On 6 Dec, 01:15, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Total nonsense.

Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to
the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods
is subjective.

It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly
rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA
line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense.

In my experience, (Winston, Sage, T&T, Scott, Orvis, Redington,
Cabela's etc.), I have never encountered a fly rod which was
rated incorrectly. It may happen, I don't know, but I can't see
what incentive a manufacturer would have to deliberately label
a fly rod with the wrong line designation.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ooops! Silly me........ Seems I forgot the quotation marks in my
last post, and the source;

"Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to
the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods
is subjective. For example, I might test a fly rod and consider it
perfect for a number 6 line, while someone else deems the same rod
better suited to a number 7 line. In my experience, American
manufacturers tend to under-rate their rods, which often work better
with lines one or two sizes heavier than indicated."

http://www.michaelevans.co.uk/advice_Choosing_a_Rod.asp

It does not matter how many times you or anybody else writes it, there
is NO STANDARD for rod weights, it is entirely subjective.

In most cases it will be good guide, that is all.

The ONLY measurable standard is for fly lines.

MC