As I wrote earlier, there are typo’s and omissions in this article. It’s as if we’re reading an advanced draft, but not the final draft.
I was waiting to see if anyone else picked up on this, but a 9’ 5wt. Scott A4 does not cost $745.00, they’re $ 395.00. The error appears in both
the text of the shootout and on the final results chart.
This leads me to believe they actually tested a Scott S4, which is an entirely different animal.
Now I’m no writer, nor an editor, but if an employee handed me a work product that had glaring errors in it, that reoccurred throughout the work product…….
This is not the only mistake in the article, it’s just one that jumps off the page and should’ve been caught prior to publication.
This shootout looks unpolished, rushed…
I need to add an amendment to my comments.
It’s now unclear to me, if they ( Anderson ) even know what rod they tested and wrote up. Because if you look at this deflection board, they have entries for both the S4 and the A4 series. Yet there is no mention of the S4 in their shootout.
Granted, not everyone is hip to the Scott product line. But if they tested three Scott models as their deflection board clearly exhibits ( A4, S4 & G2 ), then errantly mixed up the models in their final results….it does call other results into question. There is indeed a large human influence in all of this…….
To me, this mistake is tantamount to confusing a Sage Flight with a TCX, or aT.F.O. BVK with a Pro.