need to use a 12' leader and size 20 dry fly you'll quickly learn that a silk line is neither outmoded nor inefficient. A silk line *IS* a pain in the ass to take care of, but that's the only reason it's "outmoded technology". -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter
Jarmo Hurri wrote:
An excellent point, Chas, and this could very well be the key to explaining this difference between silk and plastic lines. It never occurred to me that maybe these lines land so softly that they can utilize surface tension. Heck, 30' of a 2wt line weighs approximately 5 grams, so weight per inch, for example, is ridiculously small, and surface tension might very well be the key. Actually, this isn't a difference between silk and plastic. They both take floatant nicely, they both use surface tension, and they both land softly enough to stay on top. Just a little care, and a 10wt line can land very softly. I've had trouble with intermediate #5 and #6 lines not breaking the surface tension, so they don't start sinking right away. So, hmm, perhaps the difference really is that it is easier to increase the surface tension of a silk line. Since its surface is porous, you can treat it easily with floatants. No, that's not a difference, as I said above. It's just the reason why a silk line works even though it's denser. Chas remove fly fish to reply http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html San Juan Pictures at: http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html |
Silk line diameter
An excellent point, Chas, and this could very well be the key to explaining this difference between silk and plastic lines. It never occurred to me that maybe these lines land so softly that they can utilize surface tension. Heck, 30' of a 2wt line weighs approximately 5 grams, so weight per inch, for example, is ridiculously small, and surface tension might very well be the key. Chas Actually, this isn't a difference between silk and plastic. Chas They both take floatant nicely, they both use surface tension, Chas and they both land softly enough to stay on top. So, hmm, perhaps the difference really is that it is easier to increase the surface tension of a silk line. Since its surface is porous, you can treat it easily with floatants. Chas No, that's not a difference, as I said above. It's just the Chas reason why a silk line works even though it's denser. So, what you're saying is that it would be possible to develop denser plastic lines and use a floatant with them to achieve a floating line with the same line diameter as a silk line. If this is true, then the reason why plastic lines have a larger diameter is the fact that fishermen prefer their lines care free. Maybe it would be possible to just use an intermediate plastic line with a floatant. -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter
In article , Ken
Fortenberry wrote: Lazarus Cooke wrote: snip ... I think it's crazy when people justify their use of outmoded technology by arguing that it's more efficient. It isn't. But it may be nicer. Well, call me crazy, but I can cast a size 14 hopper on a 8' leader more "efficiently" into and against a howling wind with a 5DT silk line than with any plastic line I've ever used on the same rod. Nice doesn't have anything to do with it, it just flat ass works better. Doesn't that make it nicer? And if you find yourself in a situation where you need to use a 12' leader and size 20 dry fly you'll quickly learn that a silk line is neither outmoded nor inefficient. A silk line *IS* a pain in the ass to take care of, but that's the only reason it's "outmoded technology". Fair enough. You're probably right. They are better. I suspect also that for downstream wet-fly fishing, which I don't do much of for trout, you might well have a much better feel for the fly. I agree. I use them because I like using them, and they do have a nice feel (and a nice sound) zinging out through the rings. And the physics, as you point out, makes them much better into a wind. The *main* advantage, though, is being able to look over your half-rim spectacles at other anglers and say 'Oh, you've got one of those new bubble lines, have you. Are they any good?' L -- Remover the rock from the email address |
Silk line diameter
Lazarus Cooke wrote:
snip The *main* advantage, though, is being able to look over your half-rim spectacles at other anglers and say 'Oh, you've got one of those new bubble lines, have you. Are they any good?' How on earth did you know that I wear half-rim spectacles ? ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter
Jarmo Hurri wrote:
So, what you're saying is that it would be possible to develop denser plastic lines and use a floatant with them to achieve a floating line with the same line diameter as a silk line. I hadn't thought of it that way, but sure, the dacron or nylon core is smaller than the silk line, this could be done. If this is true, then the reason why plastic lines have a larger diameter is the fact that fishermen prefer their lines care free. Bingo! Maybe it would be possible to just use an intermediate plastic line with a floatant. A thought, but most intermediate lines are made with a coating that wants to break the surface tension, and I'm not sure how they would take the floatant. I think in general you need to be careful what you put on the modern lines, some chemicals could attack the plastic. Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind, so I don't see any reason to bother trying to push the square peg of a modern line into the round hole of a silk line. I'd bet a fair amount that I can cast cleanly and accurately with modern equipment to any fish these guys can cast to with bamboo and silk. The advantage of silk is aesthetics, not function. Chas remove fly fish to reply http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html San Juan Pictures at: http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html |
Silk line diameter
If this is true, then the reason why plastic lines have a larger diameter [than silk lines] is the fact that fishermen prefer their lines care free. Chas Bingo! :-) Chas Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in Chas a wind, so I don't see any reason to bother trying to push the Chas square peg of a modern line into the round hole of a silk line. Well, for me that seems to depend on the length of the cast. For example, while fishing with my 2wt last week, I was having plenty of trouble with the sidewind when trying to reach feeding fish that were further away. (I can't give you any exact measures of the distance I was or was not able to handle.) I am aware that a 2wt is not a long-distance tool, but since I couldn't wade there, and the fish were surface feeding, and _did_ take the fly when I was able to cast it there... -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
Silk line diameter
Chas Wade wrote:
snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind, ... But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and change into that costume with the "S" on the front and the cape on the back ? ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Chas Wade wrote: snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind, ... But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and change into that costume with the "S" on the front and the cape on the back ? ;-) Chas is a better caster than most of us. I think he makes the erroneous assumption that just because he can do something with no trouble, all of us can do it. Casting a three weight into the wind is a bitch! Willi |
Silk line diameter
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Chas Wade wrote: snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind, ... But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and change into that costume with the "S" on the front and the cape on the back ? ;-) Chas is a better caster than most of us. I think he makes the erroneous assumption that just because he can do something with no trouble, all of us can do it. Casting a three weight into the wind is a bitch! Nigh on impossible for me, and I'm no slouch. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Silk line diameter
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Chas Wade wrote: snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind, ... But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and change into that costume with the "S" on the front and the cape on the back ? ;-) I haven't used that costume since silk lines went out of fashion. ;-) Chas remove fly fish to reply http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html San Juan Pictures at: http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html |
Silk line diameter
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Chas Wade wrote: snip Personally, I don't have any trouble casting a modern 3wt DT in a wind, ... But don't you first have to slip into a phone booth and change into that costume with the "S" on the front and the cape on the back ? ;-) Chas is a better caster than most of us. I think he makes the erroneous assumption that just because he can do something with no trouble, all of us can do it. Casting a three weight into the wind is a bitch! Thanks for the complement Willi, but I've seen a few folks who can cast circles around me. I think the essence of what I'm suggesting here is that casting lessons and some practice are a better solution than archaic equipment. I remember my father talking about draping his old silk lines around the cabin to dry every night when he was up north fishing. He also talked about the surprise breaks caused by rotten spots in the line. Chas remove fly fish to reply http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html San Juan Pictures at: http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter