It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 18:41


New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
Post 22 Sep 2021, 18:00 • #1 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 08/25/08
Posts: 1526
Location: Delton, MI
For those who own the LLBean Pocketwater rods, which line weights do you find work best? I’m more interested hearing what you have to say about the 7’6” 4wt, but would like to hear about all three LlBean rods. Comparisons of the three LLBean with other low priced rods from Redington, Echo, Fenwick, etc. are also welcome.


Last edited by CrustyBugger on 23 Sep 2021, 15:40, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
Quote
Post 23 Sep 2021, 08:25 • #2 
Guide
Joined: 05/02/12
Posts: 100
Location: US-CT
I have the 6'9" 3wt. rod and although it casts a DT-3 alright I like it best with a
DT-4 406 line. If I were casting long distances I might like the 3wt. better.
tt


Top
  
Quote
Post 23 Sep 2021, 11:06 • #3 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 05/22/16
Posts: 1760
Location: SJC
This doesn't answer your question, and I don't own these rods, but I wonder if the same overseas manufacturer makes the Echo River Glass rods as the LL Beans, as they look very similar. If so, they might work well with similar lines.

I also noticed recently that Sierra Trading Post is selling the Wetfly Antigua glass rods, which also look very similar (just a different color / logo). In the past I think Wetfly was selling rebranded Maxcatch rods. I notice they have a 5wt in 8'6" ... thinking about another "hopper launcher" for the packraft :)


Top
  
Quote
Post 23 Sep 2021, 15:07 • #4 
Guide
Joined: 05/22/16
Posts: 159
Location: US-Eastern KY
I don't have a LL Bean glass rod but do have the new Fenglass rods in 4 through 7 weights. I primarily use the 7'-6" 5 wt. and like the SA Frequency Boost WF 5. Last time out I used a Rio DT 5 and really didn't care for it. I know from past posts you're not a fan of 1/2 weight lines, but I really like this line best on this rod. I also used this line on the first series Fenglass (early 90s) and thought it was a very good match for that rod also. I have not done so as yet, but will try a 406 WF and a Cortland 333 DT on this rod.


Top
  
Quote
Post 23 Sep 2021, 15:24 • #5 
Guide
Joined: 09/05/17
Posts: 305
Location: On a Stream
I have the 5-weight. I use the Airflo Forge WF5 and it does everything I ask of it with no complaints.


Top
  
Quote
Post 23 Sep 2021, 16:53 • #6 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 08/25/08
Posts: 1526
Location: Delton, MI
cjtarbox wrote:
I know from past posts you're not a fan of 1/2 weight lines, but I really like this line best on this rod.


If you think I don't like 1/2 weight lines, you've misread my posts. I don't dislike them at all. In fact they are quite necessary for many rods today, unfortunately. What I don't like is that 1/2 weight lines have to exist. What I don't like is what rod companies did to warrant the need for 1/2 weight lines. What I don't like is what fly line companies DON'T do to properly label them.

In there silly race to make rods faster and faster and faster and faster, rod companies started labeling 6wt rods and 7wt rods as 5wt rods. In response, fly line companies came up with this practice to circumvent AFTMA standards and make 1/2 wt lines so that these fast rods rod companies made would cast better but still label them as a 1/2 wt less. So a 5 1/2 wt line is still labeled as a 5 wt line. It is so absurd that one rod company makes their line a full line weight heavy, i.e. a 6wt line is labeled as a 5wt. Why do they do this? Because they think their customers are stupid. If they were honest about it, they would change the AFTMA standard to accommodate 1/2 wt line specifications and label them as such. But they are getting away with it. And so it goes.

I actually have reels that have 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, and 7.5 wt lines on them. So if you come to my house or to a MichiGlass outing, you can try them on your rod to find which line wt works best.

Odonata, thanks for noting the relationship with Echo's glass rods. Unless Echo has changed the lineup since they first introduced them, I guess I'm not interested in the LLBean rods either. With the Fenglass rods going off the market, I was trying to find new rods that I could recommend to beginners for 7-8ft trout/panfish rods. The Fenglass 7'0" 4wt was a pretty decent 7'0" 5wt for trout and panfish. The 8'3" 7wt was also very good. I'm not fond of the Echo or CGR rods so it's pretty difficult finding new rods to recommend now. The best advice for the time being is to wait for a good deal on a used Fenwick, Berkley Parametric, Cortland, Silaflex, Phillipson, etc. It's just hard to tell that to a single mom wanting to buy a rod for their enthusiastic child. It's a lot easier giving them a recommendation for something they can get on Amazon.


Top
  
Quote
Post 23 Sep 2021, 20:09 • #7 
Guide
Joined: 08/11/21
Posts: 208
Location: Tucson, AZ
I hear you, Crusty, and can definitely relate to the frustration of overemphasis on faster rods and short, radical tapers and heads on flylines.

Having ridden the wave of the rod, flyline and reel technical explosion,running a flyshop through those years..I just want to get back to the basics of flyfishing and have the best equipment for each and every situation.

I sold my share of strike indicators..even taught folks how to use them in classes..but I don't fish them these days, and cannot recall the last time I installed a splitshot on my leader. I love the power of a modern (less than 25 years old) fishing system, but it seems like so many of the rods were designed for hurling huge indicators with multiple splitshot long distances..and they excelled at that.

I hate the practice of spinning companies over-rating their monofilament lines almost to the point of absurdity...10lb mono testing out at 15lbs or more, for example..but I doubt if I will seek an IGFA World Record, so the breaking strength is rarely that critical in most of our fishing. More the action of a fly with lighter tippet, both on the surface and below.

Anyway, I am thrilled with modern flylines in general, though I am pretty much "out-of-the-loop" when it comes to the latest and greatest in rods and reels. I like the way Wulff Triangle Taper floating lines perform on my cane rods..and look forward to fishing them on fiberglass, but I just need some heavier Wulff's for what I do..only have 5 wts right now.

We simply have to do our homework when selecting flylines, and how they perform on our favorite rods in different situations always seems to require research..and this forum is very helpful, in my short time here.

There are so, so many lines out there.

When it gets too confusing..I try to envision having just one rod and how I would fish anyway and do fine.


Last edited by Phil-a-Flex on 24 Sep 2021, 23:37, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
Quote
Post 24 Sep 2021, 10:12 • #8 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 05/22/16
Posts: 1760
Location: SJC
I haven't tried the River Glass line, but I do have Echo's Big Water Glass 5wt 8'6" model, which was introduced later, and no longer produced. The rod roll casts well, and I like it with an Airflo Super Dri Elite trout line, which is a true to weight WF5F. The longish head helps the roll casting. I think I also tried it with a DT5F, which was also good, but I like the ridged Airflo more.

I did not know Fenwick wasn't producing the Fenglass rods anymore, that's a shame. I have their 3wt, 6wt and 7wt. The 3wt is pretty nice, and I use it with a true to weight WF3F (Airflo again). I use the 6 and 7 for warmwater, and half weight heavy WF lines, usually warmwater "bass" lines.


Top
  
Quote
Post 24 Sep 2021, 13:29 • #9 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 08/25/08
Posts: 1526
Location: Delton, MI
Odonata, I just wish the fly line industry would label fly lines accurately. Essentially they are labeling an out of spec product something it isn’t. You shouldn’t have to do your homework for that.


Top
  
Quote
Post 24 Sep 2021, 18:33 • #10 
Sport
Joined: 06/06/21
Posts: 41
Location: Northeast Oklahoma
CrustyBugger,
I have the 7’6” 4-wt Pocketwater rod. I have tried both WF4F and WF5F line. The rod works well with either line, but I'd say I prefer it with 5 wt. The leader seems to stretch out better for me with the heavier line. I can also feel the rod load more with the 5 wt. One drawback to the heavier line is that when fishing from a canoe, I tend to drag the water more on the back cast with the 5 wt. As a caveat, I'm not the best at casting, and someone more skillful than me may have a different experience.
Best wishes,
Mitch


Top
  
Quote
Post 25 Sep 2021, 15:34 • #11 
Guide
Joined: 05/22/16
Posts: 159
Location: US-Eastern KY
Crusty,
I agree with you on the need for 1/2 weight lines. But, I like the fact that do they exist because the rod mfg'ers can't seem to design rods to the ATMFA line standards. At least a rod can fine tuned to perform to one's needs/expectations even it is a pain in the behind to get there. And, yes, I think fly rods should be brown or at least as close as possible. And real bourbon comes from Kentucky, period.


Top
  
Quote
Post 25 Sep 2021, 17:42 • #12 
Administrator
Joined: 01/10/06
Posts: 7811
Location: Holly Springs, NC
There is no such thing as designing a rod to AFTMA standards. There are published line standards for 'standard' and spey lines. There is a published standard for fly reel foot dimensions. There is no published rod standard.

The line company's marketing of "half weight" lines is another case of the Emperor's New Clothes. The spacing between different AFTMA standard line weights is 20 grains (0.05 oz). To put it into perspective, the first 30 feet of a 5 weight line weighs the same as the first 35 feet of a 4 weight line. Yes, a whopping 5 feet of line. That's less line than is hanging in the rod guides. Besides, ever notice those 1/2 line weight heavy lines are sold in full line weight increments? If we needed 1/2 line weights, then why don't the line companies sell their lines in 1/2 weight increments?


Make it simple, use the fly line that works best for the rod no matter what number is marked on the rod shaft. Modern fly lines perform better than any from yesteryear. It's a pity the sellers ignore the line weight standards in favor of marketing hype.


Tom


Top
  
Quote
Post 26 Sep 2021, 15:22 • #13 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/24/11
Posts: 1144
Location: Belgium
Let me first apologise for going a little off topic....

Have to say I have never felt need for half weight lines. For trout rods I tend to buy the same taper from 3wt to 7wt and I like DTs and longer bellied WF lines. I usually test cast my rods with different line weights and end up using one or more often two different weights on any given rod for fishing.

Any experienced caster will be able to cast a range of lines at a range of distances on a given rod. Sure on a given day one line might feel better or even ideal.

I agree however that it can be problematic for a beginner to have to deal with an underlined or overlined outfit as there is usually a sweet spot that makes things easier and for a beginner easier is better.

The good thing when it comes to glass rods is that they tend to have fairly wide sweet spots.

Ultimately however any beginner will be well served by asking an experienced caster to test cast his outfit to make sure that it's passable and to offer a minimum of guidance and instruction.

I have found substantial differences in action in old Fenwicks (with the same model number, same year of manufacture) as well as in modern high end Epics (same generation) so I really do think that hands on advice is helpful for a beginner.

As an example I have an Epic 805 which is medium fast which would be suitable for young teenager to learn to cast on on. I have had another 805 in hand that was much faster and stiffer which I would be reluctant to hand to a youngster as a first rod, even when lined with a 6wt.

Also when it comes to choosing a rod for a beginner I think it's suitability for fishing in the conditions most likely to be encountered is the most important feature. Usually that means something around 7'9" to 8' and 4 or 5wt.

Again apologies for straying.


Top
  
Quote
Post 25 Nov 2021, 21:54 • #14 
Sport
Joined: 12/15/17
Posts: 59
Location: SW Idaho
I have the 7'6" 4wt. I have fished it with a Cortland 444 Peach DT4F, and it cast very well, put the fly where I wanted it. I wasn't in real tight quarters, not a mountain stream, but what I consider a small river with some brushy areas.

Edit: I apologize, I dozed off and forgot that this is a fiberglass forum. My Pocketwater is their graphite version. Graphite rod that looks like bamboo, and feels like glass.


Last edited by Mike1227 on 06 Dec 2021, 15:09, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
Quote
Post 25 Nov 2021, 23:27 • #15 
Guide
Joined: 02/22/16
Posts: 307
Location: Livingston MT
CrustyBugger wrote:
Odonata, I just wish the fly line industry would label fly lines accurately. Essentially they are labeling an out of spec product something it isn’t. You shouldn’t have to do your homework for that.


Not all of us do that. 406 lines are made true to weight and we label the grain weight and letter designation on the box. One of the reasons I started the business was the confusion in the market regarding line weights. Unless you look at the website or they label the grain weight on the package you never really know what you have. The goal was to simplify the line buying process so you don't have to guess what you're buying.

Tom


Top
  
Quote
Post 26 Nov 2021, 19:30 • #16 
Master Guide
Joined: 06/07/12
Posts: 865
Location: US-CA
CrustyBugger wrote:
Odonata, I just wish the fly line industry would label fly lines accurately. Essentially they are labeling an out of spec product something it isn’t. You shouldn’t have to do your homework for that.


I agree with this. It is just stupid. Note that the mislabeling isn’t just lines. All of those 9’ 5wt modern graphite rods that only load with “modern” lines are actually 6wt rods that are paired with mislabeled 6wt lines. Which came first? I’m guessing maybe the rods, actually…

Tom, thank you for staying true to the specs!

Back to the original question: I use my 4wt Pocketwater with a cheap and cheerful 4wt “entry level” Orvis line that I had laying around. Works very well. I feel like this isn’t a finicky design.


Top
  
Quote
Post 27 Nov 2021, 09:46 • #17 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 04/20/07
Posts: 8920
Location: US-ME
Bottom line, read the fine print, and realize that most fiberglass rods--virtually all of them from the fiberglass era--were made for conventional fly lines, "true" to diameter in the old letter-code system, and "true" to weight in the numerical code system. The plethora of specialty lines emerged in the graphite era, the line designed to suit the rod, and then gradually to suit many new fisheries and styes where new graphite designs were used. Users may be finicky about conventional lines in terms of buoyancy or texture or stiffness according to handling the line in casting andfishing. But most glass rods, particularly from the heyday, are not finicky at practical casting and fishing distances.


Top
  
Quote
Post 29 Nov 2021, 19:36 • #18 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 05/22/16
Posts: 1760
Location: SJC
I can't say the various line types, variations, etc. are particularly bothersome to me.

In engineering I see the following all the time ... :)

Image

The thing that gets really nightmarish is fly line "standards" for two-handed rods. I occasionally use a two-handed rod (or three) surf fishing. There you have to worry about grain weights, head lengths, sink rates, running line, etc. No wonder I usually just bring a spinning rod instead ;)


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

New Topic Add Reply



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mdraft1, WormDrowner82 and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group