Tengas, Fenwick, and Marryat photo by Alpago |
 |
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 docbluedevil |
Vintage Hardy vs. other Fisher-based rods: Actions? |
Lead | |
|
Master Guide
Posts: 264 (02/23/09 00:07:37) |
Can anyone summarize their experiences/thoughts on the actions of the vintage Hardy glass rods (e.g. JET, Fibalite) and compare them to other Fisher-based rods
(e.g. Winston, Scientific Angler, Cortland Leon Chandler)?
While we're talking about it, can anyone compare a vintage Hardy action to Hardy's current glass offerings? |
||
|
gearboy |
|||
|
Master Guide
Posts: 277 (02/23/09 05:34:55) |
Doc, I've owned or cast all of them except the Winston but felt Duff's Winston and it is definitely the slowest, softest of the lot. Almost like a Lami
Honey. On the other end of the lot is the Sci Angler models which are the fastest. I would rate them a shade faster than the later Fenwicks like an FF806.
The others like the Fibatube and JET series are nice, medium action rods. My favorite of the lot that I've owned and fished is the Leon Chandler. It feels
lighter than the others. It's probably closest to the Fenwick I mentioned, light but on the faster side of medium. I've been watching ebay for one for
quite sometime and haven't seen any. A dealer has had a 6/7 for sale for quite awhile at $175.
|
||
|
scud dog |
|||
|
Master Guide
Posts: 1255 (02/23/09 06:32:46) |
GB: $175 is a tweak high, but lots cheaper than the time you may be spending looking for one. LOL! Lesson I'm trying to teach myself as well. I have/had
Hardy 8' #6s and own a System 6 (8'1" #6). They're all faster than a "glass medium". The JET is the lightest, slowest and has the
lightest tip. Nice rod. The Fibatube has more guts and a better tip. IMO, this rod is gold. Great casting feel; a better and more versatile fishing tool than
the JET. The System 6 is fastest of the lot. Similar to but not as light as a FF806. Good rod with plenty of lifting power. The JET has the name recognition,
but IMO the Fibatubes are Hardy's best glass rods from that era. My only experience with a Winston glass was a 7'6" kit rod that was so s-l-o-w
that the guy I bought it from never even lined it. I sold it. The next buyer thought it was too slow so he sold it quickly and his buyer then sold it quickly.
I haven't seen it listed since. Musta found a home.
|
||
|
docbluedevil |
|||
|
Master Guide
Posts: 267 (02/23/09 13:33:28) |
Thanks for the observations, fellas.
The reason I ask is because I have a Fisher blank without a factory spec label, an 8'0" 2 pc, that I'm trying to figure out what line it is factory rated for. I think it's an 8' 5 wt. Based on a borrowed micrometer, it's tip diameter (and other measurements) is smaller than a Fisher 9' 6 wt blank and larger than an 8'0" 4 wt Fisher blank tip. Compared to a Winston SF 7'6" 5 wt and 8'6" 6 wt, the blank mics out a little closer to the 5 wt's specs. The blank approximates most closely my recently acquired Winston 8' 5 wt 3 pc but the actions are quite different with the Winston being a medium and the Fisher blank being a med-fast. Maybe it's a in-house Fisher blank? Or a blank for a Hardy Fibalite vs. S.A. vs. Leon Chandler? I know Hardy made an 8' 6 wt but not sure about a 5 wt. IIRC, S.A. System rods were odd lengths so that wouldn't fit. Don't know much about Leon Chandler specs. Whatever it's origin, it's an interesting new angle at glass for me cuz I'm used to the slower actions. |
||
|
jtm.clarksclassicfl... |
|||
|
Sport
Posts: 1 (02/23/09 14:23:31) |
I have build 5 of these Fisher blanks in last couple of years, two 7 1/2´ , two 8´and 8 1/2´. Shortest are #5, 8` are #6 and longest is #7. All are faster side
of glass and everyone has quite more powerfull butt than any other Fisher blank based rod that I have handled . Best rods that I have ever casted. Docbluedevil
you woudn´t consider selling the blank ?
- Jarmo - 
|
||
|
docbluedevil |
|||
|
Master Guide
Posts: 271 (02/23/09 16:43:04) |
Hi, Jarmo.
Welcome to the forum! Sounds like your experience with Fishers will be much appreciated here! Thanks for the info. Are you saying that you've had Fisher blanks in 7.6' 5 wts, 8.0' 6 wts, and 8.6' 7 wts? Do you know if Fisher made an 8.0' 5 wt as well? |
||
|
jgestar |
|||
|
Posts: 3346 (02/23/09 17:20:12) ezOP |
Jarmo,
Welcome to the Fiberglass Flyrodders! Glass rods and rod builders go together! If you are building lots of Fisher glass rods, then I think you will like it here! Doc, do you have the possibility of running something like a Common Cents measurement on the rod blank? Micrometer measurements are a good indication, but flex testing the rod is more informative in the long run. After all, the rod flexes when we cast. Tom |
||
|
Riffling Hitch |
|||
|
Master Guide
Posts: 445 (02/23/09 22:12:17) |
If I remember correctly there was a post several years ago on the forum that listed fisher blanks from a catalogue. I do not know if it still exists. I also
like the fisher blanks the best and have built up a couple black fisher blanks and have a few of the sa and chandler rods as well as a built 13wt that I have
been trying to get out to fish for some sharks with.
Russell |
||
|
docbluedevil |
|||
|
Master Guide
Posts: 273 (02/23/09 23:39:56) |
Riffling Hitch wrote: Sharks? Fisher rods? Pics . . . Pics . . . Pics! This Colorado boy is intrigued. BTW, I'll definitely try to search for that catalog of Fisher models. That's exactly what I'm looking for. |
||
|
docbluedevil |
|||
|
Master Guide
Posts: 274 (02/24/09 02:00:51) |
jtm - thanks for the spot on description for this rod's action
gearboy & scud - thanks for the comparison info. Sure helps a lot. Being used to Winston glass only, I was very surprised to see how quick this blank was. Russell - thanks for telling me about the Fisher catalog; it led me to Tom (no surprise) Tom - thanks for checkin' your resource to confirm that Fisher did make an 8' 5 wt blank. |
||
|
16 pmd |
|||
|
Sport
Posts: 18 (02/24/09 13:54:37) |
I'm sure that some of you have more experience comparing the various Fisher blanks used by different makers, but I think the comparison with Winston needs
to take into account when the Winston rods were made. When Doug Merrick owned Winston, the glass rods would definitely not be called slow by glass standards.
They were crisp, medium fast rods that suited Doug's tastes and that of the tournament casters and anglers at the Golden Gate Angling & Casting Club.
When Tom Morgan bought the company (early 70's), he introduced some slower action rods, including the original Stalker series, reflecting his personal
tastes for easier-casting rods that he favored in his fishing. If the comparison of Winston rods is with Morgan-era ones, then calling them slow is more
accurate, but if it's with the Merrick Winstons, I don't think anyone would call them slow. Doug Merrick of Winston, Ferd Claudio and Jon Tarantino,
who designed for Hardy, were all tournament casters, all cast at the Golden Gate club in San Francisco and had similar ideas about action. They knew each other
very well, saw each other regularly and conferred with each other. Most of their rods were medium to medium-fast, depending on their intended use.
|
||
|
docbluedevil |
|||
|
Master Guide
Posts: 276 (02/24/09 14:36:39) |
16 pmd
Good point! The SF Winstons are crisper in action compared to their MT brethren; I'd still call them a medium progressive action in my hands though, at least in a 7'6" 5 wt and 8'0" 6 wt. I'd rate my MT 7'6" 4 wt and 8'0" 5 wt as medium as well and my 8'0" 4 wt as medium-slow. |
||
