Hello,
Was wondering if anybody had ccs number for IMMS72ML-TC, also any opinions on ETES72ML compared to the Immortal. TIA
T.J.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2023 11:04AM by Tim I. Johnson.

I believe both those blanks are listed on the CCS spreadsheet at this link. [docs.google.com]#

Best to view spreadsheet on a computer. I’m mobile right now so didn’t copy/paste the data in this reply.

Built two of the ETES72ML (one spinning and one casting). Use the casting rod for light cranks and other light baits (BFS type stuff). Nice light blank. No experience with the Immortal blank.

[docs.google.com]

A friend has the Imms72ML built as a BFS casting rod and likes it. I use mine as a spin for neds. It's a pretty light powered ML, in my opinion. The ETES72ML has a little more power and is slightly faster. Go to the link above to get the numbers-it is a wonderful asset for builders, and getting familiar with it will pay off in the future.

Thanks Kevin and Michael,
found both, couldn't find the Immortal before. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, it seems the Immortal IMMS72ML is more powerful ( IP 480, AA 81) and faster than the Eterninty ETES72ML (IP 343, AA 76). Also saw the ETES72M listed twice with IP 426, AA 82 and IP 466, AA 75 which is closer to the numbers for the Immortal. Am I reading this right? I have the Immortal, built as a spin and really like it,(also use it for ned rigs) did ccs on it but I don't trust my numbers and wanted to see what others came up with. Thanks again guys

Tim - When I'm looking over numbers I always like to look at the source. If you scroll over to the right in the spreadsheet there is a column that lists the source. Batson/Rainshadow has been gracious enough to provide us measurements on many of their blanks so if I see its coming from manufacturer I have a higher confidence in the numbers. Also keep in mind that there will be some variation in measurements as each person has variation in CCS measurement processes and some (slight) variation in blank production. Kudos to Batson for providing a lot of the numbers for their products.

Also, for this particular blank its a bit confusing because there is a "Freshwater" model and a "Walleye" model with the only difference in Model name the addition of "W".

Anyhow, this is what we have from the manufacturer for each of these models:

Series Model Length. IP. AA ERN. Weight. Source
Eternity RX10 ETES72ML-SS 86 343 76 13.51 1.77 Manufacturer
Immortal IMMS72ML 86 480 81 17.31 1.9 Manufacturer

Also, checkout this YouTube video I made awhile back that shows how to get around in the spreadsheet and use tools to filter down to just the criteria you are interested in... [youtu.be]

Sorry about my comment, got confused, I was commenting on my IMMW72ml which is a lighter power, slower action blank than the IMMS.

Quite a difference between the two which are both called "medium light" power. Which is why I've been advocating a numerical CCS-to-subjective description convention so that anything called "medium light" would be within a specified, industry wide, range of ERN's . I think most of us would consider the IMMW a light power and most would consider the IMMS a medium power. It is more powerful than the St. Croix SCV70MF.

I think the vast majority of rod builders who are also avid anglers understand that there is a demonstrative difference between descriptions of powers depending on the type/style of blank, who and where it was built.

I agree Spence, they understand there is a difference, but they don't know what it is until they buy. How many times have we been surprised by what we bought, and how many times have we heard complaints from others about being surprised? Maybe someday. . .

The blanks being discussed in this post demonstrate the issue perfectly, IMMW72ML 268 74 11.8 and IMMS72ML 480 81 17.3. (One listing for the IMMW has it less than 10 ERN)

We can help by populating Keven Fiant's data base. It is the best over-all source of CCS data that I have ever seen.


Here is what I proposed: Ultra-Light: less than 200 grams CCS
Light: 201-300 grams
Medium-Light: 301-425 grams
Medium: 426-625 grams
Medium Heavy: 626-925
Heavy: greater than 926

Slow action: less than 50 degrees
Moderate-slow 51-55 degrees
Moderate: 56-60
Moderate-fast: 61-67
Fast: 68-76
Extra fast above 77 By this the IMMS72 would be a Medium X-fast and the IMMW72 would be a Light Fast. And buyers would better know what they were going to get.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2023 04:07PM by Michael Danek.

I should mention that part of the problem is with us builders. I think the manufacturers are somewhat worried that by offering CCS data we builders will complain when we don't get the same numbers, and surely the manufacturers' data, as Kevin has suggested, is likely to be more reliable than that of many builders. This would be somewhat alleviated by my suggestion of using subjective descriptions that include a range of CCS values and not the values themselves. That could be an intermediate step instead of publishing exact CCS numbers. It would certainly be better than where we are now with most manufacturers.


Having said this, it should also be mentioned that Point Blank, Pac Bay, Rainshadow, and NFC have all offered CCS numbers to differing degrees and have handled it. So it can be done.