Fly Fishing Forum - Reply to Topic
Worldwide Flyfishing Discussion Talk flyfishing with members around the world!

Thread: old rods Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options
Rate Thread
If you like, you can add a score for this thread.

Topic Review (Newest First)
05-27-2003 06:05 PM
SDHflyfisher first fish on the bamboo was about a 12 inch brown got off at the net
05-23-2003 11:50 PM
BobK
Whoops... Sorry. Read it wrong....

That's what happens with advancing age! Sorry 'bout that!

BobK
05-23-2003 03:32 PM
sinktip Whew, I thought I had too much to drink this morning. (did I say that?) I looked at the A-9, B-8... list and it seemed to make sense to me.

Actually Moonlight, dyslexia refers to the transposition of the written word and dysnumeria to the same with numbers. Given the combinations involved in your line comparisons, I fear your could suffer from one, the other or god forbid both of these afflictions. There is really no way to be sure without a specimen sample
05-23-2003 02:19 PM
Moonlight
Thats good...

Sean, I'm glad to hear you are going to fish the rod, its best to fish the older cane rods with as light a line as you can make the rod work with. As to the extra weight of the cane it seems to disappear as you use it more often.

Bob K. I must be "Dyslexic" or whatever that thing is that makes people see things backwards my post still looks right to me!
05-23-2003 01:18 PM
BobK
Hey, Moonlight, you got that WRONG!

And backwards! Line designations in letters - the lower the letter (towards "A"), the heavier the line. That's why tapered lines were listed as "HCH" or "HDH" and others.

The first "H" was for the smaller tip, the "C" (or whatever) was the part you cast, and the last "H" was for the "running line".

BobK
05-23-2003 12:38 PM
SDHflyfisher i have already fished with WF5 it is very slow and heavy but not that bad didn't catch any fish yet but will use the rod pretty often
05-23-2003 10:45 AM
Moonlight
A-9,B-8,C-7,D-6,E-5,F-4,G-3,H-2,I-1.....

These number letters are based on my assortment of old cane rods and fiberglass too fairly accurate as relates to modern lines that are sold today.
That old South Bend rod sounds like it needs to be fished, you should do just that. As far as a line to use with it I suggest that you try it with a WF 6 or DT5. If you have not used cane you will be suprised at how much slower the rod will react give it a little time and practice and you might find that it is good to be slow.
Always make sure that the cane rod is completely dry before you put it back in its bag and tube. Oh yeah one other thing if the ferrules appear to be stuck don't worry they will come apart just use a pair of rubber gloves to help your grip and the ferrules will "pop" apart with ease.
05-23-2003 01:36 AM
Nooksack Mac
To D or not to D, that is the question

If I remember, a D-belly was more likely to be a 5- or 6-weight. That letter system designated diameters. Trouble was, Ashaway's D, using different plastic coatings, might or might not be the same weight as Cortland's D belly. The cry went out for a system based on line weight, and so the AFTMA system that we use today came to be, somewhere around 1960.
A designation like HDH was a double taper; one like GBF was a weight-forward. I seem to remember that there were designations like GAAF or G2AF, which was a saltwater-size WF line.
05-22-2003 03:24 PM
BobK
Probably.....

It probably is a 4-weight. Must be a vintage where the numbers were starting to replace the letters. A "D" line (or HDH for a taper) would just about match up with a 4 weight.
Probably early '60s vintage, if memory serves me right.

BobK
05-22-2003 03:13 PM
SDHflyfisher so it is probably a four weight
the old reel i told you guys about on with some 5 weight line on it and it casts very well
05-22-2003 01:07 PM
fredaevans
Chris, I have Lamiglass' catalog in my office.

Shoot me a fax number at frederick_Evans@keybank.com and I'll copy/fax the pages back to you.
fae
05-22-2003 12:52 PM
John Desjardins I was thinking of there Bush (?) Creek series. Last year I built a 6'6" 3 wt out of one and its a nice, albeit slow, blank. The cost for a 2 piece blank was ~ $65-70. There not on the Lamiglas website now though.
05-22-2003 12:12 PM
flyfisha1 But which ones, specifically?
05-22-2003 11:53 AM
John Desjardins Lamiglas has some reasonable priced fiberglass blanks.
05-22-2003 11:47 AM
flyfisha1
Retro-fly fishing; a break from technology

I foresee a time in the not-so-distant future where "purist" fly fishermen and women go back to the old line designations, bamboo and fiberglass rod blanks, silk lines, and so on. I'm determined to build a "trout rod" on a fiberglass blank sometime this year... only problem is, FG blanks are somewhat hard to find and the ones I've seen are quite pricey... anyone know of good FG blanks for a reasonable price?
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 AM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)