Not so, I say the Leonard 8033 is a 3 wt with a soft tip and my taper plot shows just that. It is a nice medium rod that will cast short lines very well, maybe that's why it is called Tournament. It will cast medium to long lines too.

Also I would like to see the taper that Jeff used, don't think it was a true 6611, the butt swell on the 6611 starts just before the handle at 75" and it's not very large until the 70" point, but the flex area goes from 45" to 70" and is deep. Maybe Jeff's rod had a swell that countered the flex much further down the taper, but I would have to SEE the taper to tell.

You know Harry when you talk about tapers and don't actually give the numbers you can say what ever you want, however the two tapers that Will Price gave for the 8014 are the ones I was talking about which are much different than the one in Hexrod which has a flex area in the lower tip and upper butt making it a weaker rod than these two. You have to look at the tapers and be very specific and explain what you are talking about. I would agree that the 8014 in Hexrod is a 6 wt, but this is not the one I was talking about.  (Bob Norwood)

The reason this 8014 looks heavier than a 6wt is that you neglected to subtract the varnish.

Taking a rod measured you're-not-sure-how and trying to analyze it is always risky.  How thick is the varnish?  If the rod sections are measured unassembled, does the butt section begin at the open end of the female ferrule or at the end of the cane?  Was the hardware removed or is the 10 inch station really the 10.75 inch station because of a guide?

All these questions come up with these 2 8014 rods.  The 48 inch station should be deep inside the male slide yet we have a measurement.  Where did it come from?  The measurement taken 2.5 inches below the female ferrule & wrap, where exactly is that on the assembled rod?  50.5?  I checked on an assembled 8’ 2 piece (Super Swiss ferrules) and it comes out at 50 inches.  That would make the subsequent measured stations 52.5, 57.5, ...

I agree with your conclusion that Banjo's 8014 looks like the taper was tweaked just so a stepdown would fit, by altering the taper of the butt section just above the ferrule to make it fatter.  But not so with the Jeff Fultz 8014.  To me this looks like two separate sections designed all the way to meet at a stepdown ferrule. YMMV.

Anyway its a beautiful June day here in Wisconsin and I'm going to call in sick & go catch some bluegills for dinner.  My back hurts already from loading the canoe on the car.  (Frank Stetzer, Hexrod, Taper Archive, Rodmakers Archive)

You can answer this better than I can. Was it over varnish or not. These are very Interesting comments from Frank. (Bob Norwood)

Yes it was over varnish. I didn't state that because I thought that it would be obvious since I stated that these were measurements taken from original Dickersons that were in use, but in retrospect I guess I should have said it anyway for the sake of clarity. Like Frank, it has always bothered me that figures are thrown out for varnish thickness. I've always wondered how these figures were arrived at. Personally I always thought that it was just AWAG at best. The most common figure that is always thrown into the mix is .006. I've also read many times in the archives on Todds' tip  site  that this .006 measurement equates to 1 line size. I doubt a proper varnish job is that heavy. I feel quite certain that the Bureau of Standards in Germantown, MD. probably has a device to measure the thickness of a coat of varnish with astounding accuracy, but it's not available to us. They do in fact have a device that measures how much a 1/2" steel bar bends from the weight of a common house fly landing on it as unbelievable as that sounds.  (Will Price)

I have seen a few makers suggest that .008 or more should be the starting point where step downs are used BUT the majority seem to agree that a difference of .012 requires step downs. Considering the difference in Banjos rod is .014 why doesn't this reflect that a step down is necessary in order to retain the same characteristics that Dickerson put in his design? What am I missing?  (Will Price)

I was wondering if there was a consensus about how much difference indicates a stepdown ferrule. I put the .012 value in the online Hexrod and both these 8014 versions come out as needing a stepdown ferrule.  (Frank Stetzer, Hexrod, Taper Archive, Rodmakers Archive)

I wholeheartedly agree that the best way is to put a reel and line on a rod and cast it. After all, we all for the most part have different styles of casting and that is really the only way to know for sure how the rod will feel to each of us. I also agree that every Dickerson taper that I've cast was a medium fast to fast action in a 2 piece. The 3 piece versions that I have cast I would describe as strictly medium action. I've had the pleasure of casting only 2 original Dickerson’s a 2 piece 7012 and a 3 piece 761510, all of the rest were clones. I don't know of anyone who has cast an original 6611. Dickerson only shows 9 being made in his ledger and only one is still known to exist, and it's in a museum. The taper that is circulating for the 6611 is, I believe, from Howell’s book. Someone, I believe it might be Jim Schaff but don't hold me to that, has the original Dickerson tapers. Every rod that I've built so far is from a taper that I have cast 1st with the exception of Tom Smithwick’s 5'6" one piece and AJ Thramer’s 4'4" banty. I built those without having cast them 1st as I like fast actioned rods and I enjoy fishing the shortest rod I can get away with for the conditions I'm fishing under. I've been picking Bob's brain and studying his graphs because I've reached a point in my rodmaking where I would like to be able to look at these and feel pretty safe in knowing that I will like the finished rod from that information alone as opposed to waiting until I've actually cast that taper or relying on the description of how that taper feels to someone else. Because what someone else feels in a rod may be entirely different to what I feel.  (Will Price)

I guess I can eat my own words, for that is exactly what I am doing, I should have listened more to what you were saying and less of what I said. After a little thought, I decided to look for tapers similar to the Dickerson 6611 and was very surprised by what I found. Not only did I find similar tapers, but they were from the well known makers; The Leonard 61052 (6'10"), the Payne Canoe 8'6" 5 wt, the Cross 8053 "Dry Fly", The Hardy 9'6" 3 piece for 7 wt and quite a few more. So with all of these makers and you, obviously it is I who should cast the rod first with different lines before I make any judgments on the rods performance. I will try to be more attentive to what others say in the future and realize I have much to learn.

I hope I see you at SRG this year where I can say this in person.  (Bob Norwood)

Graphs and computer models are all very well, but if they were perfect the long term weather forecast would be 100% accurate instead of the 65% it seems to achieve -- at least where I live.  Sometimes, empirical data is more important, as when the weather report is for fair and warm and it's pouring rain outside my window.  (Neil Savage)

That's comparing apples to oranges. The math used to calculate weather is supremely complicated and makes the math involved for rod tapers rather simple. Bamboo doesn't change like the weather at the cellular and molecular level. (Scott Bearden)

True enough, Scott.  However, it was just an example, not meant to be an exact corollary.  (Neil Savage)