Fun day at Bennett / something old is new to me

[fishinwrench]

A rod that is under-lined will throw shock waves on the forward stroke on a cast of 30'-35' as the tip shakes up & down.  (Not enough weight to settle the tip down). 

A rod that is over-lined will not have enough power to shoot line very well or control loops beyond 30-35'.  

Since most trout fishing is done inside of 30'-35' a trout rod will usually cast best if over-lined by 1-2 line weights.

The weight difference on lines from 2 to 6wt. is 20 gr.  (Slightly under 1/16oz.) So if you want to feel how a trout rod will load at 30'-35' with the next size heavier line.....just tape a 1/16oz. crappie jig to the middle of the upper half of the rod blank.  

 

Then there is a 25gr. increase from 6 to 7,

A 30gr. increase from 7 to 8. 

A 40gr. increase from 8 to 9, and from 9 to 10.

 

[tjm]

yeah, or just let out 5' more line, the active mass just keeps increasing throughout the body length.

There never has been an accepted way to rate fly rods to line weights by measuring or in any objective way, the way that fly rods are rated is some in house "expert caster" tries the completed prototype with a few different lines and says "I like this rod best with a #4, but I  think an average caster might like it best with a #6 so we will rate it #5", or something along that line. I once read a long article by a retired rod rating caster for a big manufacturer and that was the gist of it. I think that most vintage rods were "rated" with 30-40' casts in mind, for the eastern trout crowd, but in the '80s manufacturers switched to rating the rods for the big western rivers as the FF community became more travel orientated. I've read that on the rivers like Idaho's Silver Creek and many Montana streams that the average dry fly casts are over 50', so the modern rod ratings are tuned more to 50-60' casts and seem to me to be very under rated at 20-30'. I generally ignore what it says on the rod and start them all off at #7 and go up or down from there. Generally I end up fishing graphite rods with heavier than rated lines and 'glass rods with lighter than rated lines, also tend to go a line weight or two lighter when overhead casting than when roll casting, but that's all personal preference. I've successfully fished #9 lines on #5 rods and #4 lines on #7 rods  and many other combos. With my poor casting quite a lot of older rods run out of fizz at ~40' regardless of line weight. 

@BilletHeadShakespeare also made those automatic reels if you want to match reel and rod.  The "OK" comes to mind. This page might help you (I have too many bookmarks)- https://wiki.fiberglassflyrodders.com/wiki/Shakespeare And as side note I read that the Shakespeare date code applied to the Pflueger Medalist reels in the "DA", "CJ" & "AK" suffixes to  the model numbers, designating year of moving production to Ar., Japan, and China. Shakespeare was likely the very first fiberglass rod manufacturer, although three early rod producers started close in time by people who had all worked for the same aircraft company during the war,

The early Shakespeare rods were built around a balsa-wood mandrel that was left in them, making them a bit heavier than hollow 'glass rods. My long ago FF mentor used an early 9' Shakespeare with DT9F line and was the only guy I ever saw roll cast to the backing regularly.  We were fishing still water trout that very rarely came within 50', using midges and the steep banks prevented any back cast so he had become very good at his particular cast. But, because I could never match his reach, I thought my rod was defective, as month long fly rod user I had no real notion, so one day I asked him to try my rod to see if something could be improved, and sure enough after a swish or three to left and right he left two turns of line on my reel and and within a few seconds had a trout on. As he slipped the trout into his creel, he said to me "there's nothing wrong with that rod son, you just need to learn how to cast", I got better under his guidance but I never did get close to his distance.

I like my Phillipson rods and a couple of the early Fenwicks better than most Vintage "glass.

 

 

[BilletHead]

    @tjm  

   Working on it. A couple shakesphere in there. 

[netboy]

I had a Shakespeare auto back in the early 60's. As I remember, it was pretty heavy.

[BilletHead]

30 minutes ago, netboy said:

I had a Shakespeare auto back in the early 60's. As I remember, it was pretty heavy.

            Oh, they are compared to what we have now that is for sure. 

[tjm]

Can't compare weight of  an auto to a single action reel from today or from 1940. My lightest single action reel is a prewar SalTrout at about 4oz., I have no idea what modern reels weigh. The majority of vintage reels run 4.5-6.5oz. I think.  All automatic reels are very heavy because that strong mainspring is heavy, but the OK I have is way lighter than the newest in time auto I have, which is Pflueger from the early 2000s, the Pflueger does have greater capacity though. The old reels were designed around level silk fly lines and 35' casting. The last guy I saw fishing one had it loaded with 20# mono and back in when I was a kid many autos were filled with casting braid (Dacron?) for tossing crawdads.  Those reels aren't meant to take up line against the fish either, they were used to keep the stripped in line out of the way, and a fish making a long hard run would either come to the and of the line or overwind the spring and break the tippet, the guys needed fish fighting skills and the ability to run in the water. The reels of that time really  only held fly line during the excursion, the silk line was removed and dried at the end of the day. It's kinda neat to weigh the reel naked and weigh it again with a 1/4 mile of backing and a full DT line. Surprising how much backing adds.

 

[BilletHead]

  What say you @tjm.  This with Shakespeare reel (junker) on it was a featherweight compared to the wonder rod. Of course this is a shorter rod. Got rod for 20.00.  

[BilletHead]

[tjm]

Yes all the Wonderods were heavy, even when compared to other '50s rods, but rods were almost all lighter in the '60s and by the '70s some 'glass rods were in the weight range  of some graphite rods. But I always mention how that a pint beverage weighs a full pound and most that wimp out with a 5oz rod can hoist pints all day.

Any fishable fly rod is a bargain at $20 in today's dollars. I think that one would be worth it as a project rod.

I think it's St Croix made rod from the early '60s. The line markings show both #6 and HDH, so after the 1960 standard was set, but soon enough after that the letter designations were still in use. The winding check looks like St Croix. Sears bought rods and tackle from almost everybody that made the stuff but St. Croix is said to have shipped them 100,000 rods per year. St Croix was also a big supplier for Cortland back then and sold some to Herter's, although Herters got most of their rods from True Temper/Montague, St Croix sold many times more trade rods than they sold under the St. Croix name.

I'm guessing you'll like that best with for overhead casting  with WF5F, and a spring / pawl reel. Or a smaller modern reel. To stay with Martin the "tuna cans" MG3, MG 60-63 etc.  would, I think, be about right, I have several Sal Tout 1554 reels  that I would use. I'd also use a Medalist 1494.

Based on the longer St Croix rods I've used it should be a great roll casting rod with a #6 or 7 line.  And the 6'6" length is ideal for places like Crane or RRSP, any smaller streams or streams with full canopy. You won't like that short rod where you need to mend  a lot though. My only 6'6" rod is a Phillipson #6 from roughly the same period and is a very nice rod at <60', with my mediocre casting, but it doesn't mend very well.

 

[tjm]

The prices you're quoting makes me want to go shopping where you do.