It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 08:47


1, 2  Next New Topic Add Reply
Author Message
Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 14 Dec 2012, 19:49 • #1 
Sport
Joined: 02/14/08
Posts: 31
Location: US-MA
I'd like to get opinions, comments about this rod. What lines do folks use? Any thoughts about this rod are appreciated. I have not used any of the F2 series rods.

Thanks,
Jim


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 14 Dec 2012, 21:59 • #2 
Guide
Joined: 06/01/12
Posts: 343
Location: East TN
I haven't had a chance to cast the 5 wt, but I've lawn cast both the 4wt and the 7' 3wt and I own the 6'6'' 3wt. I did not like the F2's as much as the black F's when I initially lawn cast them at a fly shop, but I picked up the 6'6'' 3wt at a good price and absolutely love it. It is by far my favorite production fly rod, but I probably wouldn't have liked it if I had only lawn cast it. It's cliche, but I feel like I'm painting my fly on the water and have absolute complete control over every cast. It doesn't have a sweet spot; I can cast just the leader one cast and then boom out a 60 yard cast no problem on the next cast. Also a cliche description, but it will handle 22 BWO dries one minute, then dropper nymph rigs, large heavy nymphs, and even small streamers the next. Generally, I'm fishing heavy nymph rigs and streamers this time of year with 10ft graphite or 6/7 wts, but I've been taking the F2 along instead with the hope of finding a BWO hatch, but have the confidence that I can nymph size 10 heavy nymphs with a dropper with it. As far as line, a RIO LT DT3 makes it come alive.

The point of my overly cliche rambling is that I would find a F2 5wt to borrow to take fishing for a day. You probably will not be impressed in the parking lot, especially if you are a fan of the older black and brown Scotts, but, if the 5wt is like the 6'6'' 3wt, you will fall in love with it if you fish it for a day.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 16 Dec 2012, 07:39 • #3 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/10/09
Posts: 1651
Location: US-OH
McFly -- If you can cast this rod 60 yards, you're the man!


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 16 Dec 2012, 08:51 • #4 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 10/09/09
Posts: 2796
Location: US-NM
Tiptop, that 6'6" f2 is a amazing rod ... aurelio


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 16 Dec 2012, 11:36 • #5 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/10/09
Posts: 1651
Location: US-OH
It must be! When I cast it I could only get about 60 feet!


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 16 Dec 2012, 14:03 • #6 
Master Guide
Joined: 05/08/06
Posts: 796
Location: RenoNV/FranklinWV
Why would anyone want to cast a creek rod 60 feet?, some creek, some rod!

McFly you should be writing add copy for the manufacturer's ;)


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 16 Dec 2012, 21:21 • #7 
Guide
Joined: 06/01/12
Posts: 343
Location: East TN
rsagebrush wrote:
Why would anyone want to cast a creek rod 60 feet?, some creek, some rod!

McFly you should be writing add copy for the manufacturer's ;)

I'm not fishing streams with this rod where a 60 foot cast is a frequent occurrence, but there a few small creeks that I fish that widen out to 50/60/70 feet in sections or there may be a very large pool, sometimes under a water fall, that may not be wadeable and requires casting from the rear. These sections may be deep or wading out too far (or at all) risks spooking fish. Often times, there are fish rising on the opposite bank that require a long cast.

Another example are streams that would be considered large in the lower sections but can easily be fished to the top smaller brookie sections in one day by hopping out and working your way up on a trail (ie, Deep Creek on the NC side in the GSMNP). I like to take this rod because I can make the longer casts needed on the lower sections, it's deadly accurate, and I can make leader length casts when needed as I work into the small sections.

Not saying you could cast much farther than 60 or 70 feet with this rod (or would ever have the need to), but the versatility and accuracy/ tracking, as well as the ability to fully control loop size is definitely something that makes the rod one of my favorites.

I'm not good at all at describing actions, but if the 5 weight is similar to the 6'6'' 3wt, then I would pull the trigger on it as well.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 16 Dec 2012, 22:25 • #8 
Master Guide
Joined: 08/03/06
Posts: 554
Location: US-OR
Now, back to the Scott F2 8'2" 5wt?


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 17 Dec 2012, 00:44 • #9 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/24/06
Posts: 1507
Location: Beautiful View, WA
mcfly wrote:
I'm not good at all at describing actions, but if the 5 weight is similar to the 6'6'' 3wt, then I would pull the trigger on it as well.

They are probably not alike. I own that 3wt, and owned but sold the 7'7" 4wt. The latter was a bit wimpy and had a soft, vague tip action. The 3wt is quite nice all around. I have read here on FFR that at least one owner of the 5wt thought it to be like the 4wt - soft, and best as a dry fly only rod. I think it was "Duff" who owns/owned it.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 17 Dec 2012, 09:06 • #10 
Master Guide
Joined: 05/08/06
Posts: 796
Location: RenoNV/FranklinWV
I test/lawn cast both the 7'7" 4wt and the 8'2" 5wt and thought they were both rather sloppy and wimpy tapers. I much preferred the original and faster actioned F's in black.

I thought the Kenney rods in these lengths (7'9"4wt, 8'2" 4/5wt) were much better actioned, for me at least.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 17 Dec 2012, 23:19 • #11 
Guide
Joined: 08/02/09
Posts: 128
Location: US-IN
I'm not sure I'd agree with Lugan's and rsagebrush's descriptions of the 774. The F2s are soft, but I personally don't consider them "wimpy". Regardless, I'd be wary of making any judgment on an F2 without getting to actually fish it. I think there is a marked difference between the "on water" performance/feel and the lawn casting performance/feel. Much more so than most other rods I've fished.

---David


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 18 Dec 2012, 06:55 • #12 
Master Guide
Joined: 05/08/06
Posts: 796
Location: RenoNV/FranklinWV
While I can't argue the point of a day on the water that is not possible alot of times. I have been fly fishing for over 40 years and can tell what I like by a lawn cast session and sometimes just swinging the rod, for most rods. There have been a couple that have suprised me on the water though but most no.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 18 Dec 2012, 07:28 • #13 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/10/09
Posts: 1651
Location: US-OH
In principle I agree that judgement should be reserved until a rod has been tested on the water. But the reality is that most of us can't try every rod we might be interested in. We can read others' opinions who have fished them but they're subjective and our own preferences in rod actions will differ. But if there seems to be agreement about a rod's action by numerous reviewers, chances are good that the info is accurate. Of all the F2 rods offered, I've read less about the 8'2" than any other - I wonder why? And I can't recall ever reading a positive review of it. I've cast all the shorter F2's and found that I liked them less the longer they were. I agree with Lugan and rsagebrush about the 7'7" and based on my test casting that rod, I assumed that the 8'2" would be even less to my liking. My assumption could be way off base and it could be a rod I like, but I doubt it. Hopefully I'll get a chance to try one.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 18 Dec 2012, 08:22 • #14 
Master Guide
Joined: 09/03/10
Posts: 866
Location: harriman, tn
Sometimes, I think, with new rods such as the F2, that honest opinions of a given rod's castibility and fishability (taking liberties with words I realize but stick with me) are too often swayed by perception of the rod based on aesthetics and personal bias. If Scott had put the new F2's in the original F series brown package, mentioned that they were based on the original tapers, and built them with the classic Scott downlocking slider over cork hardware, I think many glass loyalists and seekers would have embraced the new F2 more heartily, and henceforth, given them a more honest and thorough review. Take the 8'2" 4pc F2 5wt: Uplocking real seat suggests ... modern; 4pc (the fly rod config norm today) suggest modern; the length, even a mere 2" beyond the old standard 8'0", suggests the modern notion of departure. We all seem somewhat intrigued with new things, yet still hold reverence for the old tried and true. A two piece F74 Scott 4wt just sold for $660 on e-bay. If the F2 825-4, was offered as an 805-3, in the brown wrapper, even with a suggested 'new' taper, I think it would have been better recieved, IMHO. Too many of this rod model have gone up for quick sale already! If you are going to make good casting/fishing rods, and sell them with the notion of Vintage, to appeal to the glass enthusiast crowd, than you are going to have to live up to many of their preconceived expectations! I don't think Scott has done a very good job with their Marketing concept for the F2 in general. They would have been better to have introduced them as a return of the classic Scott glass PowRply's.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 18 Dec 2012, 08:52 • #15 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/10/09
Posts: 1651
Location: US-OH
There's no arguing that marketing is a major factor in the success of a rod line. And marketing hype undoubtedly affects some peoples' opinions. I may be more cynical than the average consumer, but I take pride in ignoring the hype and try to judge the product on its merits alone. Personally, I really like the aesthetics of the F2s although I agree that cap and ring on the entire line might have been preferred. Scott has had a fair amount of success with the G2 series I think and it seems they have tried to model the marketing of the F2 similarly. It must be a challenging marketing problem to have vintage appeal while still attracting customers who want a more modern looking rod.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 18 Dec 2012, 09:19 • #16 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 10/09/09
Posts: 2796
Location: US-NM
I agree with Tiptop that a rod should be judged on it's merits alone and that may vary because we may not like the same thing in aesthetics,but a good rod is just that a good rod.Alot of the high dollars paid on eBay are paid by collectors or by people he may like to fish a certain rod.I would pay good money for a 6'6" GE but would not give 10 cents for a 6'6" winston stalker ... aurelio


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 19 Dec 2012, 08:36 • #17 
New Member
Joined: 10/09/12
Posts: 2
Location: US-IL
I own a modest assortment of Scott F2s and find that the description provided on their website seems very accurate. To paraphrase: They were designed primarily for small stream situations, allowing one to make accurate casts with little line, and they tend to load across their length when bringing a fish to hand.

I typically spend 4 weeks a year fishing higher elevation freestone streams in GSMNP, and 5 weeks a year on the small to mid-sized spring streams in the Ozarks, and my first choice for these areas is typically one of my Scott fiberglass rods. This past summer I used them almost exclusively on many of the smaller tributaries and meadow streams in the Jackson, WY area and intend to do the same next summer for 2 weeks in similar CO water. [I use various dry, soft hackle, nymph and midge presentations, which also includes occasional smaller tandem or dropper rigs.] I find the ability to make casts with little line and leader exposed does reduce the need for false casting; which is pretty much a necessity, given the heavy canopy or close cover on a back cast. Side casts, roll casts and various others that I don't even think they have a name, are easy to accomplish under these conditions, and even make things enjoyable in an otherwise difficult situation.

However, I seldom use my Scotts F2s (which includes the F2 7'7" 4wt and F2 8'2" 5wt), on tail water, mid sized lakes or bigger rivers in these same areas. Much more wind, considerably longer casts, a lot more mending and need to pick up much more line on a mend, larger fish and playing the fish in swifter current are all factors in selecting the rod I'll use in these situations. Oftentimes, a graphite, bamboo or other fiberglass rod is a better choice, and because I might also present heavier streamers, sculpins, large buggers, etc.

The F2 8'2" 5wt is probably the least used of my Scott rods, but I think that's because it's a bit too long for the water I fish and the canopy I have to work under. However, I also admit that high sticking in the same water does get easier with the longer rod, and if I'll be guiding a weighted midge or nymph around rocks and through smaller feeding lanes it a tough choice between the 7'7" 4wt and 8'2" 5wt at times. In addition, I've never had any problem landing nice sized bows, browns, or even cutts out west; the blanks tend to flex across their length and especially the tip, and there is still enough left to protect the tippet. I use Cortland 444 DT5F on the 5wt, and sometimes will even use the same spool on the 4wt.

I've never had a problem with any of my Scott rods, even though I take them though heavy brush, trees, etc. often. I've found they are durable and well made, but then again, I haven't had any problems with any of my high-end Sage, Winston, Orvis, St Croix and customs too.

The OP didn't say what type of situations he intended to fish, presentations he'd make, or what
his preference was in build. So I thought I'd share my experience. Oh yeah, if I could only keep 1 Scott fiberglass rod, it would be the F2 6'6" 3wt; it makes for a pretty good "all around" rod and is a lot of fun to use on the water that I enjoy.

-- Scott Rods --
- F1 1wt 5'6"
- F2 2 wt 6'
- F2 3 wt 6'6"
- F2 4wt 7'4"
- F2 5wt 8'2"

I've been lurking on the forum for the past few years, and just recently joined.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 19 Dec 2012, 09:39 • #18 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 10/09/09
Posts: 2796
Location: US-NM
Thank's for the great review ... aurelio


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 19 Dec 2012, 10:17 • #19 
Guide
Joined: 06/01/12
Posts: 343
Location: East TN
ilfishingguy wrote:

-- Scott Rods --
- F1 1wt 5'6"
- F2 2 wt 6'
- F2 3 wt 6'6"
- F2 4wt 7'4"
- F2 5wt 8'2"


I have the black F 6' 2wt, but I didn't realize they made a 5'6'' 1wt. That is interesting.

Also, I'm jealous of your career choice (4 weeks in GSMNP, 5 weeks in the Ozarks, and time spent in Jackson in a 1 year period). You should be a guidence counselor.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 19 Dec 2012, 11:30 • #20 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 11/24/06
Posts: 1507
Location: Beautiful View, WA
mcfly wrote:
I have the black F 6' 2wt, but I didn't realize they made a 5'6'' 1wt.

They made that for a few years around a decade ago. I have owned both the F 6'0" 2wt and that 5'6" rod, though mine was marked a 2wt, not a 1wt. Regardless of Scott's line rating, I found both to be 3wts, and very good at casting in the shortest and tightest situations. Their tapers are also very similar, with a slight parabolic feel in the butt and progressive the rest of the way. Very nice rods!


Last edited by Lugan on 19 Dec 2012, 14:12, edited 2 times in total.

Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 19 Dec 2012, 12:45 • #21 
New Member
Joined: 10/09/12
Posts: 2
Location: US-IL
I picked my F 1wt at a shop in the Ozarks about 2 years ago. The owner said he bought a lot of the inventory as they phased the F out, and he had 4 or 5 of them at the time.

I use it almost exclusively for dries in Dec-Mar in the Ozarks on Roaring River and other spring feds streams. Primarily with #18-22 BWOs and Adams, #18-26 bead head Zebra Midges, #16-20 San Juan Worms and tiny egg patterns. But sometimes have lots of fun with it on very small pools >4500' for brook trout in GSMNP, that are impossible to fish with a longer rod.

It works very well, as long as you keep the ice off the tip. :lol

I'm also fortunate to spend 2 weeks in Canada each summer, but not fly fishing. We go up on the Winnipeg River north of Kenora for Smallmouth, Pike, Musky and Walleye.. ..being retired does work out nicely.


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 21 Apr 2022, 06:50 • #22 
Sport
Joined: 11/13/20
Posts: 33
Location: Southern VT
“I would pay good money for a 6'6" GE but would not give 10 cents for a 6'6" winston stalker ... aurelio“

Curious of your valued opinion here, especially since it seems we have very similar tastes in rod action/length. Personally, I’d pay good money for either!!


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 21 Apr 2022, 10:53 • #23 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 10/09/09
Posts: 2796
Location: US-NM
This may be very disturbing to some but I’m not a fan of fisher glass and there are people here that are much better at describing rod actions.The GE rods are built on Phillipson epoxite blanks and for me are just great casting and fishing rods.I really liked The 6’6” and 7’ but the 6’6” F2 has a slightly softer tip and feels a little smoother when fighting fish maybe the glass used or taper but for me it is the most versatile 6’6” rod I ever used,but again that’s just me.I fish a lot of small creeks and a 6’6” F2 is the the perfect length and it fishes like a longer rod..........Aurelio
As far as the other f2’s I know nothing


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 22 Apr 2022, 14:37 • #24 
Guide
Joined: 06/16/05
Posts: 110
Location: US-CA
I sold one a couple of years ago and hope to find another.
Delightful to cast. It was great dry fly rod for the Sally hatch on the Truckee.
Fussy about lines though. I found that an SA trout line worked best. It felt lifeless with the other lines I tried. Maybe designed with that one in mind? That was one of the original shark skin trout lines in wf5.
Found the 4wt to work very well with a SA trout taper too but the 3wts were less fussy.
Agree about Scott’s marketing. I think caption on the web site for the F2 was something like “Here’s the 5wt if you absolutely have to fish a Glass rod on the Henry’s Fork”. And indeed it wasn’t much competition for the G2s.
Hope that helps


Top
  
Quote
Re: Scott F2 8'2" 5wt
Post 07 Jun 2022, 10:53 • #25 
Glass Fanatic
Joined: 06/24/11
Posts: 1144
Location: Belgium
I think this rod had a fine tip and in my experience fine tip rods are nicer with fly lines that have a relatively long and fine front taper. The Shark Skin is one such line but there must be others.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

1, 2  Next New Topic Add Reply



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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