That old question, one more time

In reading the rodbuilding link on rofft, it starts out asking the old
question about "What length, weight, stiffness, modulus rod do you want
to build?" As I mused the thought of building my own, I realized that I
don't have any real gaps in my rod collection that I'd want to fill,
however I also am not evenly distributed through the distribution
either. I have four rods but two of them are quite similar (same weight
and almost same length, but differing stiffness) and a third is sort of
in a class by itself. The fourth is a piece of junk that I started out
with. In fact, my collection is all out of whack, and I really ought to
start over! Merely getting another half dozen rods wouldn't necessarily
make it easier to decide which one or two to fish with any given
day...sort of like a man with 3 watches not really knowing what time it
is.

So imagine that you could start all over, and your vision was to end up
develop your rod collection in such a way that you always were as
versatile as possible for most common conditions, and never had too
high redundancy. 'Most common conditions' would have to be personally
defined, but shouldn't be too limited in scope.

Lets assume that in the end, you wanted to have 5 rods, and your rate
of aquisition would be 1 rod per year. What would be your strategy?
What rod would you start with, what would be your second rod, etc? I
guess the option of selling a single rod any given year to 'rearrange'
the distribution would be acceptable.

--riverman

On 9 Jan 2006 19:16:05 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

In reading the rodbuilding link on rofft, it starts out asking the old
question about "What length, weight, stiffness, modulus rod do you want
to build?" As I mused the thought of building my own, I realized that I
don't have any real gaps in my rod collection that I'd want to fill,
however I also am not evenly distributed through the distribution
either. I have four rods but two of them are quite similar (same weight
and almost same length, but differing stiffness) and a third is sort of
in a class by itself. The fourth is a piece of junk that I started out
with. In fact, my collection is all out of whack, and I really ought to
start over! Merely getting another half dozen rods wouldn't necessarily
make it easier to decide which one or two to fish with any given
day...sort of like a man with 3 watches not really knowing what time it
is.

So imagine that you could start all over, and your vision was to end up
develop your rod collection in such a way that you always were as
versatile as possible for most common conditions, and never had too
high redundancy. 'Most common conditions' would have to be personally
defined, but shouldn't be too limited in scope.

Lets assume that in the end, you wanted to have 5 rods, and your rate
of aquisition would be 1 rod per year. What would be your strategy?
What rod would you start with, what would be your second rod, etc? I
guess the option of selling a single rod any given year to 'rearrange'
the distribution would be acceptable.

--riverman

Five, total? A bagatelle!

A 9/5, then a 9/7, then an 8/3, then a 9/9, finally another 9/5 - because
you'll have broken the first one by then...

All of them 4 or 5 piece, btw. And you can reverse the positions of the 7 with
the 3 depending on which you'd use more often.

/daytripper (hth ;-)

riverman wrote:
In reading the rodbuilding link on rofft, it starts out asking the old
question about "What length, weight, stiffness, modulus rod do you want
to build?" As I mused the thought of building my own, I realized that I
don't have any real gaps in my rod collection that I'd want to fill,
however I also am not evenly distributed through the distribution
either. I have four rods but two of them are quite similar (same weight
and almost same length, but differing stiffness) and a third is sort of
in a class by itself. The fourth is a piece of junk that I started out
with. In fact, my collection is all out of whack, and I really ought to
start over! Merely getting another half dozen rods wouldn't necessarily
make it easier to decide which one or two to fish with any given
day...sort of like a man with 3 watches not really knowing what time it
is.

So imagine that you could start all over, and your vision was to end up
develop your rod collection in such a way that you always were as
versatile as possible for most common conditions, and never had too
high redundancy. 'Most common conditions' would have to be personally
defined, but shouldn't be too limited in scope.

Lets assume that in the end, you wanted to have 5 rods, and your rate
of aquisition would be 1 rod per year. What would be your strategy?
What rod would you start with, what would be your second rod, etc? I
guess the option of selling a single rod any given year to 'rearrange'
the distribution would be acceptable.

Only 5 rods ? That's like weird, but ...

9/5 fast, 9/4 slow, 7.5/3 very slow, 10/7 broomstick fast,
7.5/1 medium.

My "most common conditions" are dry flies and bass bugs in
wind and in the calm, but that little 7.5' 1wt is brookie
tackle.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"riverman" wrote in message
Lets assume that in the end, you wanted to have 5 rods, and your rate
of aquisition would be 1 rod per year. What would be your strategy?
What rod would you start with, what would be your second rod, etc? I
guess the option of selling a single rod any given year to 'rearrange'
the distribution would be acceptable.

Hmm, hmm, hmm. Do I go with what I use the most or what I wish I used the
most?

Okay, first rod - a 9' 5 wt. I could make it work on most but the smallest
trout streams and it would still be a nice rod for the local shad run amd
the occasional smallie trip.

2nd - With the trout covered, I'd look upward to the salmon run. Give me a
10' 8 wt. fast action for punching out roll casts & mending upstream.

3rd - I've put it off long enough , I want that 7-9" 3 wt Sage. I have one
now & it is a dream for small streams.

4th - Gimme another big rod, say a 9'-6" 9wt. for some occasional salt and
as a second salmon rod.

5th. I'll fill in the lower end with a nice 4wt.

Joe F.

"riverman" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
SNIP
Lets assume that in the end, you wanted to have 5 rods, and your rate
of aquisition would be 1 rod per year. What would be your strategy?
What rod would you start with, what would be your second rod, etc? I
guess the option of selling a single rod any given year to 'rearrange'
the distribution would be acceptable.

--riverman


Well, in the light of expericece and acquired knowledge, I would approach
that differently now. I would go for two really good rods which suited the
majority of my conditions, for instance a fast #3 wt, about an 8´6" or
possibly shorter, and a fast 9´or 9´6" #7. By using the appropriate lines,
heads etc, this would cover about 90% of my fishing.

In my opinion, having a good range of suitable lines is more useful than
having a large collection of rods. Of course, I still have a large
collection of rods, but I rarely use most of them.

Selling them here is not really a viable option. Dictated by location, and
the prevailing market. If one is au fait with e-bay, and the location allows
it, then I would probably get rid of quite a few. They are good rods all,
but I don´t need them much, some I have not fished with for years, and
indeed, I have a couple I have never even used.

TL
MC

On 9 Jan 2006 19:16:05 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

In reading the rodbuilding link on rofft, it starts out asking the old
question about "What length, weight, stiffness, modulus rod do you want
to build?" As I mused the thought of building my own, I realized that I
don't have any real gaps in my rod collection that I'd want to fill,
however I also am not evenly distributed through the distribution
either. I have four rods but two of them are quite similar (same weight
and almost same length, but differing stiffness) and a third is sort of
in a class by itself. The fourth is a piece of junk that I started out
with. In fact, my collection is all out of whack, and I really ought to
start over! Merely getting another half dozen rods wouldn't necessarily
make it easier to decide which one or two to fish with any given
day...sort of like a man with 3 watches not really knowing what time it
is.

So imagine that you could start all over, and your vision was to end up
develop your rod collection in such a way that you always were as
versatile as possible for most common conditions, and never had too
high redundancy. 'Most common conditions' would have to be personally
defined, but shouldn't be too limited in scope.

Lets assume that in the end, you wanted to have 5 rods, and your rate
of aquisition would be 1 rod per year. What would be your strategy?
What rod would you start with, what would be your second rod, etc? I
guess the option of selling a single rod any given year to 'rearrange'
the distribution would be acceptable.

--riverman

Well, you're probably soon to receive a subpoena from the Knight family
attorney, what with having induced Wayne's seizures and heart
attack...the jury will probably award them a billion-trillion-gazillion
dollars...at which point, you'll be hearing from the McKee family...

Seriously, though, your question is close to...no, on second thought, it
is impossible to get a single answer as worded - are we talking budget
choices or damned the cost - are we talking sticking with cane when
possible - what action do you like, and for which quarry - are we
talking "trip of a lifetime" or the coupla-hours-a-week hitting the
local water for panfish - or ??? - IOW, if there's never a consensus on
ONE rod, attempting to obtain something even close to one on five rods
is going to be like heading cats on crack being chased by pitbulls on
acid...

That said, IMO, a 4-5 and a 7-8 should cover most "real"/traditional
flyfishing situations. Add a 10-11 for fans of larger salt quarry and
the extra-large salmon-type fishing. And even if you got something one
could generously call a consensus on the rods, you'd have another
dilemma/question: reels - does salt figure into things, what
care/maintenance level are you willing to invest, what is your budget,
etc. For example, three Billy Pates would make a decent choice, but it
wouldn't be the economical choice, esp. if it's just occasional
freshwater fishing. OTOH, for example, if your fishing were going to be
limited to panfish, trout, bass, light salt, etc. and wanted 'boo where
possible, a nice old US-made Medalist or Hardy might be the choice(s).

For me, the only answer is, "get the rods that fit your particular
needs, likes, wants, budget, and availability."

TC,
R

By the way, I have such a large collection, mainly because I built a couple
of series of rods, and kept the prototypes. I don´t go out and buy rods
"willy nilly".

TL
MC

On 9 Jan 2006 19:16:05 -0800, "riverman" wrote:


Lets assume that in the end, you wanted to have 5 rods, and your rate
of aquisition would be 1 rod per year. What would be your strategy?
What rod would you start with, what would be your second rod, etc? I
guess the option of selling a single rod any given year to 'rearrange'
the distribution would be acceptable.

--riverman

Three lists thus far:

Daytripper: 9/5, then a 9/7, then an 8/3, then a 9/9, finally another
9/5

Ken: 9/5 fast, 9/4 slow, 7.5/3 very slow, 10/7 broomstick fast,
7.5/1 medium.

Joe: 9' 5 wt 10' 8 wt. 7-9" 3 wt Sage 9'-6" 9wt a nice 4wt

and Mike and I with general guidelines suggesting a "#3 wt, about an
8´6"" and "a fast 9´or 9´6" #7," and a "4-5" and "7-8," with a possible
"10-11" if the need is there.

So at this point, based on "majority rules," it appears you'll need to
get (5) fast 9' 5 weights...well, assuming 'tripper and Joe meant a fast
5...

Here's the rub as I see it: every list/guideline thus far is as
legitimate, accurate, and defencible as any other...or not, if your
quarry if nothing but large salt species or do nothing but small stream
fishing...

TC,
R

The "standard" fly rod nowadays seems to be a 9´ #5 Weight. That would be
my third choice.

Indeed, the spacing #3. #5, #7 covers a multitude of sins.

Lastly, it can be a pain in the butt trying to choose what rods to take
along at all, when you have a wide choice.

Some years ago, I severely reduced my collection of "other" (
Non-flyfishing) rods, and although I still have quite a few, I now mainly
use a rod which I found is pretty versatile for my needs and wants. This is
great, as I just pick it up and go!

It is a beefier version of an English match rod, 13 ft with a 3/4 lb test
curve. I use it for just about every technique and target fish.

TL
MC

riverman wrote:

Lets assume that in the end, you wanted to have 5 rods, and your rate
of aquisition would be 1 rod per year.

First, the assumption is wrong g. The notion that I'd go a year
without being able to fish for trout AND steelhead is absurd (for me,
mind you), yet the rod I'd want to do both is not a rod I'd necessarily
insist on if I had more than one.

So, (and only true for people who live in Central Oregon and want to
fish where I fish and for what I want to fish for):

1. If I could only *have* one rod it would be a 9ft 6wt 4pc Sage SLT. I
could fish for trout and summer steelhead, the things that make life
worth living, as well as panfish and bass.

2. If I could only have two rods, I wouldn't want the six weight. I'd
have an 8ft 5wt 2pc Thomas and Thomas cane rod and a 9ft 8wt 4pc Sage
SLT. I'd be more elegantly armed for the small stuff and could fish for
winter steelhead, small salmon and in the salt with a clear conscience,
but not be noticeably overgunned for the summers steelhead.

3. If I could have three, I'd add a 9ft 7wt 4pc SLT to #2. This would
be for summer steel specifically, a blessing to my right shoulder and
forearm during those long long hours of cast-and-step, cast-and-step,
and would be better matched for smallmouths too.

4. If I could have four, I'd add an 8.5ft 5wt 4pc SLT. Which would
allow me to travel for trout fishing without having to FedEx the T&T ahead.

I wouldn't need or want a fifth rod.