Are you a tackle tart?

[john step]

Expensive or bog standard carbons? Although I do not own a top notch carbon I have handled one or two and can see the difference.

Where the lower to middle budget rods appear similar I have been led to believe that a lot of blanks are the same, just the makers logo and fittings.

Would I like a Drennan 15 Acy.........Oh yes I would

 

[no-one in particular]

I don't feel a need to go and buy one but, I can see I am about a majority of one here so; I will accept I must be wrong and there must be a big difference between the low/middle carbos than some of the top range expensive ones.

 

[108831]

Anglers,should buy the best rod they see for the job,depending on the bank account,on occasion what I consider the best isn't always expensive,but sadly it often is.

Anyone who cannot feel the difference between a 12ft Normark Titan 2000 and other bits of carbon needs to see a doctor immediately,as there must be something seriously wrong...

 

[itsfishingnotcatching]

I believe it was Chris (Sam Vimes) who alerted the forum to North West Angling's Hardy sell off a couple of years back and, as usual, he was spot on with the advice he pm'd me regarding the tackle. Never having owned a "pin" or fished with one, I settled for the 11'6 float and 4" Conquest. Do I regret not ordering the longer rods that were then available at silly prices, every bl**dy time I use the rod. If that makes me a "Tart" so be it. The consensus seems to be, buy the best tackle you can afford, I would go along with that but don't disregard less expensive gear, the 10'0 Maver Abyss X float I initially bought for my wife, is a regular traveller in my quiver.

 

[no-one in particular]

Anglers,should buy the best rod they see for the job,depending on the bank account,on occasion what I consider the best isn't always expensive,but sadly it often is.

Anyone who cannot feel the difference between a 12ft Normark Titan 2000 and other bits of carbon needs to see a doctor immediately,as there must be something seriously wrong...

Or see their financial advisor J

 

[thecrow]

Angling Direct are doing Daiwa's AGS carp rods at £650 each, hurry though they only have 2 left in stock.......... must have been a rush on them

 

[Philip]

I do wonder if the mega expensive top of the range rods actually catch more fish than say a good middle of the range one.

I can imagine that the top end ones may possibly make a small difference in some very specific situations but for the most part I dont think it makes any difference whatsoever as to whether your going to catch or blank.

Note I am talking about the catching aspect...not the pleasure aspect. I can understand that some people may get more pleasure using top end kit, I can dig that even if I cant really appreciate it myself.

...I guess thats a round about way of saying I am most certainly NOT a tackle tart !

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I have yet to meet an angler who, if given the opportunity, would not exchange a cheapie rod for a top of the range alternative . . . . .

Over the years here on FM we have discussed this topic a good few times and the amount of inverse snobbery experienced is mind blowing . . . .

Buy the best you can afford and enjoy using it because, after all is said and done, is that not the whole idea behind our fishing?

 

[tigger]

I think a lot of peoples eyes would widen if they looked at the prices of higher end fly fishing gear. The prices of such kit makes even the most expensive of course angling rods etc appear to be budget priced !

Talking course angling now...people wince at the two to three hundred quid prices of higher end course rods and yet no one seems to bat an eyelid at the price of match anglers seat boxes or poles. Many years ago I remember seeing poles upward of seven thousand notes, now imo that is well worth a widening of the peepers .
I've no idea what an expensive pole would cost today but i'm sure it would be quite a lot of money and blow even the most expensive of carbon or cane rods well out the water.

 

[sam vimes]

I do wonder if the mega expensive top of the range rods actually catch more fish than say a good middle of the range one.

If you can't put a bait where it's required due to limitations of your gear, then it may impact on your catches, but that can apply to wherever your kit lies in the price spectrum if it's chosen inappropriately. My own experience suggests that, assuming the terminal tackle is identical, high quality rods and reels (note that I'm not saying high price) won't get you more bites from the same locations. However, top quality gear can translate to more and bigger fish on the bank. Ten to fifteen years back, I doubt I'd have believed that. I do believe it now though, and I've seen others come to similar conclusions over the years. The prime example being a very old friend of mine. He flatly refused to spend anything but budget money. He did change his budget gear far more regularly than I did mine. I'd go as far as suggesting that he spent considerably more than I did (until I went mad trying everything I could for niche tasks or attempting to fractionally better what I already had). It wasn't until I loaned him some rods that he woke up a bit. They were relatively old, but reasonable quality. All of a sudden he was landing fish that he previously hadn't believed possible on such kit. He'd always put it down to his failings rather than his kit, bad workman and all that. The reality was that a good portion of his failings were down to bad tools. He'll never go really mad on what he spends, but he does accept that spending a bit more, wisely, can lead to better results.

 

[Philip]

Well ok, I suppose I started it ...but..

I have yet to meet an angler who, if given the opportunity, would not exchange a cheapie rod for a top of the range alternative . . . . .

I can assure you that I really would NOT swap -some- of my rods for higher end alternatives. Why ? …because I am not convinced the higher end alternatives are actually always better...same as every computer upgrade is supposedly “better” than the old version when its actually a whole lot worse. But yes...ask me to swap my Black Woolworths starter kit rod for a Drennan Acolyte and I might...

Over the years here on FM we have discussed this topic a good few times and the amount of inverse snobbery experienced is mind blowing . . . .

Well I cant say for every post but I don’t think its inverse snobbery. Its about the tackle trade (and others on occasion) trying to tell people they need mega rod X to catch something when they clearly don’t.

Buy the best you can afford and enjoy using it because, after all is said and done, is that not the whole idea behind our fishing?

Yes. But in my case anyway the cost of the rod is not a factor that will influence whether I enjoy the fishing more or less. ...

I'll shut up now as I know I am going to be hopelessly outnumbered on this !

 

[no-one in particular]

I have yet to meet an angler who, if given the opportunity, would not exchange a cheapie rod for a top of the range alternative . . . . .

Ahhhh hold on, would he would he pay even HALF the difference?

 

[Philip]

Sorry i wanted to shut up but I couldnt...

Many years ago I remember seeing poles upward of seven thousand notes, now imo that is well worth a widening of the peepers . I've no idea what an expensive pole would cost today but i'm sure it would be quite a lot of money and blow even the most expensive of carbon or cane rods well out the water.

Strangely, and I know I am digging myself a hole here…I can actually almost appreciate that Poles are one area where spending more on the very top end could make a big dfference. …the lightness and stiffness of the Pole has to play a very big part in the handling which will (I imagine) be a direct result of the quality of the materials so I can almost see the justification for paying more there than say with say a normal coarse fishing rod.

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 ----------

but he does accept that spending a bit more, wisely, can lead to better results

Agree with that. I think that the results however taper off the higher up you go. So a 1000 quid rod might be 1000 x better than a 1 quid rod. However it wont be 5 x better than a 200 quid rod...its an exagerated example I know but I am sure you know what i mean.

Each person has to judge for themselves whether the extra cost is justificable to them I guess

 

[tigger]

Sorry i wanted to shut up but I couldnt...



Strangely, and I know I am digging myself a hole here…I can actually almost appreciate that Poles are one area where spending more on the very top end could make a big dfference. …the lightness and stiffness of the Pole has to play a very big part in the handling which will (I imagine) be a direct result of the quality of the blank, so I can almost see the justification for paying more there than say with say a normal coarse fishing rod.

Same applies to a rod that you'll be holding and striking with all day, if it's heavy your gonn'a be uncomfortable, you won't be able to strike as you should etc etc.

It's like hiking in a cheap'sh pair of boots compared to wearing a good more expensive pair.
Same thing applies across the board, have you been watching any of the Tour, can you imagine Chris Froom, or any of the cyclists results if they where riding a bog standard push iron .

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------

Each person has to judge for themselves whether the extra cost is justificable to them I guess

That's about the gist of it, it all depends on how much of something your going to do and how much you like it.

 

[sam vimes]

Agree with that. I think that the results however taper off the higher up you go. So a 1000 quid rod might be 1000 x better than a 1 quid rod. However it wont be 5 x better than a 200 quid rod...its an exagerated example I know but I am sure you know what i mean.

Each person has to judge for themselves whether the extra cost is justificable to them I guess

No one with any sense, or even just a small inkling of how retail prices work, would suggest that a 100 quid rod would be twice as good as a 50 quid rod. Only in exceptional cases would it be true. You'll be lucky if doubling the price will give much more than a third greater performance. Even then, if your £50 rod is chosen well, and your £100 rod chosen badly, there's a chance you'll see little to no difference. With retail, rules of diminishing returns always apply. Even then, quality isn't necessarily down to retail price alone. Never has been, never will be, and I've deliberately avoided using price as a benchmark because of that.

 

[Philip]

No one with any sense, or even just a small inkling of how retail prices work, would suggest that a 100 quid rod would be twice as good as a 50 quid rod. Only in exceptional cases would it be true. You'll be lucky if doubling the price will give much more than a third greater performance. Even then, if your £50 rod is chosen well, and your £100 rod chosen badly, there's a chance you'll see little to no difference. With retail, rules of diminishing returns always apply. Even then, quality isn't necessarily down to retail price alone. Never has been, never will be, and I've deliberately avoided using price as a benchmark because of that.

Agreed but the question is have we already reached the point where the “good” rods are already good enough for what we are doing and the mega rods are simply “improving” things that really don’t need to be improved and make basically no difference in the grand scheme of things.Take SIC rings...are they really that much better than say the old oxide rings ? ...ok slightly harder but I never saw the old rings wear out so why would I want to pay double or more for SIC ? ...the 5g (or whatever) weight saving would be so marginal it would make no difference at all plus they are more brittle. Basically it just seems to be a step or "improvement" thats simply not needed.

A non fishing example… HD TV …is it better than normal TV ? …yes its “better” but the old picture was already well good enough for me anyway. Would I get more viewing pleasure with a HD TV ? …perhaps for 30 seconds but then I would forget it was HD and just carry on as before.

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

have you been watching any of the Tour, can you imagine Chris Froom, or any of the cyclists results if they where riding a bog standard push iron .

No but wouldnt it be great to see ! ....Some bloke trying to take em on using a penny farthing or a unicycle ....crikey I bet the TV viewing figures would explode !

 

[sam vimes]

Agreed but the question is have we already reached the point where the “good” rods are already good enough for what we are doing and the mega rods are simply “improving” things that really don’t need to be improved and make basically no difference in the grand scheme of things.Take SIC rings...are they really that much better than say the old oxide rings ? ...ok slightly harder but I never saw the old rings wear out so why would I want to pay double or more for SIC ? ...the 5g (or whatever) weight saving would be so marginal it would make no difference at all plus they are more brittle. Basically it just seems to be a step or "improvement" thats simply not needed.

I'm not convinced that ring liners are a big concern to most. I'm more satisfied that, depending on the rod type, the weight and design of rings can make a significant difference though. In most cases I'm a lot more concerned with a blank itself.

A non fishing example… HD TV …is it better than normal TV ? …yes its “better” but the old picture was already well good enough for me anyway. Would I get more viewing pleasure with a HD TV ? …perhaps for 30 seconds but then I would forget it was HD and just carry on as before.

That's fine, but the difference here is that, regardless of whether you value the improvement or not, you are acknowledging a difference. I'm not too disimilar in this respect. I'm not that fussed with HD telly, especially when non-subscription TV is very limited in regards to HD broadcasts. It might be a different story if I were a movie fanatic with a load of 4K Blu-Rays. All power to those that are, I won't deny the improvements in quality. It's simply the case that I don't feel the need to pay for them. That's not the same as refusing to accept that there are differences, even if they are only fractional, for those prepared to pay the price.

 

[Philip]

That's fine, but the difference here is that, regardless of whether you value the improvement or not, you are acknowledging a difference. I'm not too disimilar in this respect. I'm not that fussed with HD telly, especially when non-subscription TV is very limited in regards to HD broadcasts. It might be a different story if I were a movie fanatic with a load of 4K Blu-Rays. All power to those that are, I won't deny the improvements in quality. It's simply the case that I don't feel the need to pay for them. That's not the same as refusing to accept that there are differences, even if they are only fractional, for those prepared to pay the price.

I am not refusing to accept the differences if thats what your saying. I am suggesting the differences often make such a marginal tangible improvement to results or pleasure is it really worth the extra outlay ?

To some yes, to others no I guess is the anwser. You appear to have no problem accepting that concept for the TV example so I am not sure why you are arguing the case for the rods...its the same thing isnt it ?

I recon for a small minority of hardcore users (the movie Blue ray fanatic you give for example), then yes it may make a difference but for most - no I dont think so.

Bascically and I do mean this in a nice way - I see you as the angling equilivant of the Blue ray movie guy when it comes to rods. Most anglers I would say are not that and would be hard pressed to notice any difference in real terms.

 

[mikench]

HD TV is miles better than non HD and was a revelation when it came out! Ultra HD is not as significantly better in my view but to be fair to it there's very little broadcast in UHD. The law of diminishing returns begins to apply in TV terms and also to fishing tackle , cars, clothes etc. However if you derive additional pleasure from just using and owning something"special" as well as from its function and form , then that is fine and to be appreciated !

Good tackle does not a great angler make as I know only too well!

 

[Philip]

The law of diminishing returns begins to apply in TV terms and also to fishing tackle , cars, clothes etc.

Exactly I think thats a good way of putting it. My point here is that I recon in angling terms with rods we have long past the HD TV stage and we are at the "Ultra" HD stage when they are basically milking a spent cow ! Until I see something that really fundementally changes the way rods are made then I recon any "improvement" is only going to be noticable by a very small number of high end users.

So in other words to the majority it makes no real difference.