It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 05:12


New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
Fenwick FF-89 B Series.
Post 27 Jul 2022, 23:28 • #1 
Guide
Joined: 07/12/22
Posts: 207
Just scored this unusually marked rod. Either a factory typo or a totally unique factory rod. Since the line wt is same as FF90 but missing a hyphen between the shooting head and floating line designation, I am thinking the new kid assigned to do the hand labeling had a Friday afternoon moment. But I also snagged a C series FF90 for a lot less to measure and compare the tapers. Most I ever paid for a Fenwick but made sure to ask the seller if he thought it was a forgery and if there is any visible evidence in the finish of someone sanding and doing a fine point Sharpie relabel. So I am covered if it is anything less than pristine as advertised. Either way, I will be happy and will share updates when it arrives. Might be a little over a week from now because Friday I am leaving for the White Mountains to test my ultralight Fenwicks on some trout streams. Just also got the only Martin MG3 that could find on the Bay that wasn’t outrageously priced to use with the rods.


Top
  
Quote
Post 28 Jul 2022, 06:32 • #2 
Master Guide
Joined: 07/21/21
Posts: 447
Location: Florida
I’m sure myself and the rest of the Fenwickista’s on this board will be eagerly awaiting your update! Casting notes will be most appreciated … and photos …


Top
  
Quote
Post 28 Jul 2022, 15:29 • #3 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 09/18/09
Posts: 5561
Location: Relocated to the Drought Stricken West.
So my guess is this is a "light line" version of the FF90, just like the FF79 is a light line version of the FF80. I would love to cast it next to an FF90 and see if there is any difference in action.


Top
  
Quote
Post 28 Jul 2022, 19:21 • #4 
Guide
Joined: 07/12/22
Posts: 207
I think you might be right. The seller was saying the same thing. Said it was a 6-7 wt. I will have to wait and see. Unfortunately I will be gone before it arrives.
But it is labeled for a 9wt full sink shooting head or a 9wt WF floater. Might have to skip vacation. Lol.

[Additional information added 8/10/22. Tom]

I would like to first mention to the moderator that I attempted to add this to my original post but the only way that I could get the full editor with photo posting option to function was to either edit my existing post or create this one. I apologize if there is something that I was missing. This is also my first attempt to upload photos, so do not be surprised if I mess up. I will try to do my best.

[In future, please add the new information to your post by editing the existing post. You can't make several posts in a row with our currrent software setup. Tom]

As posted earlier, I purchased this rod and an FF90 from the same seller with the intention to physically compare and then cast them.
I am also not making any claims about expertise, just my own observations and trying to be as factual as possible.
I am also presenting this rod only as a unique curiosity and I am making no claims about is history or authenticity.

Upon inspecting the rods, I immediately recognized that an apples to apples comparison was not possible. The B series and C series are two distinct animals.

The reel seat on the FF89 is .730 dia, the locknut OD is .860 and the cork is under 1" in thickness. The butt to top of cork is 10.5" The reel seat length is 3-3/4"
The reel seat on the FF90 is .885 dia, the locknut OD is 1.15 and the cork is over 1" in thickness. The butt to top of cork is 11.5". The reel seat is a little over 4-1/8"

The FF89 is a low production number B 2803. The FF90 is a C 9592.

I decided to proceed with the casting test, but having a B series FF85 and FF80, I decided to include those measurements including the tapers after the casting test.
The FF90 has a missing sticker but the glue residue indicates it had the large sticker as seen on another forum members rod (His a C 3824)
That would mean its a 7-8-9.
The FF89 is marked ST9SWF9F. No hyphen between the two line designations. There is a poster whose photos are missing with a FF90 B Series 5891 with otherwise identical markings except with the hyphen. (Would love to share taper measurements with him if possible)

So I started with a Rio Striper WF8F. (Closer to a 10wt at 280 grains. Printed on box).
Both rods, no problem, simple slow smooth pickup and shoot the head plus about 20' of running line.

Upped to a Rio Coastal Quickshooter XP Wf9I (Rio does not post but the Internet gives it around 375 grains or a 12Wt.)
Again, both rods, no problem, simple slow smooth pickup and shoot the head plus about 20' of running line.

Dropped down to a standard WF7F trout taper. Both worked fine but started noticing the FF90 to be a little slower and less crisp with the lighter line.

To add more data, I brought the FF85 and FF80 into the test and surprisingly they also handled the lines with minor adjustments to my stroke.
While waiting out a brief downpour, I got the idea to go down two steps and grabbed my Martin MG-3 with a budget WF 5wt.
I took into account that none of these rods would static balance, but with the 8wt line on a fully backed Lampson Liquid, only the FF90 and the FF80 balanced.
Probably due to the longer grip on the FF90 and shorter length of the FF80. both the FF89 and FF85 balanced about an 1" forward of the grip.

Now I was wondering if the heat was getting to me. The FF90 struggled a bit. Really had to slow it down and add a single haul to the forward cast to generate some line speed. The FF85 and FF80 cast adequate but then I was pretty impressed when the FF89 sent out 60' of line, not counting the leader or rod. As an FYI, I used a 9' 1x leader with a garden sized piece of yarn for the test. I am going to attempt to post some photos and then with add some of my observations and measurements of my B Series rods. It was not what I expected.

[Sorry. Google Photos does not play nice with online forums. That photo won't display directly in the forum. Possibly the Google photo album is set to private or similar. The best way to display images here is the forum image uploader instead. As long as the forum is here, the images will be too. Tom]

A minor correction: the 5wt line has a 7.5' 4x leader nail knotted to the line. Much smaller piece of yarn. I got it in the clearance bin at L.L Bean. I grabbed a 3wt also for my FF535. for only $19.99ea.


Last edited by Fredderf on 10 Aug 2022, 18:51, edited 3 times in total.

Top
  
Quote
Post 10 Aug 2022, 17:57 • #5 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/23/05
Posts: 4966
Location: US-MT
Link doesn't work (for me anyway) and no pictures


Top
  
Quote
Post 10 Aug 2022, 18:52 • #6 
Guide
Joined: 07/12/22
Posts: 207
please try it now


Top
  
Quote
Post 10 Aug 2022, 22:31 • #7 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 09/18/09
Posts: 5561
Location: Relocated to the Drought Stricken West.
You need to put image tags around your link.
Code:
[img]yourlinkgoeshere[/img]


But those are really pretty rods. The FF89 sounds fun

[While the standard HTML img element does work, we also have the custom elements timg for a thumbnail image and rimg for a mid-sized image. When done, they should look like the line below. Tom]
Code:
[rimg]https://images.fiberglassflyrodders.com/u/user#/filenamefromposter.JPG[/rimg]


Top
  
Quote
Post 10 Aug 2022, 22:54 • #8 
Guide
Joined: 07/12/22
Posts: 207
Not really sure what those are. Been many many years since I wrote any code. And primitive stuff then. Mostly COBOL and Basic. A little bit of Fortran . Send me some simple instructions and I am sure I will figure it out.


Top
  
Quote
Post 11 Aug 2022, 09:22 • #9 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/23/05
Posts: 4966
Location: US-MT


Top
  
Quote
Post 12 Aug 2022, 23:43 • #10 
Guide
Joined: 07/12/22
Posts: 207
After spending two more vacation days experimenting with this rod, I have come to several conclusions.

1. Without knowing the original mandrel size, the taper measurements at the front of the grip and at the tip do not mean anything. And I am not cutting any of my rods. The actual thickness of the material is more informational than the OD.

2. The CCS method of measuring deflection is interesting but not sure if it really helpful other than giving an indication of how easily a rod deflects a specified distance relative to a fraction of its length.

3. Without having the actual dimensions of a B Series FF90, the closest cataloged rod similar to this one, there is no real way to determine if it is a unique factory custom, a mislabeled production rod or a forgery.

4. Unless done as a joke, I can see no reason to forge something that would not garner big returns for the effort and possibly actually hinder ones ability to sell rods without suspicion.

5. What is odd about this rod besides being tip heavy, is that the measurements at the grip is actually smaller than my FF85 and FF80 of the same series. But the tip is almost an 1/8” thicker. And on the CCS method it actually comes in a line wt less than my FF85,FF80 B series and FF90 C series. But heavier than my later series FF 84 and FF79. Even less than my uncatalogued FF85-5.

My conclusion as unscientific as it is:
This is a nice Stillwater bass rod. It does well with a 7wt Bonefish Quickshooter. Yes, a saltwater line that came with the first combo I ever bought. A Redington Bass Field kit. With clever marketing they called it a Warm water Quickshooter. But still a nice medium action graphite setup for a beginner bass fisherman. Great bass bug line by the way for both fresh and salt. And freshwater bass don’t seem to mind the blue head. This rod will replace that primarily because it is so much smoother at shorter distances and looks so much nicer with its golden glow. And despite Fenwick's old advertising, I actually like the visible glass weave. Plus it will toss a 6wt Outbound Short intermediate a country mile and also an 8wt Striper line for smaller saltwater fishing. And like butter with a standard 8wt trout taper for big lake fish. Definitely not a small trout stream rod, but not the 9wt it claims to be.
And I have no intention of selling it. Watch the obituaries and maybe make a deal with my kids if you want it. But not adverse to letting you cast it if you are in the metro Boston area. Bring something interesting or some bourbon and I will invite you as a guest to my fly fishing club. It has a nice pond and some unique history. Jack Gartside was a member before he passed away.


Top
  
Quote
Post 13 Aug 2022, 00:19 • #11 
Administrator
Joined: 01/10/06
Posts: 7811
Location: Holly Springs, NC
I don't think I've ever seen an FF89. That doesn't mean it is not from Fenwick. It could be an early test rod or from the Custom Shop. If someone is going to fake a Fenwick, they are likely to fake a short rod known to sell for higher prices (it's happened). They won't fake a 9 footer!

You are right, the wall thickness is as much a factor as the outer diameter (and the proportion of fiberglass in the matrix) with regards to blank stiffness. No need to cut up the blank to make measurements. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, see The Technology of Fly Rods by Don Phillips. Sorry, it is another hard title to find.

For what it is worth, I don't think much of CCS when it comes to glass. OK, I don't think much of CCS period.


Tom


Top
  
Quote
Post 15 Aug 2022, 02:25 • #12 
Master Guide
Joined: 12/29/11
Posts: 510
Location: US-CA
My guess is it’s authentic. That’s based on knowing Jim Green for many years. He was constantly tinkering with tapers and improvements to rod models, so marketers at Fenwick had trouble keeping up with him. It certainly seems possible that the catalog makers missed one of his latest tweaks to a model. The handwritten model numbers made it easier to keep up with changes than printed decals.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

New Topic Add Reply



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 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