Best #6 reel I’ve ever seen was the Solitude SR2...6.2 oz and holds a six plus about 130 yds of backing.... smooth as butter and built like a tank on steroids.

Works for me too...I tend to pack a reel with extra spools for 2-3 different line weights...for a DT6F on a glass rod I usually pick the Daniellson Traditional Dry Fly model.

I would echo many of the reels already mentioned including the Martin MG-7 and 67, Pflueger 1494 1/2, Scientific Anglers 456 or Daiwa 706, and the 3 1/2 Young Pridex or Beaudex. The reels I haven't seen mentioned yet are the Japanese made Hardy clones like the Heddon 310, Garcia GK42, Zebco Z56 and Eagle Claw EC-11. If you don't mind RHW, the Pflueger Gem is a good reel for a 6wt. Either the 2094 or the larger 2095 if you need a little more room and/or weight.

Hard to argue with my Sage 506 as I think it's one of the nicest reels ever made but the one reel I find myself reaching for most often when fishing a six weight is this 3 1/2 Young contracted spool. It's got a healthy amount of wobble but still runs as smooth as I could want.

6 wt reel is the one that balances the to your preference. I have never had a fish spool me so reel diameter never comes into picture. Saltwater I would probably have more backing.

I have Martin LM (yes helical spring is nice), hardy lightweight, and a multiplier reel.

That is my stable.

I absolutely love the Marquis 7 (or the same reel badged as Scientific Anglers System 7) for my freshwater 6 weight fishing. For salt I have an Orvis Odyssey II that balances my Epic 686 well and is smooth as can be.

Gosh, don't tell that to the guys who have a 1495 loaded with a DT6 because they want the backing capacity and the spool diameter so a fish doesn't decrease the spool diameter quite so rapidly when taking line. And so they can wind it back a little quicker. In the time these reels were most popular, the 1492, 1494, and 1495 were the most commonly stocked and available, and people often, as with fly rods, owned only one or two. In that time, the line was most likely to be a 6 weight or above (or their letter-coded equivalents before the mid 60s). So if a guy was going to use a 6 and have an 8 on a spare spool when using his reel with his other rod, the 1495 might be the more versatile of the two sizes to select. The 1494 gets pretty minimal for backing with a DT line, the 1494 1/2 is the smallest I'd use where a big fish can go as far as it wants, and the 1495 covers it for about anything. Personally, with a 6, I prefer the 1494 1/2, but only if the reel is devoted to one line size. With rod(s) where I might use a Pflueger and a 6 or more, a 1495 would be the one. Somebody who has read George Harvey way more recently than I have may know, but I think the 1494 1/2 was his favored/ ideal real size for a 6.

Probably worthwhile to consider that sometimes bigger reels just work better for some rods. I have an LLBean Guide 7/8 reel set up with a 5wt line because it balances my ********* 895-4 really well. I have a couple Marquis 7 reels set up with 5wt and 6wt lines. It’s all about balance. I also think that lines for a given weight used to be a little smaller diameter than they are now, so sometimes it will take a bigger vintage reel to fit a modern line....

Outside of my more modern reels (I REALLY like my Sage Click, but it's a touch light even for my Steffen....luckily, it doesn't matter), I usually roll with an SA System 2 (the 6/7 & 7/8 work great for my 6 & 7wts. I also have a Ross Cimarron that gets some play. I dropped it a while back and bent the spool, but it still works great.

Diameter, weight, and backing capacity. The 1495 has more of each. A fair amount is fine if a fish will rarely get into the backing. If you don't like to wind line on a greatly reduced diameter spool with the arbor showing through the last wraps of backing when a fish bolted downriver, the 1494 is too small. The 1494 1/2 holds more and keeps the diameter up because it is wider, so it declines less rapidly as the fly line comes off. The 1495 gives the greatest diameter and the easier spooling of a narrower spool (relative to the 1494 1/2). No surprise it is closer to another great configuration, the 3 1/2" narrow spool JW Young reels.

Here's a visual on the 1494 series, noting that the bulk of floating lines varies according to their length and buoyancy. Top right, a 1494 with 18 lb. Dacron green spot, loaded with a DT5F SA Air Cel--a fairly compact line, only 82 ft. Below, the same reel is shown with the line removed. On any reel, that is about as small a diameter as I want the backing to start at. Let a fish run it out 75 yards and you find out why pretty quickly. Below are others showing the fit of a WF 6 on a 1494 and a DT6 on a 1494 `1/2, both bulkier SA Supreme lines. The level of backing is visible through the spool ports, and the empty spools show them relative to the spool arbor. A DT6 will fit the 1494 but take up more space than the WF6, and corrrespondingly more shallow fill of backing. Backing charts tell the approximate length, but apart from the length of the backing, keeping the spool up in diameter is the other purpose of using it. The 1495 just makes this easier and/or enables use of larger diameter backing, which spools more easily and with less stretch when winding back on a fish that has run out a lot of backing. No confusion is involved. It is the way this versatile range of sizes was used over the decades they were on the market.

I use and like the following with 6wts Medalist 1495 as it has a little more weight for my 8'6" rods, the JW Young Pridex and the Scientific Angler System 2. That covers my 6wt fishing gear.

Good luck with your search...good news is you can get one and if its not what you like, sell it again and try something else...reels are easy to buy easy to sell and you can get a "reel" feel/test and then generally get your $$ to try something else till you find the one...or 14 that work best for you