Bamboo Tips - Tips Area |
|
< Home < Tips Area < Rod Selection < Payne Tapers
I’m hoping this will be a fairly straightforward question. But somehow I sense it will be more difficult than I think! I’m thinking about what to build for rod #4 and would like to build a Payne. I like to make rods I can fish, so a mid-weight rod is most desirable (4-6 wt. for Oregon fishing). I prefer 2 piece rods, but that’s not a show-stopper. I also like rods 7’ or longer. I've looked through the Hex rod list. But would like personal recommendations. Given this information, what Payne rod best represents his work with (or near) the dimensions above? Examples of what I’d provide, if someone asked me about Paul Young rods (those I’m most familiar with). I’d recommend a Perfectionist 4 wt. for a faster, but great dry or nymphing rod. Or a Driggs River 5 wt. if you like your rods to really bend deep into the handle (slower??) and a rod that feels one weight lower while fishing. Or a Martha Marie for a bit more of a backbone. A rod suited for larger western river fishing (if that really means anything!?). Thanks for your help on selecting a Payne to build! (Scott Turner) I made a Payne 98 (7', 4 wt.) for my son, and liked it so well I'm making one for myself. I used the Ron Barch taper which smoothes out the jump between the tip and butt so you can use a standard ferrule instead of a stepdown. For a heavier rod (7'6", 5 wt.) you might look at the Waara 5 weight. (Neil Savage) I cast a couple of Payne 101's at Super Boo 2 in Maine, nice rod, 7.5' 5 wt. It moved way up on my list of rods to build. (Pete Van Schaack) I would recommend the Payne 102, as it a lot like the Granger 8040, a nice light-line trout rod. (Bill Walters) The Jim Payne 101 is in my opinion the best rod ever designed and built for fresh water fishing for trout! Big claim. Big performance. If you are going to build this rod, take the little bit of extra trouble to use the taper as circulated by Dennis Higham, as, again in my opinion, it and the one in the archives are like chalk and cheese. By the way, it's a 7'6" for a 5-weight, so, as you can see, Jim Payne designed this rod with you in mind! Wasn't that thoughtful of him? (Peter McKean)
I've decided to build a Payne because of how often they get mentioned here. What is your favorite Payne taper that would fit the following criteria? I like crisp fast action rods best but can accept med. fast action. Nothing over 7 1/2' as I couldn't keep an open enough mind to ever give any 8' rod a fair chance. If I'm going to fish an 8' rod it will be a Dickerson 8014 Guide. Period. Any Payne Taper 6 1/2',7', or 7 1/2' and what you like best about it and it's action. I'll choose the one I think fits me best. (Will Price) Payne 101 - 7.5' 5wt. There are some modified tapers out there that are fantastic - I believe Harry makes one. (Pete Van Schaack) I'll second the Payne 101. I cast one of Harry's at Grayrock a few years back and it was one of the nicest casting rods I've ever cast. IIRC, there was a Dickerson 8014 there that year. I liked the Payne 101 a bit better. (George Bourke) If you want "crisp" action, IE a faster rod then either the 101 or the 7', 4wt .. 98. You can't go wrong with either taper. In 3 piece configuration the 197 is a 7 1/2' fast 6 wt. Anything else in Payne under 7 1/2' is going to be medium fast. (Dennis Higham) I'm partial to the 96, a 6'6" 4 wt. I would call it medium/fast and very pleasant to fish with, a bit snappier than Dickerson's 6611. (John Channer) The Payne 101, 7'6" for 5 weight is a great taper for general river fishing situations. For a line weight lighter, the 98 is also bloody good. To add a bit to your thoughts on 8'0" rods, I believe that the Gillum 8'0" 6 weight as detailed in The Lovely Reed is a better and more pleasant rod than the Dickerson. I have made a few of these big Dickersons, and they seem to me to be just "brute force and ignorance", to use a hackneyed quote - pick 'em up and put 'em down again, whereas the Gillum has a magnificent action. Not so stiff as the Dickerson, admittedly, but very powerful. I have never had a buyer complain about this taper. Make one and compare. (Peter McKean) I agree, I made a Dickerson 8015. I call it "The Club". Fishing it all day will wear out your arm. (Ron Larsen) The problems with the few Dickersons I have built are similar to most of them, i.e. the step down ferrule and what I have previously referred to as the gorilla butt. This produces a rod with most of its action in the zone above the ferrule, the tip and butt being usually rather straight! Many early carbon rods seemed to suffer from a similar affliction, Bruce and Walker and the Shakespeare boron that everyone except me raved about being the other, it was a 9'10'' #9. I think we know a lot more about rod design these days. (Robin Haywood)
Anybody have the taper for a 3-piece Payne 100? (Bill Walters) Hope this helps. (Don Green) Payne 100 7.5 Ft 4 Wt Station Dimension Form Setting 0 0.064 0.032 Bill, go into Hexrod and change either the Payne 100 or the 100h to 3 piece, depending on which you want to build. (Neil Savage) I believe Mike Brooks has the taper of an actual 3 piece 100 made by Payne. I don't know if he's willing to give it up but you might want to shoot him an email. (Jim Lowe) The Payne model 100 is a 2 piece rod, The 3 piece rod that is similar is the model 197 which is the slower of the 7'6" 3 piece rods. (Hal Bacon) Yeah I know; but, Mike swears it's a 100 3 piece one-off made by Payne and marked that way. To quote what Mike wrote on Clarks: "Rev. Lee Eames... actually has an original Payne 100 that was custom built by Jim Payne as a 3 piece rod. I got it from him a couple of years back to make a new tip for one that was down. Neat rod. " (Jim Lowe)
I've searched high & low for the Payne 201 8' 3 piece 5 wt. Would anyone be willing to share the taper or point me in the right direction where I might find it? (Paul Julius) The taper I have for the Payne 8 foot 3 piece 5 wt. I had it listed as a 200 but that is probably wrong. I would beef up the tip 10-15 inches a bit if I were to build it again. Payne 200 8' 3 Piece 5 Weight 0.058 This taper was very popular at last year's CRR. One of the favorites in the rod evaluation event. This rod gets a lot of use. Payne 201, 8', 5/6-wt,../p> The original that I took the taper from was made by Payne for Abercrombie & Fitch, NY. I Measured three flats and averaged them, then took .006 off for varnish. Here are the measurements for the rod with the tip I used. 1 .056 I glued the rod with resorcinol. The original has stepped ferrules, so I used CSE stepped ferrules. There are 10 snakes plus the stripper. The guide spacing from the tiptop is: 4 5/8 I may be mistaken but the taper above looks more like a 3/4 wt to me. What am I missing? Maybe the 0.006 for varnish is too much? (Stephen Dugmore) I would say it's a 3/4 also. Taper does look like it could be a Payne. (Bob Norwood) I'd fish with a 4. Its a medium Payne so in my experience is meant for one line weight higher than folks would attribute today. Drop the line to 4 and the curve is an almost exact match for one of the 200s I've made which is a 5 and one I through bass bugs with. (Jim Lowe) I've made at least 5 of these rods and none were a 3/4-wt. but it sure casts a 5. None of the evaluators at CRR thought that it was over-lined. If anyone who cast it last year wants to weigh in here, have at it. (Steve Weiss) I buy that, I'd initially put that .229 at 65. That butt is pretty beefy compared to the 11 other 8' 3 piece Paynes I have. LOL. Thanks for the taper, it looks like a great rod. (Jim Lowe) I cast this rod at CRR, and loved it. But I thought you had a WF6 line on this one Steve?? Pure Payne, IMO. (Harry Boyd) I can't remember for sure, it could have been, but I usually use it with a 5. My friend Mike uses his with a 6. (Steve Weiss) I am really curious about what it is about the design of this lighter version of the 201 that it can still handle this line weight, and apparently well, too! If you compare the figures with eg. a Garrison 209, the dims in the first 40” (which are possibly the most critical in terms of line weight definition) are consistently 0.010 or more thinner than the Garrison (2 line weights lighter if you go with Ray Gould’s rule of thumb and significantly lighter even if you don’t)! For the remainder of the rod the dims are essentially 0.005 or more thinner. It is comparatively a much lighter rod. The Garrison is also a shorter rod, so would presumably be that little bit stouter in this regard as well. How does this work? Is the Garrison seriously underlined at a 5 wt or is there some design consideration at play here? Could the convex taper of the Payne really make such a massive difference? If so, why then are so many classic rods so seriously overdesigned? Did they all miss the boat in not going convex? Incidentally how does the Payne handle distance? (Stephen Dugmore) I hope nobody is trying to interpret, from this discussion, that one person is right, and everybody else is wrong. A Payne 201 was a 3-piece, 2-tip, 8' 5wt rod. Obviously, Steve and Mike measured 2 very different rods, but they both were marked, by Jim Payne himself, as 201's. The dimensions Steve has provided for the Payne 201 appear to be beefed up version of the Payne 200, which would make sense. I ran both these tapers through HexRod to get the stress curves, and the results are quite interesting. The Weiss rod has higher stress in the tip, while the Troutgetter rod has a more parabolic mid. Neither is drastic, though. When you compare graph of the dimensions, though, there really isn't much difference, suggesting that one may well have been a refinement of the other. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing which rod came first. I am attaching the graphs (click for larger versions) for anybody who's interested.
(Paul Gruver) Did you notice the triple convex taper a la Vince Marinaro? (Steve Weiss) My friend and bamboo guru, rodmaker Syd Smith, let me cast his version of the Payne 201 just last week. It has been tweaked to suit his ideas of taper design. Casting with a Triangle Taper 5 wt, this rod was very impressive. Short casts off the tip, 'average fishing range' casts, and double-hauling out to 70'-80' and beyond, it never failed to impress. I just thought someone might be interested in one more take on this wonderful 8' 3/2 5 wt. (Reed Guice) Reed - As you can see there are a lot of tapers attributed to Payne's 201. IT IS TWEAKED. Here is the taper for the rod I made. 8 foot, 3 piece. Measurements are on the UNVARNISHED sections: Ferrules 16 and 11 - Super Z - with step down at ferrules as shown Butt (inches) Mid (inches) Tip Measurements on the VARNISHED/FINISHED rod from tip down: measured as close to the inch indicated as possible given ferrules and guide wraps, but clearly not as accurate as above. Dipped: 4 coats butt , 4 coats mid, 3 coats tips. 0 - .067 Sydney A. Smith Interesting. It looks like it started out looking like Mike's taper and ended up more like a slow Payne 198. (Jim Lowe)
I'm hoping to make a Payne 101 as my next rod. It will be my first venture out of the Paul Young taper family. And like the Young tapers, there is more than one taper for the Payne 101. There is the George Maurer version, Dennis Higham's measured version in Hexrod and the Hexrod version. I kindly request members of the list for some guidance on this matter. Which taper would you recommend? (Paul Julius) I have made thirty or forty of the Dennis Higham version, and while I have now made several empirical modifications to the numbers (of the kind of which Jerry would NOT approve, being very subjective and derivative and all), I have no problems with that version. The rods that I made to the accurate Higham numbers are lovely rods to use, and thought of very well by their owners. (Peter McKean) You misjudge me. I think you would find that the only difference between our methods is that for empirical changes I use a computer instead of of charcoal on a rock. (Jerry Foster)
I am looking for a Payne 98 taper and would like to hear from anyone who has a nice version as I gather there are quite a few. The two well publicized tapers are so dissimilar as to be totally different rods, one being a fast action, Dickerson like (from Ron Barch), the other much deeper flexing although the latter is reported as being a modified taper (Ted Knott). These two are in David Rays taper library and RodDNA. (Gary Marshall) I've made 4 or 5 of the Ron Barch version and I like it a lot. I think the drop over the ferrule is very important to the feel of this rod, so if you get the taper from a computer program, extrapolate the taper into the ferrule from each direction. You should wind up with a tip dimension inside the male of .173 or so and a butt dimension inside the ferrule of .196. I use Swiss ferrules, so the butt gets turned full round while the tips just get the corners rounded off slightly, with Accraglas epoxy they hold just fine. (John Channer) That should be .173 and .190. (John Channer) I made the Ron Barch taper for my son, and the first time I cast it, I said to myself "Self, you NEED one of these!" (Neil Savage)
Can anyone give me the correct taper for the Payne Canadian Canoe. I know there are a few out there The two I have seen are very different from each other. So what would you recommend as the correct one to make. The one in Jacks book looks very light for a 7wt with 6 thou taken off for varnish? Any help would be much appreciated. (Gary Nicholson) This is from David Ray's taper library: Payne Canadian Canoe 8.5 Ft 7 Wt Butt Mid Tip Deduction for varnish 0.004 It took a while to figure it out, he gives the #’s from the butt of each section, then 5" up for each section etc. This says deduct .004" for the varnish. Kevin Little made a very well-received one, hopefully the voice of experience will chime in. (Henry Mitchell) I have a taper which is like the one in David Ray's data base except the data base one seems to have a few numbers left out. When I look at the taper as it is in DR's It just doesn't look right. I cant guarantee the one I'm sending, but it looks like a 7 wt rod, average in the tip and it falling off (or is softer) into the butt, making the action a little slower. It looks like a 6 wt to me. (Bob Norwood) Here's the taper I have. Not sure where it came from but it's in the 3 piece format with all the numbers showing. .072 .085 .108 .125 .139 .153 .164 .172 .184 .195 .216 .229 .237 .253 .262 .268 .276 .289 .300 .311 .333 .385 .385 .385 Looking at how Payne chooses line weights then it does look like a 7wt. (Ken Paterson) Your Payne Canadian Canoe taper came from Shawn Pineo. Shawn posted it to the list../2001. The rest of the post....Payne Canadian Canoe 8'6" 7wt 3pc (17/64 and 12/64 ferrules) Deduct .004-.006 for varnish Shawn didn't mention where the #'s came from. (Dennis Higham) That’s the one I have also. It's in Jack Howell’s book, but he tells you to take of 6 thou for varnish. I would agree without taking the 6 thou it's a 7wt but with 6 thou off it's got to be a 6wt. (Gary Nicholson) ...but that's the same as the one in David Ray's Taper Library. The format is a bit messed up, but when you realign the columns you get: Butt Mid Tip Deduction for varnish 0.004 (Paul Gruver) Please do not take this as a criticism. This is a perfect example of what screws up most new rod makers. Do the numbers reflect a .004 deduction for varnish or is .004 the recommended amount to reduce the numbers shown? (Ralph Tuttle) Some sites say deduct .004 from the taper for varnish, and some don't say anything. This is why I only build my own tapers now. LOL (Ken Paterson) I agree but if a customer asks for a specific rod. I think you should do your best. (Gary Nicholson)
Does anybody have a taper for a Payne 104? I have a bit of a mystery. A couple of years ago I made a 8'6" 3 piece 5 wt that I have listed in my notes as derived from a Payne 104. The only Payne 104 taper I can find is in David Ray's taper library. That is listed as a 8'6" 6 wt, so it is a likely candidate. However, my taper was modified using RodDNA, and it is not consistent with having been derived from David Ray's using either controlled modification or stress values. (Robert Kope) This is per Dennis Higham. (Timothy Troester) I got this from Rob Hoffhines some years ago. Payne 104, 2/2, 8 1/2', 5 1/4 ounces measured over varnish 1" = .075 guides winding check at 92 11/16"
I don’t understand why it is but the Payne Parabolics tend to take a back seat to Youngs or Pezon. But why? (Gary Nicholson) I personally don't consider the Payne Parabolics to be parabolic. They look to me like parabolic tip sections mated to fast butt sections. Look at the action length slopes. They are mostly over .003/inch. I would expect a Parabolic to be significantly less than that. Also look at the stress charts. The rods get stiffer as you approach the grip. That also, is not parabolic. I'm not saying they are bad casters, or bad rods. I don't think Jim Payne liked true parabolic action. (Tom Smithwick) As always Tom thanks for the speedy reply. Never looked at them in any great detail Tom but I am going to have a close look now. Just occurred to me no one specks of the Payne parabolics..Well I guess that answers it. Anyone rate them? (Gary Nicholson) I cast a Payne Parabolic made by Rich Margiotta at a gathering last summer in Townsend, TN. It was a 7'-1" #3/4 and I loved it. I like parabolic rods so this is no real surprise. It has a very fine tip as I remember. I looked and it is 0.054 at the tip. The tip itself seems to have the stress curve of a parabolic rod and the butt is stronger. It casts well enough that I wanted the taper. (Hal Manas) I should have mentioned that there are a several Payne Parabolic tapers out there. I understand that Payne struggled with the whole idea of para rods According to Schwiebert, much of the Payne Parabolics' development was done by John Alden Knight and Charles Ritz. This may explain why there are 4 Payne Paras in Rod DNA in the 7-8 ft 3-5 wt range . I think I see the taper you mention in there. I guess I picked the wrong one for me. Thanks for the info maybe I will try again. (Doug Easton) There were 4 models of Payne Paras: * 7'1" for 3 or 4wt The 7'6" was not cataloged, I believe. I seem to remember that a few experimental 7'7" rods were made and sold, but I can't find a reference. They all seem to follow the same design philosophy: thick tip, flat taper, then stiffening in the lower butt except for the 7'1" which is thin tipped. BTW, the 7'1" Payne Para that Hal cast was built out from a blank from Tim Zietak. (Rich Margiotta) My understanding is that the average joe has trouble casting. I've never seen one so I don't know if that's true. (Jim Lowe) OK I was gonna take offense to that statement..........then I saw the word average! (Joe Arguello) Looks to me as if Payne didn't make many Para's either that or I don't have them. I have a grand total of 4, of which two look the same (79 and 214), the 79 has a butt swell. not much to choose from. (Bob Norwood) The Paynes are quite different from the the Young family of paras. I made a Payne 214 7'9" parabolic 4 wt. I tried it with a Wulff TT #4 wt and I didn't like it at all it felt rather tip heavy, slow and not particularly powerful. I have yet to try other lines so I might like it better with a different line. I have also cast various Young tapers and I love them. They are characterized by a flexible but a stiffer middle and a relatively fine tips. They are, when you get the timing right, cannons. The Payne 262 is a bit stiffer than the 214 in the middle and the tip is finer. I believe that I cast a 262 once at Grayrock and liked it. The Pezons are quite variable and the parabolic rods do not all share the same tapers. These are my own opinions. Any opinions I have are personal preferences that are influenced by my casting style and the type of fishing I do. (Doug Easton) I made a Young Perfectionist (parabolic) and didn't like it a bit. A few years later, I tried a different--heavier--reel and I like it a lot that way. The balance never felt "right" to me before. (Neil Savage) Just a couple of thoughts re: the Payne Parabolics. First ..What Rich said...4 models and the 7'6" never cataloged..the Payne paras are not really parabolic as we think of parabolic today. Rather than being stiff in the middle and flexible in the butt like Young and Ritz they are flexible in the middle and get stiffer toward the butt. I have an original 7'9" in the lighter 4/5wt and it's a great casting rod but quite different than the Young Para-14's I've built. (both 7'9",5wt's). A couple of years ago I thought I might build the ultimate 7'9" parabolic 5wt by blending the Payne and the Para-14 until I looked at the stress curves. Two very different rods. Regarding model numbers. There were a number of Payne rods that never had model numbers assigned. The Streamer rods, the Bass Bug rod, the Circular Bend Trout rod, the Spinning rods, the Bonefish rods and the Parabolics. Some of the taper libraries out there list model numbers associated with the parabolics...that's wrong...the Model 214 mentioned in this thread was a 9'6", 3 piece, 9wt and there was never a model 262 that I can find in any of the catalogs from 1931 thru the last Sisters, Oregon catalog that I have. (Dennis Higham)
The next rod I want to make should become a #5-6, 8.5 footer. After some time gambling around with the taper I ended with a stress curve very similar to the Payne 204. Now my question: Can somebody tell me his experience with this rod. How it cast's and do you think I should have a look at some other 8.5 foot tapers before i start? (Markus Rohrbach) I have built and use the following 8.5 footers . Payne 204L. Granger 8642 and Dickerson 861711. All nice rods. I use them all regularly, but Payne the most. This because this I think it is better at protecting light tippets. If you want a rod with a bit more punch have a look at the Granger. (Tor Skarpodde) Thanks a lot for your comments. What line are you using with the 204? Is it possible to handle a streamer or a heavy nymph with this rod? When I have a look at the taper I think the dimension of the tip is to small. And I think to enlarge the Tip from 0.063 to 0.074. What you think? (Markus Rohrbach) I'm not sure if the following numbers are the L or H taper of the 204 rod. Can someone help me with the correct L and H Taper? I guess H stands for heavy and L for light. Is this correct? If so, is the 204L the dry fly and the 204H the nymph rod? Hhuuch... Many questions are coming up in my brian when I'm thinking about that taper. Thank' s for your estimated assistance. Payne Jim - Nr. 204 - 8'6'' - #5 - 3T Station Dimension After receiving some post regarding the Payne 204 Taper, I'm quite confused. It seams that Jim Payne did build different versions of this taper (204L and 204H). After searching the internet I found only a 204 taper. Can somebody give me the tapers or a recommendation where I can find it? If one of you have good experience with other 8'6'' #5 dry fly/nymph rods please let me know. (Markus Rohrbach) Try here. (Scott Grady)
I guess nobody is really familiar with the casting characteristics of the Payne 202, but I have a request to build a rod that must be a fast 3-piece 8 footer for 5-6 line weight. The requester would prefer that the taper was a Payne, but that is secondary to the quick action. The buyer has Payniamania, but is prepared to compromise. My records are pretty incomplete from years ago, but the reason I am asking for some help here is that I seem to recall that years ago I built this 202 rod (claimed by the 1951 Payne catalogue to be Fast DF action) only to find it to be pretty slow and deliberate; like, I am afraid, most 3-piece 8 footers I have built. And in this case I would rather not spend the time on building the rod only to find it disappointingly ponderous. Paynes aside, I am open to suggestion here. (Peter McKean) Dickerson 801611. (Mark Wendt) I agree with Wendt that Dickerson is a great rod. (Bret Reiter)
I have built a Payne 97, 98, and 100 and liked the action on each but have heard about a Payne 7'9" for a 5wt. but am unable to find any information about the rod. Has anyone built this Payne model and if so, what are the characteristics. Thanks in advance for any information. (Bob Marcereau) I have built many from the taper in Jack Howell's book. It makes a fine rod that is very versatile. It is a moderate action, not real fast, yet has enough guts to allow you to handle a decent fish. I find that it casts we'll both short and long. (Bill Lamberson) I too have made the Payne 7'9" taper out of the Howell book. I absolutely agree with everything Bill said about the rod. It has a parabolic feel to it and flexes into the grip, but has plenty of muscle to handle weighted flies. The 7'9" length really fits my casting style and it is fast becoming my go to rod. It takes very little motion to cast at considerable fishing lengths. (Dave Beerbower)
I'm here messing about with my first rod I've made for about 7 years which makes me something of a born again rodmaker and the taper I decided to do was a Payne 7' #3/4. Now, I was under the impression that this is the Payne 97 which logic and memory seems to suggest to me was a slightly lighter version but the same length as the Payne 98 which I've made a couple of. The taper I used is listed in The Lovely Reed I have no idea as what the Latin for that is now but that's where it came from. In the book this taper is not named but I was pretty sure it's the Payne 97?? I decided to check figures with David Ray's excellent taper collect though I see that the Payne 97 is listed as a 7.5' rod? Is that a typo? I just consulted Schwierbert's Trout Tackle Book II and it has the Payne 97 listed as a two piece 7' lighter than the 98 which makes sense to me and the Payne 197 as a three-piece 7.5' rod. (Tony Young (7/11/2017)) I should have looked more closely before posting my initial message on this subject. It looks as if the taper listed as a Payne 97 is the 197. The Payne 98 given by Ted Knott is the Payne 98. The taper listed as the second Payne 98 by Ron Barch is a Payne 97. (Tony Young) Well, Howell does not say if it is supposed to be the 97 or the 98, which is definitely another 7-footer. He mentions .006 for varnish. The Rodmakers archive in one iteration has a different 97 taper but no mention of varnish. No surprises over that. I saw on David Ray’s list, a 97 listed as 7.5’, Dennis Higham. Measured over no varnish. I think a simple error. Frankly, I have never understood how you can tell the thickness of varnish, and I would point blank refuse to scrape the varnish on sections of my 97 to find out! If you are stuck, please let me know and I’l measure my rod. But you figure the varnish. Otherwise I’d use Dennis’s measurement and ignore the last butt measurement. (Sean McSharry) Thank you very much Sean but the blank's in the string now. I used the number less 0.006" from The Lovely Reed. Really, I was just wondering if anybody had ever noticed the typo ?? in David Ray's library and what people had made of it. I'd noticed on other places that people mentioned the 97 as being 7.5', I though when I'd seen that something was amiss but at the time I didn't consider it but since my recent quest into the itty-bitty rod scene now I'm chasing small trout in mtn streams here in Victoria it sort of came back to me and saw where the possible confusion?? was caused. If this rod doesn't do it for me I'll make Dickerson 7012, it'll fit in with all the other Dickerson tapers I have. The 7012 is a little but lighter than the rest though but at least I know what to expect. In David Ray's list he has the 98 by Ron Barch (I believe this to be the 97) as having a slight step down which Howell's 7' 3/4 does also so I think it's the same taper. Schwiebert lists two Payne 2-piece rods of 7' but not their line weights. He lists one as a 97 Dry-Fly physically weighing 2/38 - 2 3/4oz minus hardware. He has the Payne 98 as Fast Dry-Fly weighing 2 7/8 - 3oz minus hardware. That tends to make me think we're talking about the same rod here. (Tony Young) Ray Gould lists a Payne 97 as a 7' #4. It appears to be somewhat heavier than the rod listed in Howell's book. The same taper is listed as a Payne 97 in George Maurer's book. I built one of those years ago and use it for fishing our trico spinner fall, which is the major dry fly event in Missouri. The flies are very small, #28 or 30 fished on a 7 or 8X tippet. The rod works very well for that. The casts are short, and it is soft enough to protect the tippets. I don't find that it does anything else very well, but perhaps that's just me because swinging a pair of number 10 soft hackles is my usual trout tactic. It might be fine where you routinely fish small dry flies. I suppose my point is, that the Rod listed in Howell's book is a different taper in my opinion. I like the Dickerson 7012, it is a little more versatile. (Bill Lamberson) I made that rod for my nephew in Michigan I got the taper off the tapers list on the list serve. It is a 7'0" 4 weight. I got a chance to actually fish it last week in Michigan on the Pere Marquette. It was a pleasure to cast & I got a 15" Brown on it & it handled that fish very well. (Bret Reiter) Without giving it all that much thought when I began thinking that something was amiss with all of this was that the taper by Bach said to be a 98 (uses a 11/65th ferrule) was a 97 and was possibly the same taper more or less as Howell's taking into account variation in rods and personal measurement variation which exists. If you look at Ted Knott's 98 which I believe to be a 98 it uses a 13/64 ferrule. I've made a couple of these and used one for a while and it is a #5 under some circumstances. Looking at the taper listed on David Ray's site said to be a 97, it's a 7.5' rod yet the 97 is 7'. If you remove the last 6" from this taper you end up with a butt that is quite light, somewhere between .300 and .290 which is outside of any other figures as well. In any case, I'll have this rod finished pretty soon and I'll try it out and see what it casts and that's what it'll cast. (Tony Young) Recently, I had an opportunity to measure David Sheffield's Payne 97. The rod is 7' and weighs 3 3/4 oz with downlocking sliding band seat with walnut insert. Here are the numbers, over varnish.
How do these numbers compare to other 7' two-piece Paynes? (Reed Guice) Here are the various Payne 98 and 97 tapers tabulated for easy cross referencing. Howell lists his tapers differently to how the tapers on David Ray's list has them, so I've placed the numbers where it seems that they belong, I think I have it right but make up your own mind. I have had quite a bit to do with measuring things and know for a fact that if three people measure the same set of things every one of them with think the other two have the numbers wrong so given human variance in metrology and rod variance I have to think that Ron Barch's 98, Reed Guice's 97 and The Lovely Reed's 7' 3/4 are the same rod or at least measurements of the same intended rod. It would be even worse when you measure three times and average the result for each station. I'd use a micrometer for a finished rod, at least some of these were prob done with a dial caliper but I don't know. Keep in mind that I took 0.006" off Howell's original figures as that's what he recommends, that may be a wild arsed guess on his part that is wrong, but they do look close. Ted Knott's 98 is the rod taper I've used in the past and it's not the same rod as the one I have in string in my shed right now and the numbers below show that. I agree that Ted's 98 would be a fun rod to land a 15" trout with, in fact I've done that myself, but I rather think the one I just made based on Howell's figures would be even more fun if I could put it that way and you'd need a lot of clear water too. Now, I've never seen a true Payne 97 or 98, so I can't say for certain but in Schwibert's Trout, book II on page 104 Schibert say's he is reading straight from the last Payne catalog and on page 105 lists the rods. For the rods in question here there is a 197 & 198 three-piece 7.5' rod. In two piece there are: 97 & 98 7' rods. 100 & 101 7.5' rods. In David Ray's list the 97 is called a 7.5' two piece rod, but it can't be a 97 because that's a 7' rod according to Schibert armed as he was with Payne's catalog in front of him when he wrote his book, nor can it be a 197 unless it's a three piece rod which it's not listed as, it must be either a 100 or 101?
|
