Conflicting blank data is getting quite old. The companies that use to sell blanks had hundreds of options without any apparent conflicting or incongruent data. The newer companies can have three or more different specs in their documentation for the same blank. Major vendors might have additional ones. I see for one manufacturer where lights, in the same series for the same species, might be rated heavier than mediums of the same action. I’ve yet to order from this company because it doesn’t seem likely that their helter-skelter code can be accurately cracked.

I just finished a build on a different sponsor’s blank. Too late I noticed that the decal, that is now under rod finish, has the right blank code but a 25% lower lure weight rating than either the company chart or their description. That is an important 25% for my intended use. Also, the blank code and description rates the blank as moderate and the company specs rate it as fast. It is either rated for casting a maximum of 1.5 ounces or two. This isn’t even close to a competent way to do business. If I had to explain to a customer to disregard the label on the rod because it is in error, I would be less than happy. I realize that ratings are subjective, but they shouldn’t tell several completely different stories for the same blank. Ironically, this is the first time I’ve ever applied the factory label.

Agree 100%. The worst part is now that the great people here have opened my eyes to the CCS it is even worse. Now not only does the info contradict itself but it also contradicts the arbitrary coding as well.

I was hoping the CCS database linked on the sidebar would be more expansive. I may have to sign up to login to see more than the fly rods but I can't figure out how to sign up.

Kendall,
To solve the label issues, do not put the manufacturers label on the rod. That way, you can put on any information that you wish.

But, you are right - it would be nice if everything was correct all of the time from the manufacturer.

Vendors could easily determine the number of inches a weight of, say, one ounce deflects a blank's tip from the horizontal - and share this information with the consumer/rod builder. Instead we get jive like "smooth" or "powerful" or "fast" or "soulful" [really!]. Neither price nor advertising nor labeling provide a credible indication of a rod blank's physical properties. Revealing the weight-deflection of a blank would at least be a start - and a whole lot more useful information than we get now.

Phil, what you suggest is a simplified CCS measurement. If they are to put weight-deflection data out it might as well be CCS, as Point Blank does. Then they could lay off their wine label writers so the CCS numbers might be free.

Using a standard weight amount and then measuring deflection doesn't work. Cortland found that out years ago with their system. The broad spectrum of actions and more specifically rod power or stiffness, requires too many different weight standards - the same half pound weight that won't deflect many more powerful blanks in the least may destroy an ultra-light blank. Dr. Hanneman hit the nail on the head with deflecting to a specified percent equal to rod length and then weighing what it took to get it there.

...........

I am a newbie to building, but have already run into this problem. I have only bought about 10 blanks. I bought a 7'3" rated as fast-medium heavy. I bought a blank from another company 7' fast MH also. The first blank turned out to be what I would call Medium. It was going to be a salt-water float rod and it turned out to be an awesome popping cork rod. The other blank was much stiffer and made a great flipping stick. I guess I will have to buy enough blanks to learn how the various companies rate them.

Other than the CCS, there is no uniform industry standard for such ratings. One company's medium may be another company's heavy, etc.

..........

Right you are - CCS is the way to go. The comparison of rod blank advertisers to "wine label makers" tickled me, but it must be that hokum successfully sells blanks to gullible rod buyers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2021 04:01PM by Phil Ewanicki.

After building for about thirty years I stuck on my first label (or decal of any kind), and my last. My personal preference has been that custom rods look more custom without the factory labels. They also have to require as much epoxy weight as five or more single footed guides since they are long and on the fat end of the rod. I couldn’t get blank matching thread with supply disruptions so I also did my first metallic edge bands. Both the decal and edge bands went on neatly with zero issues.

I don’t really care if there ever becomes an industry standard for rating rods. The human mind (all of ours) has an incredible ability to calibrate itself to consistent trends in any data set. If a designer at company “A” believes that action or weight ratings should be a certain way that varies from how company “B” does it, I’m okay with that. It’s counter helpful, though, when the data in their own tables chris-cross, they have multiple ratings for the same blank, they list their butt diameters as their blank weights, and they literally use mm, decimal inches, and 64ths in the same column. It’s not helpful when the line ratings for a couple of blanks are inappropriate for the lure weight ratings. It’s puzzling when one blank suddenly has a hugely wide increment for lure weights. One company actually has all of these things in one table. That’s not even a nominal level of data, it’s just meaningless noise. CCS appears to be ratio level of measure, which is the highest. I’d be fine with interval, and maybe even ordinal levels of data.

The strategy that Danny Smith shared above works well when companies provide accurate data for a coherent product line. Forums like this one allow a person to understand that a company has a certain philosophy without money even being spent. Whether it’s true or a figment of errors, some tables now make it seem like a different person, with completely different ideas, designed each blank in the series. There is no way calibrate to that. For decades I built about 75 percent on one manufacturer’s blanks. I found that I best liked to cast one lure weight down from their maximum rating for every blank I ever bought from them. There were no errors and no surprises. There is a fly rod company whose philosophy on tapers jives with my preferences. I’ve built and bought their made ones in widely varying weights. Each one has been exactly what I expected. There is another company that has a philosophy I don’t buy into. Fishing partners have handed me many of their rods. I’ve not really enjoyed a single one, but at least they are consistent. Those who share in that school of thought know what they are getting each and every time. None of our preferences are more right or wrong than anyone else’s. It’s just nice when we can know that what we are ordering matches our intentions. Vendors don’t allow returns on some brands, including the one I just built.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2021 09:29AM by Tom Kirkman.

I am fully aware of the concept of a "company whose philosophy . . . jives with my preferences." I have sat in vehicles and said "nope" just from looking at the dashboard. I am a tuba player, and I have done the same thing: some brands just aren't what I am looking for.

I will consider myself something beyond a beginner when I can really recognize what "my preferences" really means in evaluating rod blanks.

To put this into perspective - do you find that having blank length described in feet and inches is better than subjective descriptions such as long, kinda long, pretty short, etc.?

If they can do it with length, they can do it with everything else... if they wanted to.

...........

I agree that quantitative approaches, like CCS, would be great. I just don’t see how companies that leave glaring errors in their information, often for years, will make that system work. I talked to one proprietor to get clarity on conflicting data several months ago. That data is still up on their site, uncorrected, after he acknowledged the “oops”. A commitment to accuracy and consistency has to be present for a more accurate system to work any better than having no system.