Sage RPL......so the newer rods are lighter huh?
http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/forum/attachments/upload_2018-2-23_7-38-48-png.163404/
http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/forum/attachments/upload_2018-2-23_7-38-48-png.163404/
Sage RPL
- Thread starter bwf
- Start date
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
to quote myself from the previous thread: "Back then I liked, and still do, RPL better. But I wouldn't buy one now nor fish the original ones I have even though then the #5 was my favorite rod. They are too old, so much water has flowed below the bridge and Sage and the rest have built so many better rods, one after another. I was fishing 9'/#5 RPL on the East Branch with a bud who said, "Hey, check out and cast my new rod". It was G.Loomis's brand new GLX. I went back to his DRC fly shop, bought a 9'/#5 GLX (after examining 8 of them for relative straightness) and I'm uncertain, but I don't recall ever fishing the RPL again."
Sage RPL was the hands down best performing fly rod series...in 1986. They were well built with lots of "Reserve Power" employing fiberglass scrim they were, by today's standards, thick and heavy. Does this suggest they are no good or won't still catch fish, of course not. However, if the joy of casting and articulate presentation are an important part of your angling, RPL's have become seriously antiquated. They went through several evolutionary revisions including SP+ and ultimately XP...the ultimate RPL. After XP, Don Green relinquished his design reigns to his protégé, Jerry Siem and design at Sage took off in a different but related direction. Still, abstractly speaking, 9'/#5 ONE fills exactly the niche in my kit today that corresponding RPL did back in the day...but there the comparison stops.
Sage RPL was the hands down best performing fly rod series...in 1986. They were well built with lots of "Reserve Power" employing fiberglass scrim they were, by today's standards, thick and heavy. Does this suggest they are no good or won't still catch fish, of course not. However, if the joy of casting and articulate presentation are an important part of your angling, RPL's have become seriously antiquated. They went through several evolutionary revisions including SP+ and ultimately XP...the ultimate RPL. After XP, Don Green relinquished his design reigns to his protégé, Jerry Siem and design at Sage took off in a different but related direction. Still, abstractly speaking, 9'/#5 ONE fills exactly the niche in my kit today that corresponding RPL did back in the day...but there the comparison stops.
sparsegraystubble
Well-known member
I knew a doctor in Idaho back in the 80s who frequented the same spring creek I did. He fished the 490 RPL and told me that it was the ideal rod. In fact he kept buying back-ups just in case.
I don’t know how many he had, but he told me once that he had a closet full of them. He was very good with dries, emergers and smaller nymphs on everything from small creeks to challenging water like the Henry’s Fork and Silver Creek.
Many people still fishing that classic rod as well as the 5 and 6 weight versions. I still fish a 590 RPL+ but it is a lot stiffer than your RPL.
Don
I don’t know how many he had, but he told me once that he had a closet full of them. He was very good with dries, emergers and smaller nymphs on everything from small creeks to challenging water like the Henry’s Fork and Silver Creek.
Many people still fishing that classic rod as well as the 5 and 6 weight versions. I still fish a 590 RPL+ but it is a lot stiffer than your RPL.
Don
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
And I too had an old friend who spent the entire season in West Yellowstone who also swore by 9'/#4 RPL. He is gone now so I can't try to encourage him to sample a new Sage or Loomis rod. He and your friend (and you and me too) were right in the 80's...but to presuppose something just right today will not be surpassed tomorrow is to ignore history. I had the privilege of fishing Silver Creek prior to the Conservancy opening it to the public and cut my teeth so to speak on the Fork in the 1970's too...and I return to both waters most every season through today. The fine rods including Scott, Orvis and Rodon's I effectively fished then (prior to the existence of Sage) where among the finest rods of their day...but they are all retired now in favor of ONE's, NRX's and new X.
I have a 590 RPL. Yes, it says 3 ounces on the blank, and maybe it is. But when I fish it--not very often any more--I'm always dismayed by how heavy it feels compared to my newer BiiiX and Sage X in 9ft 5wt. Not saying its not a good rod. But aside from the nostalgia, once you start fishing more modern rods with their low swing weight and crisp actions, it's hard to go back.
sparsegraystubble
Well-known member
Yeah, I am finally looking to semi-retire my old RPL+ in favor of either a Sage One or an X. Or maybe something else like a Stickman or Avantt of Edge. But with the prices on the One, it seems like such a value.
It just takes longer for some of us to learn.
Don
It just takes longer for some of us to learn.
Don
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
"It just takes longer for some of us to learn."
ONE is not the most intuitive of fly rods, it takes a bit of learning curve. But going from RPL+ to ONE will not be hard, it will be a revelation. Stickman, Avantt, Asquith/NRX...major wow factor. 9'/#5 ONE on sale... a great rod.
ONE is not the most intuitive of fly rods, it takes a bit of learning curve. But going from RPL+ to ONE will not be hard, it will be a revelation. Stickman, Avantt, Asquith/NRX...major wow factor. 9'/#5 ONE on sale... a great rod.
pnc
Well-known member
RPL+'s were my cup of tea. If not 2 piece, they would see more than yard play today. A 7w XP, is still my sweetheart. This not because of lacking newer rods. Of the rods carried in car, 3 sometimes 4 are newer but 2 are always XP's. Until the X nothing else from Sage had interested me. When I get to comparing head lemghts & weights. The X's will replace some carried now but not the XP's (got different weights). Swing weights have never been a priority. More often of late glass rods are used.
Replys bring a question to mind. Let me say this first...... a Ferrari is a Ferrari regardless of when it was made. I don't consider rods clunkers because of when they were made. With the number of rod companies now. There may have been more clunkers made since the RPL & plus series than better. Not to say improvements haven't been made.
What makes a difference in swing weight preferences ? Age & laziness creeping up ? In some cases perhaps. I think length of use at a given time has more to do with weight preferences. People travel to fish. Spending the most time on the water in time allotted. Makes a good reason for a light outfit. I use newer lighter gear when I know I'll be fishing for longer periods than normal. But normal to me is 2 maybe 3 hrs at a time. Travel is out the door. So swing weights don't matter as much as a rod for conditions does to me. One place real close holds fish galore. But from the first never went back with a graphite rod. Took more than a few years to find suitable glass rod. Which turned out being a rebuilt Fenwick from early mid '70's. Probably better out there. But for $50.- , rod & materials for complete rebuild. In a place whether it's me or the rod that gets nicked every time (usually me). I'll rebuild oldies but goodies till I can't find them anymore.
........ pc
Replys bring a question to mind. Let me say this first...... a Ferrari is a Ferrari regardless of when it was made. I don't consider rods clunkers because of when they were made. With the number of rod companies now. There may have been more clunkers made since the RPL & plus series than better. Not to say improvements haven't been made.
What makes a difference in swing weight preferences ? Age & laziness creeping up ? In some cases perhaps. I think length of use at a given time has more to do with weight preferences. People travel to fish. Spending the most time on the water in time allotted. Makes a good reason for a light outfit. I use newer lighter gear when I know I'll be fishing for longer periods than normal. But normal to me is 2 maybe 3 hrs at a time. Travel is out the door. So swing weights don't matter as much as a rod for conditions does to me. One place real close holds fish galore. But from the first never went back with a graphite rod. Took more than a few years to find suitable glass rod. Which turned out being a rebuilt Fenwick from early mid '70's. Probably better out there. But for $50.- , rod & materials for complete rebuild. In a place whether it's me or the rod that gets nicked every time (usually me). I'll rebuild oldies but goodies till I can't find them anymore.
........ pc
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
That is right, pnc, XP is the ultimate rendition of the RPL concept, same designer, upgraded materials. Also true, MANY inferior to RPL rods have and are being built. And X in salt sizes...very impressive and I think a series way beyond XP much as XP is beyond RPL, though not all models of X are equal.
Very well said. I agree with what you have said. The RPL was one of the lightest rods built, even compared to some of todays rods, yet it won't feel like when compared to many heavier (rod weight) predecessors.
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
The "L" in RPL of course stood for Lightweight as an improved update over Sage's initial RP, Reserve Power...their former and current mantra.
Though nearly all great casting fly rods have reserves of power to varying degrees, many do not. It is this more grunt than you need in the lower taper that is perceived as adding to a "stiff", unyielding feeling to some anglers . It's absence is also why some nice sweet rods at 20 to 40 feet collapse or wobble beyond that distance. Lower taper reserves are what support mid to upper taper stability and line speed. It is not just for distance casting or big fish fighting. To generate a high line speed, tight loop with a 4-weight on a modest sized stream executing a dry fly presentation entails the support of the lower taper along with a tip that won't collapse under load. Thank you Sage for defining this for us three decades ago.
Though nearly all great casting fly rods have reserves of power to varying degrees, many do not. It is this more grunt than you need in the lower taper that is perceived as adding to a "stiff", unyielding feeling to some anglers . It's absence is also why some nice sweet rods at 20 to 40 feet collapse or wobble beyond that distance. Lower taper reserves are what support mid to upper taper stability and line speed. It is not just for distance casting or big fish fighting. To generate a high line speed, tight loop with a 4-weight on a modest sized stream executing a dry fly presentation entails the support of the lower taper along with a tip that won't collapse under load. Thank you Sage for defining this for us three decades ago.
JoJer
Well-known member
I borrowed this rod from my guide on a steelhead trip to Oregon a couple of years ago. I've lusted after one ever since. Sages are waaayy out of my price range. Close as I can get (someday) is the same weight/length from TFO.
udiablo
Well-known member
I've had an 8wt 9'-6" RPL+ for several years. Awhile back Sage replaced the handle on it, and sent it back to me in like new condition. It's a cannon. I no longer have a Method, simply preferred the older rod. Lots of RPLs still in use out there.