Cost of rods

original cormorant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
654
Apology accepted.



And surprisingly enough that's their finding too! Amazing.

In this test, like in the 6 Yellowstone tests and the two Trident tests, no correlation was found between the price of a rod and its performance.

Are you seeing the picture yet?
You are inferring that I didn't see the picture years ago.

My issue was that you were wrongly attributing this shootout, not about the results. I think you misunderstood my use of the word sorry:rolleyes:
 

anzac

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
1,116
This thread is now 139 pages long, what is the final verdict, do we have a solution yet?
Well, not by consensus, but rather by all of our ravings saying much the same think. Yes, and the some are good, some are bad, some are a bargain, and some are almost extortionist in price, but it comes down to what you like.
everyone likes something. It's just not the same 'something'.
 

lee71

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
6,136
Location
Here there and everywhere
I wouldn't. Value depends on how much money you have, how much you are prepared to spend on a rod and how much you want it. I like mainly discontinued rods and can usually buy them for a great deal less than Im prepared to pay for them. That's value for me.
Totally agree mate, the only full price rod I bought was an Atomsix and that was only cos I got it in memory of my dad.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,215
This thread is now 139 pages long, what is the final verdict, do we have a solution yet?
I'm not sure.

I think there's a bit more understanding that just because a rod is expensive and carries a premium brand name doesn't mean that it's any good. And similarly it's not true that cheaper rods can't be very good.

I'm hoping that it's accepted that an expensive rod will not help a poor caster to cast any better but I'm not sure.

From what I've got out of all this it seems to me that in order of importance if you want to be a good caster the actual rod you use is almost irrelevant. First you need a good technique, then you need a balanced outfit of line and rod suitable for the type of fishing you're doing. Almost any modern, correctly sized rod will do.

All this should mean that only those that are already proficient casters and really know what they're doing should even think about spending £800 on a fly rod. IF they're being purely rational. If you know what you're doing and you have access to a lot of rods it's possible to pick one that suits you. I

But there's nothing wrong with being irrational and buyIng a rod for other reasons - just because you like it, want it and can afford it. Premium rods are nice to own. A no-name, Far Eastern rod that performs really well just doesn't carry that prestige and doesn't make most people feel good about ownership. That's the power of marketing.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,215
It was pretty much accepted before you brought it up, now I'm not sure :)
How many times have you seen 'you get what you pay for' in this thread and on this forum? It's simply not true for fly rods.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
35,973
How many times have you seen 'you get what you pay for' in this thread and on this forum? It's simply not true for fly rods.
One of many meaningless phrases in fly fishing, no one in their right mind ever thought that an 800 quid rod was 8 times better in performance than a 100 quid rod, apart from maybe you prior to the the epiphany that prompted you to start the thread.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,215
One of many meaningless phrases in fly fishing,
But one repeatedly used here to justify an expensive purchase. And now we know it's wrong.

no one in their right mind ever thought that an 800 quid rod was 8 times better in performance than a 100 quid rod,
I doubt many, if any, thought of it that way. But I suspect some are now making the calculation and wondering what actual benefit they're gaining from an increase in spend of that or even greater magnitude.

Is that Far Eastern made Hardy really worth 20 times that Far Eastern Shakespeare made by the same American owned company? And how can I know?

apart from maybe you prior to the the epiphany that prompted you to start the thread.
I didn't start the thread. The thread was started by someone who noticed that premium fly rods were disproportionately expensive when compared to other forms of fishing rods. Which they are.

This current discussion about whether the expensive rods are even any better than cheaper ones is a side issue.
 
Last edited:

sewinbasher

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
11,593
Location
North East Wales
One of many meaningless phrases in fly fishing, no one in their right mind ever thought that an 800 quid rod was 8 times better in performance than a 100 quid rod, apart from maybe you prior to the the epiphany that prompted you to start the thread.
I completely agree, it's why I've never bought a new "top end" rod. They are however generally made from better materials and are usually lighter making them "better" rods by most considerations. I have had plenty of used Sage, Winston, Loop and Orvis but haven't paid more than around £275 for any of them and considered them good value for the money. I would take my Winston Biit over just about any other trout rod at any price.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
35,973
But I suspect some are now making the calculation and wondering what actual benefit they're gaining from an increase in spend of that or even greater magnitude.
I doubt it, we are well accustomed to paying more for the security a reliable brand offers, the idea that people relate that higher price to performance is debatable.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
35,973
Is that Far Eastern made Hardy really worth 20 times that Far Eastern Shakespeare made by the same American owned company? And how can I know?
If you still don't know after 4 years of researching it you may never.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
35,973
I completely agree, it's why I've never bought a new "top end" rod. They are however generally made from better materials and are usually lighter making them "better" rods by most considerations. I have had plenty of used Sage, Winston, Loop and Orvis but haven't paid more than around £275 for any of them and considered them good value for the money. I would take my Winston Biit over just about any other trout rod at any price.
I would hazard a guess that Tangled has never tried a Biit and has already decided that its performance is no better than the lower(and higher) price bands, and that we will never agree on a particular set of performance criteria.

I'd agree though, stunning rod.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,215
I would hazard a guess that Tangled has never tried a Biit
I haven't.

But just for the record, and so you won't keep saying this kind of twaddle (you will) I've tried many premium brand rods over the last four years because I've done a lot of travel fishing with guides and groups who happily swop rods. The only rod I really didn't get on with was a Sage Xi; all the rest I thought were fine and would happily use them. Including a Shakespeare. I found none of them any better than my Greys and that is almost certainly down to my knowing that rod really well. I've also seen what a really good caster can do with my 'cheap Hardy' and that convinced me that it's not the rod, it's who's holding it.

And again, for the record, I'm now regarded as a reasonable caster with both single-handed and double-handed rods. That's still a very, very long way from a professional angler, a guide or an instructor but it's as good as an occasional angler probably gets - and that's most of us.

If there's any performance to be gained from spending £1,000 rather than £100 on a fly rod I certainly haven't found it. But I'll happily accept that experts can.

and has already decided that its performance is no better than the lower(and higher) price bands,
I don't know the rod but I've heard people say that it is indeed a good rod so I would, of course, think that it's likely to be a good rod.

But as always, all you're doing is showing over and over again that you don't understand what is being said here and trying to turn it into what *I* believe and think. (Which, as you have just seen, is pretty much always wrong.)

and that we will never agree on a particular set of performance criteria.
That certainly seems to be the case - even the professional rod builders can't decide. It seems more art than science. In one of those Paul Arden threads he says (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that you can't say that a rod from a particular manufacturer will be a good rod just because it's that manufacturer, nor can you say that all the sizes of rod in a particular model range are good just because one particular size is.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
35,973
That certainly seems to be the case - even the professional rod builders can't decide. It seems more art than science. In one of those Paul Arden threads he says (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that you can't say that a rod from a particular manufacturer will be a good rod just because it's that manufacturer, nor can you say that all the sizes of rod in a particular model range are good just because one particular size is.
Yet if you took a poll everyone would rate the Winston Biit, and the designers designed that, no subjective artistry going on there, you can measure the mandrel and calculate the cloth and make multiples of them, its not accidental.

The Biit is not a performance rod, it doesn't show on your graph, you may not notice a difference between it and your Shakey, but I do, and others do, and after 4 years of talking about it you still don't know why that is.
 

Latest posts

Top