I was wondering which is the most preferred here on the list in measuring a classic taper:

1. from tip to butt in consistent 5" stations a la Garrison
2. or from the butt end of each section separately as in the Howell book?

Opinions or experiences would be helpful, and then subtraction the .004 - .006 for varnish. (Rob Hoffhines)

Every inch at three cross sections. Some rods, are so "out of round" that the numbers you get will be misleading. But unless you get lucky and notice that the taper is written on the lip of the bag, such as on many EC Powells, what alternative do you have? (Chris Lucker)

I prefer tip to butt on the assembled rod. This seems to be more in sync with the software and is simpler for me to plot on graph paper. (Steve Weiss)

Either way works but I prefer the measurements be taken from the tip of each section separately. That way you get the dimension at the ferrule. Subtract .003-.004" for varnish. (Marty DeSapio)

I like the best of both worlds.

Measuring an assembled rod from the tip = 0 reduces the need for guessing regarding ferrule dimensions and unequal sections, so it dominates in my opinion. The more frequent the measurements the better, but 5" is fine for me.

Here is the kicker: take the time to measure key areas that do not fall on the 5" points. Key points would be just above and below the ferrule and several measurements just ahead of the cork ( to capture any swell). In each case, proved distance from the tip and the average for the flats.

With that information , there will be little guesswork needed by those trying to interpret your measurements. (Jerry Madigan)

I'd say that since your planning form is on 5" centers, measuring it at one inch intervals is useless as you can only set it every 5" and the taper is a straight line between each of the 5" points. My feelings is measure from the tip as that is the only non variable starting point being that grips and reel seats can very in length but the tip is always at the very end. (Patrick Coffey)

Several reasons why recording a cross section dimension three times at every inch along the rod include:

• You can average out the lumps and bumps.
• The rod being measured may well have been made with, for example, three sections of straight taper. One inch stations make better graphs.
• Even if you use planing forms with 5 inch centers, you can still shim or clamp the bars to set a dimension between the screws.
• You may not always be hand planing, so it would be nice to have more detailed numbers on file. (Chris Lucker)

All the mills, hand or power, are on 5 inch centers and it's more trouble than its worth to try to set every inch. (Patrick Coffey)

My mill is not on 5 inch centers, my Grandfather's mill was not on 5 inch centers. EC Powell's saw certainly was not on 5 inch centers and his tapers were related on 6 inch centers for the purpose of checking his work only. Heck a B9 taper would have been on a 5 FOOT center!

Your above statement does not take into account the CNC mills in the world -- I know of three, and many of you saw one in development at Corbett Lake . With CNC it is no more trouble to set the taper at every 0.001". That is what CNC is for.

I understand that 1 inch settings is not necessary. I build EC Powell-style rods, mostly, so I build rods with a progressive or regressive curve or straight tapers (or a combination of a straight tapers.) (Chris Lucker)

Measured from tip to butt in 5" increments as an assembled rod. Then plot the curve. It seems to be an understood standard method used by most rod builders. (Ray Gould)

I had a question with regard to taking a taper from an impregnated rod. I know that impregnation should not add to the overall dimension of the rod, but I could not help but notice that the impregnation process makes the rod surface look semi gloss. Should I subtract a thousandths or two or just go with the dims I get from measuring. (Robert Cristant)

To me, the taper is the taper regardless of finish or impregnation. I wipe the snot out of the rods at short hourly intervals when they are pulled out of the impregnation tube, and I remove anything that is seeping out of the blank. I would say that the impregnated finish is negligible dimension wise. Most of the surface that is left is buffed off and makes the actual blank surface somewhat glossy. (Bob Maulucci)

What's a good rule of thumb for subtracting the thickness of the varnish when mic'ing a finished rod? (Bob Murphy)

Subtract .004" for a normal coat - .006" if it looks really thick - .002" if really thin. This is for two flats. (Tom Bowden)