Are you a tackle tart?

[sam vimes]

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.

I accept the concept for rods too. What I can't accept is those that say they can't tell the difference between their fifty quid rod and a three hundred quid rod. When they say I can't justify spending that much, for whatever reason, fine. If they say that the differences aren't great enough for them to justify the extra outlay, that's fine too. However, a point blank refusal to accept that a three hundred quid rod is most likely better is a case of them kidding themselves. Now if they say that they are struggling to discern differences between items much more closely priced, that can be fair enough too. In some instances, the £300 rod may not actually be any better than the £200 one. Even if it is, the differences could be minimal, and you may not even notice them without fishing with them. If a £300 rod is genuinely no better than a £100 rod, someone is really extracting the urine, but it can happen. You can see similar denials with regards to any kind of consumer item, hi-fi, tvs, sports equipment etc etc. You'll see similar threads to this one on every specialist forum going. I've no problem with anyone that says they can't justify prices, but I do struggle with those that claim that they can't see, hear or feel differences between inexpensive stuff and top end stuff, unless they have some kind of impairment. The problem with the likes of fishing gear, hi-fi, and the like, is that empirical data is either impossible or irrelevant.

I'm little different to anyone else, I do have financial limits. I'd love to try a stable of Carbotecs or Normark 2000 rods, neither of which I've ever laid hands on. However, their sky high prices preclude me taking a punt on second hand rods with no back up whatsoever. That doesn't mean that they are no better than I already have. In a similar vein I'd like to give a shiny new Daiwa Tournament RS a run out, but at £400+ I won't take a punt on a rod I've not been overly impressed with in tackle shop/show waggles, not that a good waggle always gives a true impression. Nothing compares to proper time on the bank. They may actually fully justify the price tags, I just can't afford to take a punt. One thing is for sure though I can still accept that the Daiwa Tournament RS are highly likely to be better than any £50-150 rod I've ever had hold of. Whether they are better than some of the better £175+ rods out there is another matter, and that's before including excellent second hand stuff that could cost less.

I'm not blinded by price tags into believing that top dollar always gets the best performance. I know full well that it's not always the case. However, when it comes to match rods, I probably am the equivalent of Blu-ray bloke, I do appreciate quality. However, I don't confuse quality with price tag alone.

 

[108831]

Or see their financial advisor J

I certainly wouldn't tell her...:wh

Philip,I can remember fishing an open match at Radwell and Sharnbrook many years ago,I drew a decent chub peg in low clear conditions,so lightish tackle was needed, I had 6 chub for 22lb and won my section,3rd in the match,well three ABC Matchgroup guys came along,Steve Poplett,Steve Tyler and Des Barker,all good anglers and i'd like to think friends of mine,I was using a Normark Norboron,they all piped up and said I had more money than sense,my answer,i'd hooked six chub in difficult conditions and lost none and won about £70,over half the price of the rod,it was the reason I chose to fish with the rod on the day,when you think the Normark 2000 range hasn't been made for ages now ,the quality of the blanks is amazing, and for general float fishing is a sheer delight to use and handle.

 

[no-one in particular]

I do struggle with those that claim that they can't see, hear or feel differences between inexpensive stuff and top end stuff, unless they have some kind of impairment. The problem with the likes of fishing gear, hi-fi, and the like, is that empirical data is either impossible or irrelevant.
.

Whoooa buddy, a bit less of the insults, I am not impaired in any way and what if I was!. I can tell the difference in most items regarding quality and price. It just gets a bit more difficult when its just a fishing rod you know - its a just stick with a few eyes whipped on some varnish and somewhere to park a reel; they all bend and they all spring back. They are not quite Rolls Royces, TV's and pieces of art...

 

[robtherake]

I'm all for the must-have-the-latest tackle tarts, without whom the second-hand market would be far less interesting.

 

[sam vimes]

Whoooa buddy, a bit less of the insults, I am not impaired in any way and what if I was!. I can tell the difference in most items regarding quality and price. It just gets a bit more difficult when its just a fishing rod you know - its a just stick with a few eyes whipped on some varnish and somewhere to park a reel; they all bend and they all spring back. They are not quite Rolls Royces, TV's and pieces of art...

I'm sorry that you feel that there is, but there's no insult there at all. I'm not implying that those that think there's no difference are in some way impaired. If someone has some kind of impairment, I can understand them seeing no difference between a standard definition tv and a HD one. I can understand them not hearing the difference between a small radio and a top notch hi-fi. Likewise with a normal fifty quid rod and a three hundred quid rod (that's actually worthy of the price). If there is no impairment of the relevant senses, then I'm afraid that the individual is simply choosing, for whatever reason, to believe that there's no difference. The differences really aren't that hard to discern. It's not a question of having super powers. I'm no believer in some folks possessing "golden" ears/eyes/touch. As I've said previously, whether an individual values the differences enough to actually pay for them is another matter entirely.

 

[no-one in particular]

I'm sorry that you feel that there is, but there's no insult there at all. I'm not implying that those that think there's no difference are in some way impaired. If someone has some kind of impairment, I can understand them seeing no difference between a standard definition tv and a HD one. I can understand them not hearing the difference between a small radio and a top notch hi-fi. Likewise with a normal fifty quid rod and a three hundred quid rod (that's actually worthy of the price). If there is no impairment of the relevant senses, then I'm afraid that the individual is simply choosing, for whatever reason, to believe that there's no difference. The differences really aren't that hard to discern. It's not a question of having super powers. I'm no believer in some folks possessing "golden" ears/eyes/touch. As I've said previously, whether an individual values the differences enough to actually pay for them is another matter entirely.

The trouble with you is you forget whats been said before, covered all of this already. Just dumbing down the debate with the old trick, he's an idiot, or he must be impaired, play the ball, not the man as they say. The debate is solely about (for me anyway) do the differences in prices actually reflect what your getting, not what your prepared to pay and I have said I must be wrong in thinking there is not much in differences already because I can listen to a debate, be persuaded and change my mind. If I was impaired or an idiot I couldn't have done that. But I could be! or someone might be!

 

[sam vimes]

The trouble with you is you forget whats been said before, covered all of this already. Just dumbing down the debate with the old trick, he's an idiot, or he must be impaired, play the ball, not the man as they say. The debate is solely about (for me anyway) do the differences in prices actually reflect what your getting, not what your prepared to pay and I have said I must be wrong in thinking there is not much in differences already because I can listen to a debate, be persuaded and change my mind. If I was impaired or an idiot I couldn't have done that. But I could be! or someone might be!

I'm sorry, but you have the wrong end of the stick entirely. I have not suggested that you, or anyone else, is an idiot or impaired in any way. If that's not good enough for you, I can't do anything about it. Sorry.

You are correct in that it's starting to go round in circles, so I'm quite content to leave it there.

 

[tigger]

The debate is solely about (for me anyway) do the differences in prices actually reflect what your getting, not what your prepared to pay and I have said I must be wrong in thinking there is not much in differences already because I can listen to a debate, be persuaded and change my mind.

Trying to tell someone on a forum the differences between a run of the mill fishing rod and a higher end fishing rod is nigh on impossible, especially someone who is skeptical about there being any at all. If you where stood in front of me and we had the rods in our hands then it would be a hell of a lot easier to point out the visible differences and the differences in action etc etc.
Mark, for the biggest part the higher prices do reflect on what your getting, if it didn't there's no way i'd blow money on them.
Some forms of fishing emphasize the differences between a higher end rod and a cheap'o or even mid range rod. Serious long trotting is one of them and if you did get serious about it then it wouldn't take long before you would be willing to pay out the extra cash for the pleasure and rewards of using the rod.

 

[no-one in particular]

Trying to tell someone on a forum the differences between a run of the mill fishing rod and a higher end fishing rod is nigh on impossible, especially someone who is skeptical about there being any at all. If you where stood in front of me and we had the rods in our hands then it would be a hell of a lot easier to point out the visible differences and the differences in action etc etc.
Mark, for the biggest part the higher prices do reflect on what your getting, if it didn't there's no way i'd blow money on them.
Some forms of fishing emphasize the differences between a higher end rod and a cheap'o or even mid range rod. Serious long trotting is one of them and if you did get serious about it then it wouldn't take long before you would be willing to pay out the extra cash for the pleasure and rewards of using the rod.

I understand, I do honest-I started this under the I went into a big tackle shop, looked at rows of fly rods, all nicely varnished, all black usually, nice rings, perfect whippings and all look pretty much the same but the prices vary say from £20 to a £150, can be even greater for say float rods. I do my tests of putting some together, bending the rod round and unable to discern much in difference there either. And think well whats the point in paying £150 when I can pay £20 or maybe go a bit higher say £30 for some nicer rod rings and reel seat and save a lot of money. I mean for £120 I can buy a couple of nice reels as well to go with the rod. So, I cannot understand what its all about. I said I can see the difference between a £1 sandwich and a £3 sandwich, its obvious, with these carbon rods its not.
So everyone said I am wrong, there are differences and they are worth paying for. OK I say, I am wrong, given I was a majority of one, I accept there must be differences and they are worth paying for.
Then Sam says people who cannot discern the differences must be impaired with a few references to stuff I said before, I take a bit of umbrage at that, belittle the argument all day but leave the man out of it; its just a thing I have. I had a long day, got the wrong end of the stick, great I am over that, just one of those things, forget it Sam, not a problem.
So was I wrong to even think the differences don't warrant the price differences, am I just too thick. Well when you think about it, a reel has say 30 components parts that need engineering, a TV 2000, a motor car 10000, a private jet 50000 so its pretty easy to understand why there can be many variations in quality and price. A rod has about 10 component parts! I needed convincing; they are just not £100-£1000 blindingly obvious so thought I would ask..
The differences are too subtle for me personally to pay that amount extra but I understand the people that think that subtlety is worth paying that amount for.
Anyway, having a break.....

 

[thecrow]

Imo tackle manufacturers have to keep the blurb/advertising going in order to keep being able to manufacture and sell new rods in the numbers they do.

Some rods are worth the extra asked for them some imo are not and its the advertising blurb that convinces some anglers that they are, not only that but it convinces some anglers that they are actually better than the rod they purchased 12 months ago from the same manufacturer and the angler must purchase/need one to fish better than with the old rod.

How do most anglers choose what rod to buy? have a go with a mates for a short while? waggle one in the tackle shop? buy because of the manufacturers advertising telling you that you need one? recommendation? I don't think any of these are sure fire ways of telling if the rod is suitable for what the angler wants to do as we as anglers are all different creatures.

I believe that it is because of this that an anglers favourite rod is happened upon mostly by chance, it may have nothing to do with price, wagglability, recommendation, or advertising just that the rod feels right to the angler using it and it doesn't matter that the rod might not be the most expensive of rods.


Anglers have always been easy meat for advertisers whether it be rods/reels floats the latest wonder bait and I am no different but there is only 1 rod I would consider paying what I consider a lot for, I haven't waggled it, i haven't caught fish on it or even had a go with it although the offer has always been there its because i have seen it in action on several occasions i have seen its versatility in being able to perform very different ways of fishing, would it suit me? who knows and that's just the thing with rods no matter what the price you just never know until you have paid the price and used it for a while.

 

[mikench]

Don't worry Mark and if what you buy does the job and you are happy with it then that is all that matters. I am sure Sam had no intention of belittling you in any way and I share Robs comments about second hand bargains. I have bought a couple of high end expensive rods which i like and which i can appreciate.Equally i have some inexpensive rods I also like and which I give an airing to on a regular basis. I bought a Maver rod 11' feeder for £10 which is brilliant and nice to use. It brought me my first double figure carp!

I bought a Shakey Mach3 light 13' rod second hand for £30 and love it. I am pretty useless Mark as you will have gathered but this rod is very sensitive and really suits me. We all like a bargain and I can derive as much pleasure from a bargain as an expensive purchase if not more!

Following Robs advice i even visit local charity shops in the hope that i can spot a Normark Titan/Avenger/Norboron/Ultralite!

 

[tigger]

It's a strange one really as sometimes we can get more pleasure from using a cheap'o item rather than an expensive one. My brother has a quite expensive push bike, not an elite bike or anything near but it's a decent one. Recently he got an old "Granny bike" for 5 quid off someone he knows who was going to skip it, he got it just to use for traveling to work as he had someone tamper with his better one when he'd left it locked up in the official spot. Anyhow he's obsessed with riding the cheap'o Granny bike, he rode it so hard that the cheap gear set and crank fell to bits within a fortnight and he then proceeded to spend god only knows how much replacing the parts with better ones! Thing is the frame and everything else is still the same cheap stuff and yet he just loves using it....strange in'it. He seems to get pleasure from racing cyclists on fancy road bikes and beating them LOL.

 

[mikench]

Without going off topic, i must get my love of a bargain from my Mum ( still alive at 89 but with dementia) who loved to buy stuff at a bargain price even if it was useless.

When i had just qualified i took up golf and one day at work my Mum phoned me and then my Dad absolutely beside herself with happiness as she had bought us both a full set of golf clubs at a bargain price. She couldnt wait until we both got home to present them to us. My Dad and i looked at each other and he left me to tell her" you have bought 24 putters"!

I then had to explain that whilst they all looked different they were the same kind of club and served the same limited purpose. The shop wouldn't take them back so for years relatives and friends received a putter for Christmas or their birthday regardless of whether they played golf or not. She may have lost the plot but she does remember this!

 

[sam vimes]

I bought a Shakey Mach3 light 13' rod second hand for £30 and love it. I am pretty useless Mark as you will have gathered but this rod is very sensitive and really suits me. We all like a bargain and I can derive as much pleasure from a bargain as an expensive purchase if not more!

For thirty quid, I'd have one too, in spite of my Shakespeare phobia. However, the Shakespeare Mach 3 range of rods is a bit of a red herring with regards to prices. They were cleared at around the £50 mark, which naturally suppresses second hand values a bit (though increasing scarcity is starting to see them rise) and they are a steal at those prices. However, it shouldn't be forgotten, though it is by many, that the Mach 3 rods were originally intended to sell around the £130 mark. Even at that price, they were the equal of most comparably priced rods and some that were more expensive.

Following Robs advice i even visit local charity shops in the hope that i can spot a Normark Titan/Avenger/Norboron/Ultralite!

The Normark "Ultralite" you are looking for is actually called a Microlight. Drennan do a Matchpro Ultralight. Don't look for a Normark Ultralite, unless you just like the search!

 

[mikench]

I understand the Match Lite / Lite match Mach 3 is rarer and sold for more! However it is a lovely rod and i am well pleased with it!

 

[sam vimes]

I understand the Match Lite / Lite match Mach 3 is rarer and sold for more! However it is a lovely rod and i am well pleased with it!

It didn't sell for more when they were clearing them. They were a very similar price to the standard 13' Mach 3 match rod. They did disappear much faster, suggesting that not that many were made. If you look hard enough, you can still pick up the standard 13' match rod brand new. I've not seen a 13' Lite brand new for quite a while now and second hand prices are slowly starting to increase. It was the pellet waggler rod, especially at the bargain clearance prices, that really sparked the high regard for the Mach 3 rods.

 

[Nobby C (ACA)]

Without going off topic, i must get my love of a bargain from my Mum ( still alive at 89 but with dementia) who loved to buy stuff at a bargain price even if it was useless.

When i had just qualified i took up golf and one day at work my Mum phoned me and then my Dad absolutely beside herself with happiness as she had bought us both a full set of golf clubs at a bargain price. She couldnt wait until we both got home to present them to us. My Dad and i looked at each other and he left me to tell her" you have bought 24 putters"!

I then had to explain that whilst they all looked different they were the same kind of club and served the same limited purpose. The shop wouldn't take them back so for years relatives and friends received a putter for Christmas or their birthday regardless of whether they played golf or not. She may have lost the plot but she does remember this!

Surely they're fine, could you not just whack the ball harder with one?:w

 

[mikench]

Why do you think I took up fishing?

 

[Philip]

The fact we are seeing people drooling over “old” rods like the Normarks simply reinforces the point that there are no new advances in rod design and we are just tweaking the same old formulas. Ok someone may hit on a particularly good weave/blend or whatever you want to call it carbon mix from time to time and put out a good rod blank but its not ever going to be that much better than whats come before.

Cane to fiberglass was a real jump. Glass to Carbon was a real jump. After that splicing this or reinforcing that wont make much real difference in my opinion.

Someone I am sure will correct me on this but I believe allot of the advancements in rod blanks actually originates from the yachting fraternity, it’s the masts on things like the Americas Yachts, they are long and pointy and they are always looking for lighter and stiffer materials to build them with and its there that the technology for the newest and latest advancements in blanks occurs because they have the cash to drive it and us anglers with our rods in mind simply hook along for the ride.

Point is I don’t see anything new coming along in that area. Maybe someone else does. Graphene ? …no idea. But until we do then I don’t think we will see anything that truly stands apart from the crowd. It will be the same old same old with a bell or whistle attached.

 

[sam vimes]

There's not a great deal to argue with there, Phillip. I very much doubt that we'll see any significant advances until a new, or additional, material is used. To end up with a rod much lighter than the lightest previously available would likely result in a rod so fragile as to be practically useless.

However, I suspect that your use of Normark rods as a cornerstone of your argument is, I believe, flawed. Market forces are more significant than anything in their demise. Further development of existing carbon technology in rod building might actually have improved on them. Some could argue that the natural successor, Carbotec, actually did improve on the lauded Normarks. Unfortunately, the reason such rods (Normarks, Carbotecs and even the original Drennan IM9) disappeared is that they would have ended up so expensive to retail that the companies concerned were scared witless that they wouldn't sell any.

I've been lead to believe that this was partly down to the ever increasing demand for carbon fibre (mostly from the aerospace industry) and partly because the market changed. The coarse angling market was starting to revolve around commie and big carp fishing. Poles were the puppies on the commies and that's where the well heeled matchmen spent their money. People no longer wanted delicate canal match rods, or even more normal 13-15ft match rods, for river or more natural stillwater work. That was where the Normark/Carbotec market lay, alongside tip rods in a similar vein. I dread to think what a Carbotec rod, that was retailing at £500+ the best part of twenty years ago, would cost now. The harsh reality is that only the big carp types and a few well heeled enthusiasts are paying that kind of money for a rod.

I'm convinced that tweaking the materials and designs we already have can still produce better rods, for less money. Whether they ever try to exceed the very best quality of years gone is another matter. I would rather doubt it. The market simply wouldn't bear retail prices exceeding £500 by significant margins.