Polished, like a mirror, right? Like the "mirror" one I ordered that had ridges, right? All I can say is that my "mirror" polished blank had troublesome ridges. Never had it happen on a Point Blank. Or a Rainshadow. Or a St. Croix. Or a Rodgeeks. Or anything else.

A question was asked and I answered it. My answer represents accurately my experience. What will the experience of the next order be?

???

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A question was asked and I answered it. My answer
> represents accurately my experience. What will
> the experience of the next order be?
>
> ???

As did I from all my experiences. Which have all been 100% pleasant. My comments were never to rebut yours. The unhappy minority is always the loudest. Which is why you will find more negative than positive for anything online.

100% guarantee a ridged blank was not the polished version as the mirrors do not have ridges. Did you reach out and give them a chance to correct it?

No, I didn't know what to expect. I really thought that the non-mirror model would have ridges much more significant than the blank I received, so thought the one I got may have been the "mirror." The ridges are very tiny, but still troublesome compared to smooth.

Frankly, I would not be interested in building another from the same (but smooth) blank.

The "medium" power drop shot blank was very significantly under the power of the "medium light" Point Blank with ERN of about 19. Another blank called a "moderate" action crankbait blank has an AA of 81 which in my opinion is far from moderate.

I don't mean to be "trashing" NFC. The blanks I have fish fine, but just are not what I expected for the techniques I purchased them for. And when I pay significant money for a premium blank I don't want surprises.

Aaron, do you check the CCS numbers on the blanks you build?

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Aaron, do you check the CCS numbers on the blanks
> you build?

I do indeed check them. My first foray into NFC started from CCS data provided by Norm here. I then compared the NFC catalogue (not website) specifications to compare to what was listed for the ones I had data for. Any blanks ordered based on the estimation were tested and logged. Norm has shared the CCS data for the NFC blanks he has tested. My data corelates with his results. I am waiting on a MB-C602 but will likely not have the CCS published prior to others on this site due to being in the process of building a home/shop.

Michael,

Can you attach a picture of your “troublesome ridges” on your mirror black blank? Mirror Black X-ray blanks have zero ridges.

Also, where did you order it from? We have only ONE record of any order from you, order 18870 on 3/10/22, it did not include a Mirror Black blank.

What was your order number so that I can take a look at the order details?

Let me know ASAP on the above please - most of your posts are pretty negative towards NFC, and thus before taking any further actions or responding towards your accusations - I would like to get a photo of said blank and order number associated with it.

You can email the photo to me if you have an issue attaching it, and I will re-attach the thread here.

Best,
Aleks


Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Polished, like a mirror, right? Like the "mirror"
> one I ordered that had ridges, right? All I can
> say is that my "mirror" polished blank had
> troublesome ridges. Never had it happen on a
> Point Blank. Or a Rainshadow. Or a St. Croix.
> Or a Rodgeeks. Or anything else.
>
> A question was asked and I answered it. My answer
> represents accurately my experience. What will
> the experience of the next order be?
>
> ???

Will do, Aleks. Don't know why your system doesn't have the order, was an order for the drop shot blank and a glass hybrid crank blank. It shows when I sign in to my account. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying NFC blanks are inferior. I am only saying that I cannot be sure of the power and action of their product, and did receive a blank with tiny troublesome ridges when ordering a mirror finish. At least that is what I remember ordering. I'f I'm found to be mistaken about the order, a sincere apology will result. Thanks, Aleks, for your interest.

Michael,

If you are talking about order 18870, that has the hybrid blank, some carbon grips, and an X-Ray drop shot blank - that is the same one. However, you did not order a Mirror Black blank, but a regular X-Ray blank, which will have the fine ridges.

Also, the order referenced above, 18870 was received on March 10th, during a promotion. The order was sent out on March 23rd, or 9 working days later, well within our 2-3 week stated window.

Best,
Aleks



Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will do, Aleks. Don't know why your system
> doesn't have the order, was an order for the drop
> shot blank and a glass hybrid crank blank. It
> shows when I sign in to my account. Please don't
> get me wrong. I'm not saying NFC blanks are
> inferior. I am only saying that I cannot be sure
> of the power and action of their product, and did
> receive a blank with tiny troublesome ridges when
> ordering a mirror finish. At least that is what I
> remember ordering. I'f I'm found to be mistaken
> about the order, a sincere apology will result.
> Thanks, Aleks, for your interest.

The point blank medium light is the most powerful bass blank I am aware of to be called a “medium light”, so kind of not a great comparison. Definitely an outlier when compared to a lot of brands.

Thank you Aleks for your attention to the issue of what I ordered. It is clear to me that you sent what I ordered, not what I intended to order or incorrectly remember ordering. I received an Xray without the mirror polish. I apologize for stating that I got the wrong blank in the drop shot 6100 part of the order.

My contention that the power rating of the 6100, called "medium" power, is misleading considering its very low ERN compared to many other blanks, even those within the NFC lineup, that are called "medium" power.

I will take photos of the blanks as you requested, Aleks, including one that shows the AA of the CB704 which is called "moderate" action. I contend it is not well-described and is not what most would consider "moderate." Very nice blank, just not what it's described to be. In my opinion.

I stand by my preference for a smooth finish, my preference for brands that have good accuracy and consistency in their power and action descriptions, especially the brands that provide CCS numbers.

Regarding the Point Blank ML, its stated ERN is well below the ERN of the "medium" power 731MXF, so within the Point Blank lineup it appears to be consistent. I agree that it's on the high side relative to some other brands. Which shows again the importance of knowing ERN's before buying.

One final comment on these issues. It is very nice that Aleks is so accessible and responsive to issues involving his company. I may not always agree with him, but I sincerely respect him for being so accessible and involved. It is obvious to me that he is a very busy man whose company is in good hands.. Keep it up, Aleks.

Is Aleks from NFC? I’m very impressed if he is.

Aleks is the owner of NFC and the owner of this forum, recently bought it.

NFC isn't the only company that has misleading power labeling compared to the actual measured power of the blank. Nor are they the only company that has actions that are mislabeled when you consider the AA the blanks have.

Rainshadow was mentioned earlier as when you buy from them, you know what you're getting. Now don't get me wrong. I absolutely love the Rainshadow blanks I have built on, and now that Batson has supplied CCS numbers for the RX 10 Eternity blanks, I have a pretty good idea of what to expect from an RX 10 blank based on the CCS numbers. Even then here are some examples of named powers and actions, and the corresponding CCS numbers for those blanks.

ETES68MXF .... IP 245 grams. AA 71 - 72. No way is an IP of 245 grams a medium power blank. And an AA of 71 - 72 is fast action. Yet the blank is labeled as medium power, extra fast action

ETES610MXF IP 272 grams AA 74 - 75. An IP of 272 grams is a medium power blank? I think not. The AA of 74 - 75 could indeed be an extra fast action, but it's likely on the slower side of extra fast when compared to the numbers for other extra fast action blanks.

As a comparison in the RX 10 line up we have the ETES72ML IP of 343 grams, it's listed as a fast action yet it has an AA of 76 - 77. Or we have the ETES72M with an IP of 466 grams, it too is labeled as fast action, with an AA of 75.

For those familiar with CCS, we can look at the numbers and have a good idea of what the blank will act like. But what if you don't know CCS numbers? Not all rod builders do. There are those that have no interest in them at all. And what of the blanks that we don't have CCS numbers for? So it's not just NFC with the named power and action problem. It's Rainshadow as well. And the RX 10 is Rainshadows flag ship blank. And they are awesome blanks. Every bit as good as, and perhaps even better than the NFC X rays.

As far as Point Blank blanks go. As was mentioned above, they have the same problem. And even though they supply CCS numbers, if you don't know what those numbers mean or more importantly, don't have a way of comparing them to something you already fish with, then those numbers mean nothing to you. And from what I see in the numbers for the Point Blanks, they are very unique in their powers and actions. Honestly, the CCS numbers for the Point Blanks have kind of kept me away from building on them. When I think of blanks with the AAs that a lot of the Point Blanks have, I think of a soft and even very soft tip. Which is probably why they are reported to cast light weights very well.

Anyhow ..... it's likely that we've all been disappointed with blanks we have bought based on the listed named power and actions of blanks. I built a rod based on the named power and specs of the blank. I went pretty much all out as far as components go. Full length carbon fiber rear grip, Fuji KR concept guide train using Fuji T2 titanium guides with SIC rings. Some Alps trim rings for a little bling. I had over $300 in rod. I put a $170 spinning reel on it as well.

Well .... I stripped off the T2's off of it and put on some guides with Alconite rings. I went and bought a $50 spinning reel for it as well. Now I have an awesome perch and panfish rod instead of the awesome drop shot rod for bass that I thought I was going to have. And I still have more than $200 in the rod. And I hardly ever use it.

If one knows the CCS numbers it doesn't matter what the subjective description is. CCS numbers describe very well what the blank will be.

On the other hand, if one only knows the subjective describers and doesn't know the CCS numbers, one cannot have confidence in knowing what they are going to get.

It's that simple.

If builders are serious about knowing what they are buying, unless they are repeating a previous purchase, they will buy from brands that provide CCS numbers.

It's that simple.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2022 08:46PM by Michael Danek.

When I had looked at the power graph for both the X Ray DS blanks it became obvious to me the 721-1 was the more powerful blank by a considerable amount, and the 0 power 6100 was not a medium and the 721 wasn't an UL. Superimposed info possibly.

Michael. I only brought up and provided examples from the RX 10 line up because you brought up powers and actions in your one post to Aleks. When you mentioned your preference for brands that have good accuracy and consistency in their power and action, I know you built on an RX 10 ETES72M blank, so I just pointed out that even Rainshadow, has inconsistencies in their named power and named actions versus what the CCS numbers reflect.

CCS numbers are great as long as you learn how to relate them to rod performance. Other wise they're no better than the named powers various companies assign to their blanks. CCS may have been invented as a way to compare blanks to each other, but that's not how I use it. I use it to select a blank. Which is why I think using ERN to convey the power of a blank is useless. A blank with an ERN of 19 is more powerful than a blank with an ERN of 18. Ok .... how much more powerful?

Anyhow ..... I do like seeing the deflection charts that NFC provides on their web site. I find them quite helpful. I just wish they used the same amount of weight for blanks with the same power ratings. And I also wish they showed the blank in a horizontal position versus what looks to be a 45 degree angle. I realize a 45 degree angle is closer to the angle the rod will be in when fighting a fish, but it gives a poor representation of the natural bend of the blank under a load.

Re "A blank with an ERN of 19 is more powerful than a blank with an ERN of 18. Ok .... how much more powerful?"

Not much, obviously. When one gets within a few percent in comparsons then the accuracy/repeatabilty of the testing comes into play. Like most everything about rodbuilding, using CCS well and confidently gets better with experience. Both experience in doing the tests and experience with the reliability of the numbers of others.

Regarding the RX10 inconsistencies, I've only built one and its specs made sense and my data were fairly consistent with Rainshadow's. I think I got a little higher AA. The power description of "medium" for an ERN of about 16 is close to St. Croix SCV70. And yes, below Point Blank. Looking over the data sheet I do see what you are talking about with the RX10 inconsistencies.

Even with its problems the use of CCS numbers allows more confidence than using subjective ratings where blanks ranging from 52 to 82 degrees AA are all called "moderate" action. I did not make up this AA range for "moderates."

One should keep in mind that the confusion in using CCS comes not from CCS but from the misapplication of subjective descriptors. The blank/rod IS WHAT CCS SAYS IT IS. 600 grams of power is pretty simply 600 grams, whether I call it medium or medium heavy or ultra light. 75 degree AA is 75 degree AA whether I call it slow, fast , or Xfast. All rods of the same length that are about 600 grams and 75 degrees will fish about the same.

It is much easier and accurate to relate CCS numbers to rod performance (and vice versa) than it is to try to relate inconsistent subjective descriptors to rod performance.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2022 05:49PM by Michael Danek.