I doubt I am the only who got an email. To me the guy seems quite reasonable. He work speaks for itself. The recent thread on rod balancing makes the point that the "technically correct rod" might not be the one that catches the most fish. In short I think all sides could profit and I am sad to see a missed chance to bring another builder aboard.

One just came in and at his request I'll cut and paste the following. I hope this is not against any rules.


Now as far as the offset butt guides go, here is what I was going to post. " It makes no difference whether or not an individual can quantify the amount add to each cast because of offsetting the guides to the line hand. If it is only an inch added to every cast , then a fisherman that fishes 30 days a year and cast a 100 times in each day would have cast 3000 inches or 250 feet farther using my rod in that year. For sure, offsetting the butt guides slightly does not hamper the rod. I am a "CUSTOM ROD BUILDER" and I want to give my clients every possible advantage when purchasing my rods, even if it is only an inch per cast".

Rob has removed the link to this gentleman's website so this can return to a civil discourse about the subject of guide number and sensitivity, not anything personal.

..............

Putting 15 guides on a 9 foot flyrod is as ridiculous as placing 25 on it. More guides=more thread=more epoxy=MORE WEIGHT. More weight is bad....very bad!

I see no benefit of casting a sum total of 250' more each year or the relevance of (1) more inch. I'm trying to understand the point...If off-set guides are such a selling point, have the individual turn the rod slighlty towards the line hand when casting.

Both ideas not very logical in my eyes...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2010 06:47PM by Paul Rotkis.

He does have a point that 16 single foot guides only uses the same amount of thread and epoxy as 8 snake guides. So why would anyone use snake guides except for looks?