Could someone explain to me what the capital 'E' designation means in Garrison Rods? (Wayne Daley)

The "e" designation was added by garrison after he changed the tapers in response to the new nylon fly lines that had just been introduced. Up to that time, his tapers were all designed to cast silk lines. After nylon showed up, Gary decided the old tapers needed to be reworked slightly to compensate for the new lines (if you look at the numbers he made the rods a little stronger, and if I remember correctly just a bit faster?).

For modern plastic (PVC and urethane) lines, I think the "e" tapers are better than the non (maybe the folks who pan the 209 taper tried the non "e" tapers?). Personally, I really like the 209e, the 212e, and the 201e. (Chris Obuchowski)

Aren't the E designations a little bit longer also?

On the topic of Garrison, one of his rods is on my "to make" list this winter. I seem to remember that I read somewhere that there is a typo in the taper for the 209. Am I right? One of the stations is listed at .234 and should be .224 or something like that. Does someone know what I'm talking about or I just making things up? (Aaron Gaffney)

The 209 has a big dip in the stress curve at the 0.234 mark. That implies a bad value. An intentional hinge would be a bump in the stress curve and I don’t remember seeing any hinges in Garrisons tapers. (Al Baldauski)

As others have said, the E version is the stronger, but not by much, if you compare the station values you will see that the biggest difference is just 0.003, and the smallest is 0.001. These are not large differences, but when they continue for the whole taper do make the 212E somewhat stronger. Although I would think that someone casting them might have difficulty identifying which is which and their performance would be affected more by the caster than the taper, regardless they are both very nice rods, although they are a little soft in the butt and therefore cast a little slow. However they are great for new casters, very forgiving.

These are just my thoughts. (Bob Norwood)

Garrison's book has several inconsistencies, particularly in this E business.

I quote from page 273: "One of the major differences between the medium tip and the regular or E tip (?) is that Garry always chose 1 size larger tip guide for the E rod --"

But on page 280, where he publishes his 212 tapers, the E taper has the same top guide as the non-E version. Also on that page, the 209 and 209E top guides are the same.  (Bill Fink)

Yes you are right, there are mistakes, but remember that the book was finished really without any final input from Mr. Garrison. In fact, it's amazing it was finished at all, which is a real tribute to Mr. Carmichael and friends. So maybe we should be kind, no that's THANKFUL that it was finished, for where would we be without Mr. Garrison and all that he has given us.  (Bob Norwood)

Thank you very much, I'm curious did the versions your referring to have a swelled butt? Someone else mentioned that the HEXROD version stopped at .295" at station 80", however the RodDNA version, seems to have a slightly swelled butt with stations 85" at .330 and the 90" and 95" stations were both .340" (Wayne Daley)

Usually in a case like that, when a writer goes out of the way to specifically state a change is warranted that usually is the correct data. The information that did not change on a chart usually is simply a typo or oversight that slipped through proof reading. (Adam Vigil)

Do you know if the change was made in the last updated printing. I still have the old copy, sold the mew printing of the book to a list member. Maybe I should of kept it. He might check it out and post what he comes up with. (Tony Spezio)

Would you please tell us what your message means in plain English?  (Bill Fink)

Plain English,

Usually if they tell you in a sentence there is a change...go with that. (Adam Vigil)

I think I understand your point now. The written word in the para on Page 273 about the E-versions picking up one top-guide size is correct and the taper tables for his 209E and 212E on Page 280 are therefore incorrect. This will come as a shock to a great many makers. (Bill Fink)

I thought it was commonly known top guide needed to be bigger for the synthetic lines.

I always thought so. Don't know where I learned it, I thought maybe here.  (Adam Vigil)

Does anyone have a list of which Garrison model is best suited to which line rating? (Paul Blakley)

206 is a 4wt, 209/209e 5wt, 212/212e 6wt.

The E designation is for the tapers that garrison "beefed up" a bit to better handle synthetic lines (IE. nylon, and the e tapers do well with modern PVC/urethane lines; the non-e tapers are slightly slower, if you like that, and were designed for silk lines). (Chris Obuchowski)

Here is the list that I use

GE-693/42-193
GE-7042-201
GE-7042-201E
GE-7052-202E
GE-7352-204E
GE-7652-206
GE-7652-209
GE-7952-209E
GE-8062-212
GE-8062-212E
GE-8663-215
GE-8972-221 (Bob Norwood)

I was hoping that someone on the list would open a discussion on Bob's message but it hasn't happened so I must display my ignorance. Could you please decipher the code you used on your list of line sizes? I don't dig it. (Bill Fink)

I'd say that he has the maker initials, rod length listed, then the line weight the the number of pieces and the maker's model, so

GE-693/42-193

would be "Garrison, Everett (SP?) - 6'9" 3/4 wt 2 pcs - model 193"

Is this correct Bob? (Todd Talsma)

You got it. (Bob Norwood)

BTW it's how I file all my tapers in my data base, by maker etc.

Does anyone know what the Garrison 193 is? (Gary Nicholson)

I like my version with a DT4. (Doug Losey)

6' 9" Trout 11/64 ferrule. Swell butt starting @ 65". (Don Schneider)

Just to add confusion. I fish a 5 weight on the 212E. (Gary Nicholson)