Looking at the CCS Intrinsic Powers on these, the Immortal seems as powerful as the Eternity even though it’s a power lighter. That seems consistent with my own experience of a XSB802.75 that seems more stout than my new ETES72M.

Question is I have an IMMC72MH that I love. If I wanted a comparable rod in the Eternity line, should I go to the ETEC74H?

I can almost guarantee the ETEC74H will be the closest match to the IMMC72MH. I'll try to get out to the warehouse and get a CCS comparison when possible, and post back to this thread.

-Geoff at Batson

Thx Geoff. Don’t worry about measuring if you’re busy. That answers my question.

The following data out of the CCS data log is interesting. I cut a number of blanks from the google table and rearranged from lowest power to highest. Looks to me like the Immortal is consistently more powerful for the same rating:

ETES76ML-SS 90 398 81
ETEP76M-SS 90 443 69
ETES72M 86 465 77
ETES72M-SS 86 466 75
IMMS72ML 86 480 81
ETEP76MH-SS 90 493 67
IMMC73ML 87 542 70
IMMC73ML 87 553 74
ETEC76M-SS 90 589 76
ETEC72M-SS 86 597 75
IMMS72M 86 631 77
ETEC72MH-SS 86 681 72
ETEC76MH-SS 90 753 70
ETEC 76 MH 90 808 71
IMMC72MF 86 847 71
ETEC74H-SS 88 912 70
IMMC76MH-TC 90 1000 70
IMMC72MH 86 1015 68
IMMC72MH 86 1033 75
IMMC76H-TC 90 1150 70
IMMC76XH-TC 90 1200 70

The Immortal RX8 and Revelation RX7 both feature observed power that's consistently higher than rated. The CCS data does give a very objective comparison of rod blanks at its specified deflection parameters, and has definitely become a useful tool for builders.
I'm curious about the first number in the the 3-number series of data above. It doesn't appear to be ERN.

-Geoff at Batson

it's length in inches.

Geoff - 1st number is length in inches. 2nd is IP in grams and 3rd is AA.

Is this from two separate test with different blanks of the same model being conducted? Or was the lighter reading possibly from it being shortened/modifed? The IP is minimal but more so curious in the difference of the AA.
IMMC72MH 86 1015 68
IMMC72MH 86 1033 75

I don’t wish to hijack, but I'm right here in this same blank zip code. I’m looking at building a ETEC76MH-SS with a two inch butt cut this winter. With an IP of 753 and an AA of 70, I figure if it slows down just a titch it will be great for spinnerbaits and still be a good all around choice for plastics and jigs in this power range. It’s funny how easy it is fishing western impoundments and rivers to make a bunch of specialty rods for crankbaits, jerkbaits, drop shot, smallmouth standup jigs, etc, and keep putting off the “one rod” that is a staple in other regions. If Geoff comes back on, does this seem like a reasonable build? I did a similar build for someone else without much first hand use. I’m usually more in the 5/8th ounce range for spinnerbaits and jigs than ounce-plus.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2024 10:49PM by Kendall Cikanek.

There are differences in CCS measurements of the same blank as a matter of the blank's production variables. (This is a separate issue from the fact that no two people do CCS testing the exact same way.) Hand-made products are less likely to be robot-like copies piece to piece. (Thankfully, a person can have a job rather than a machine, IMO. As I fish that rod, I can imagine the people who made it with their own hands!)

Forgive me for not remembering where I saw it, but I think Aleks from NFC shared some info about how rods can vary, copy to copy. Makes sense, really. I think of a blank's CCS numbers as being in a range, not a single number or two.

My own experiences with blank measurements are consistent with dealing with variables and variations. I've come to appreciate differences for what they have to offer. Ain't That America?

I've read too much good press about the blanks mentioned above. Might be time to jump in on one or two!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2024 12:52AM by Les Cline.

I doubt that much less than something between 5-10% variance is detectable when fishing with anything heavier than the lights and ultralights. Even at that rate, you probably need to really be focused on power to notice.

Thanks for the responses. I think im going to buy one of the Immc72mh to hopefully use for a 1/2oz swim jig rod.

If I could it over again, I would have got the Immortal MH/Fast for my frog rod build. I had no idea the IP was that high on it. I should have looked at the CCS database first. I just completed my Immortal 7’3” Heavy/X-Fast frog rod build. It turned out very good. Total weight is 5.4 ounces. Not too bad considering the IP of this rod. Was hoping it would be under 5 ounces. All good though.

What real seat and guide train did you use on that immc73H build? I built a point blank 73HXF using an SK2 seat, RV6 butt guide, followed by 3 kb and 6 kt 4.5 Ti/sic + arrowana tip that weighed 3.76oz after completion.

Les Cline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are differences in CCS measurements of the
> same blank as a matter of the blank's production
> variables.
>
> Forgive me for not remembering where I saw it, but
> I think Aleks from NFC shared some info about how
> rods can vary, copy to copy. Makes sense, really.
> I think of a blank's CCS numbers as being in a
> range, not a single number or two.
>

I just received a replacement blank for a premium, USA made one that came with a cork screw tip. The customer service and new one are both awesome, so no foul or negative feelings. Anyway, even beyond the tips (which would require slightly different tube sizes), a caliper finds subtle variations between the two at identical points all the way to the butt. Wrapping a flag around a mandrel is a process with some variation. I’m guessing wonky tips happen when the straight edge of the flag rotates a little during the taping. The much straighter of these two blanks has a smaller tip that matches the specification table. I’m not planning on doing CCS comparisons before one becomes a reamer for the other, but it would be slightly interesting.

Blake Stroud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What real seat and guide train did you use on that
> immc73H build? I built a point blank 73HXF using
> an SK2 seat, RV6 butt guide, followed by 3 kb and
> 6 kt 4.5 Ti/sic + arrowana tip that weighed 3.76oz
> after completion.


Your blank weight 2.3 ounces (CCS data base). The IP of mine is probably ~1200 or so. Split grip on mine. I used the Alps MVT reel seat, Fuji RV6, three KB5’s, and 7 KB5’s. Tip top 6.5 tube, 5.5 ring. To get a sic, I had to go with a 5.5 guide size: A little bigger than my guide train, but will be fine. Tube size of 6.5mm is what limited my choices. It’s a beefy rod. I went with all Alconite guides after the RV6. The Immortal MH/F blank weighs around 3.2 ounces(CCS database), so my heavy/Xfast blank is even heavier.. I did use the Alps Cage Hood (MVT16AFG-IC-B/S) on my reel seat. I won’t ever use it again. It’s nice but it alone weighed ~0.5 to 0.6 ounces. Forget the exact weight.

This is by far my heaviest build to date. It will be fine for a frog rod, just a little heavy.