I am very new to fly fishing, and in my search for info on my grandfathers old rod, I noticed a real following for the old fiberglass poles. How do these vintage rods compare to their modern graphite counterparts?

In 6' to 8' rods, glass out-performs graphite in every way.
Rather than night and day, consider them apples and oranges with different uses.
It's no accident the norm venerable glass rods were 7'6", while the norm graphite rods are 9' - it works out in the math.
You wouldn't want a 7' graphite rod any more than you would want a 9' glass rod.

The only way they can sell durable goods to people who already have them is to convince them newer is better - we have all been programed with this all our lives.


And since this also fits, one of the great success stories of this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=65357

Casting is over-rated and costs more people more fish than any other activity.

This is the reason I miss having a "like" button on this forum.

True on several levels.

Yes. I always read these entries on some forums about casting 60-70-100' and wonder how they mend line or even set a hook against that much slack line. Casting has it's place, but it shouldn't be the primary goal.

The comparison question is similar to how does a train compare with an airplane; each excels at what it does best. I would say that 'glass rods are much better fishing tools than casting tools and graphite (carbon) rods are better casting tools than fishing tools, in most freshwater conditions. This is a function of the length that is optimal in each material; <9' I want 'glass over graphite, >9' 'glass becomes quite heavy, so carbon is a better choice. Fortunately an awful lot of folks bought 1960-70s 'glass rods and didn't use them hard so there is a few in the market place at reasonable cost. I'm fond of rods 7.5-8' because they go under trees better and can be two pieces but still fit in the car. If I fished lakes or flats from a boat a longer rod might be desirable and carbon might be my choice. Picking a spey rod 14' long graphite would be a given just because of weight. I'd pick a 16 ounce hammer to drive a finish nail and 16 pound maul to drive a wooden fence post.

His happens to be an 8'6" Howald (Shakespeare blank) marked for Pflueger.
This rod is going to be on the heavy side, but there are several places it would fish very well, including tailwaters, big western rivers, smallies.
8'6" cane is my choice for my home tailwater, and his rod would plug right in there, especially on a windy day.
We also don't know where he's from (i.e., where he fishes).
He has another thread going on the rod, so his OP is a general question.

Some of my most excellent fishing memories are fish I daubed, including laying across a sloping tree trunk over Beaverdam Creek to fish, hook and land a 16" rainbow that couldn't be cast to, and daisy chains of speckled trout surfing low-tide blackwater into the beach - I love it when the fish come to me.

I've caught trout for hours on end without making more than a couple of back-casts.
One day two kids were arguing on the bank, yes, he is, no, he isn't.
Hey, are you fly fishing?
Yes.
Then why aren't you doing this? making whipping motions
If I was doing that, I wouldn't be fishing, would I.

One fall bite, caught 70 river bass in riffles and shallow runs without making a single back-cast.

Daubing is diagrammed and praised in Curtis Creek Manifesto

seriously, they make such a big deal of long brave casting in selling rods and "necessary" pay casting instruction, then you get to the river and most fish are caught at your feet.
Unless you show up casting, and then you won't find those.
Less than 1% of the time is the cast the deciding factor in hooking a fish, while stealth is a deciding factor 100% of the time.
Curtis Creek Manifesto is written in Idiot Guide format, and I'd call it a cute book.

“Vintage vs. Modern rods”

I kinda like the vintage (from before the mid ‘80s) rods, except when it comes to rods made for lines below a 5-weight. That’s because they basically don’t exist. So for rods that take lines of 3-weight or lower, I prefer modern rods.

Now I will put on my football helmet and full-body armor just in case any stones come my way.

The post almost sounds like a Troll, but:

Until recently modern graphite has been trending to faster and faster (stiffer) rods. Within the past few years they have started to dial back. Recent releases such as the Sage LL and new Scott G are still a lot faster (and lighter) than vintage glass.

So basically:

Vintage Glass:

• there are a lot of dud's and heavy rods. (there are quite a few really nice rods too, but you do have to know what you're buying).
• excel at 8' and under (longer and they get heavy and clunky)
• are 6wt and higher (except for a few rare exceptions)
• are almost indestructable compared to graphite
• are mostly 2 piece rods (multi-piece get expensive and heavy)
• fight fish very well. The rod acts as a spring, absorbing a lot of the jarring movement that might throw or break a hook.
• inexpensive

Modern Graphite:

• light
• 9' rods are the norm and the stiffer(lighter) graphite makes for good high-stick nymphing.
• stiff: good for nymphing and casting long distances. I end up using my reel a lot more to prevent breaking fish off.
• multi-piece: 4pc is the norm. they can fit in your suitcase.

Modern Glass:

• Pretty
• still less expensive than the top of the line graphite
• have the advantages of vintage glass with benefits of being lighter, coming in lower line weights and coming in multi-piece configurations.
• Excel in small stream (7' 5wt and under) or presentation fishing (small flies, small tippet for big fish)

And if PampasPete needed a football helmet, I think I'll need a Kevlar vest.

@ Bowbender68 im wondering what your grandfathers fly rod is? if your still reading, i think plenty of old glass is very similar to lots of the new glass. mostly the new glass has the technology to be built lighter than the old stuff and in lighter line weights but a good vintage 6wt or a good modern 5 wt can be very similar and/or polar opposites but still sweet.

I can recall quite a few. I've caught fish that have grabbed the point fly that was dangling in the water as I unhooked a fish from the top dropper. I've caught fish with rod in my lap while sitting down for a rest, with the line in the water. There's one spot in the stream that I fish most often that is often productively fished by what I call "trolling" -- walking upstream next to the bank with the rod held out into the stream. I've caught fish by simply feeding line downstream into a pocket below me.

And I have doubts that what Euro-nymphers do to get their lines in the water can truly be called casting, either. They still seem to catch a lot fish.