mka
Well-known member
Found this review on the Sage Dart and Scott F that I thought some on the forum may be interested in reading:
3-WEIGHT HEAVEN – Dart v F-Series – FlyLife Magazine
3-WEIGHT HEAVEN – Dart v F-Series – FlyLife Magazine
Fly Life Review of Sage Dart and Scott F - Three Weight Heaven
- Thread starter mka
- Start date
WNCtroutstalker
Well-known member
Interesting that for the Scott they opted to review the 583 rather than the 663, which I think will be more popular and considered more versatile by most.
When I saw that Scott had included a 5'8" rod in its new F lineup, I kind of laughed. I fish a lot of small, overgrown streams and rarely do I feel the need for a rod under 7.' So the thought of a sub-6' rod just seemed rather silly to me. But.....
A few months ago I attended a fly fishing show and had the opportunity to cast 4 of the 5 new F models (all but the 723/5). I thought the 724 was the "best buy" in terms of being the most versatile rod, but my favorite was the 583. It did well in close, but also was a little rocket launcher and it cast like a "normal" rod. If I'm fishing a place where I feel the need to a grab a 5'8" rod I doubt it would be open enough for 40' casts, but that distance was not a problem with the rod. I thought long and hard about getting one, but just couldn't justify spending so much (list price is $695) for such a specialty rod. But if you would fish such a short rod a lot and/or the cost isn't a big deal, then IMO it's definitely worth checking out. Interestingly, the only new F that I didn't care for was the 663, which surprised me given that over the years a 6'6" 3 wt has sort of been the sweetheart of Scott's glass lineups; it certainly was widely regarded as the best model in the F2 series.
One thing I found strange in the review is that they consider the Scott on the faster side of glass (I presume by fast they mean "less flexing" rather than quick tip recovery). Now it was a while ago since I cast the Fs and I do think the 583 was probably "faster" (less slow) than the other Fs (the 622 in particular was pretty deliberate/deep flexing), but personally I consider Scotts to be on the slower side of modern glass.
When I saw that Scott had included a 5'8" rod in its new F lineup, I kind of laughed. I fish a lot of small, overgrown streams and rarely do I feel the need for a rod under 7.' So the thought of a sub-6' rod just seemed rather silly to me. But.....
A few months ago I attended a fly fishing show and had the opportunity to cast 4 of the 5 new F models (all but the 723/5). I thought the 724 was the "best buy" in terms of being the most versatile rod, but my favorite was the 583. It did well in close, but also was a little rocket launcher and it cast like a "normal" rod. If I'm fishing a place where I feel the need to a grab a 5'8" rod I doubt it would be open enough for 40' casts, but that distance was not a problem with the rod. I thought long and hard about getting one, but just couldn't justify spending so much (list price is $695) for such a specialty rod. But if you would fish such a short rod a lot and/or the cost isn't a big deal, then IMO it's definitely worth checking out. Interestingly, the only new F that I didn't care for was the 663, which surprised me given that over the years a 6'6" 3 wt has sort of been the sweetheart of Scott's glass lineups; it certainly was widely regarded as the best model in the F2 series.
One thing I found strange in the review is that they consider the Scott on the faster side of glass (I presume by fast they mean "less flexing" rather than quick tip recovery). Now it was a while ago since I cast the Fs and I do think the 583 was probably "faster" (less slow) than the other Fs (the 622 in particular was pretty deliberate/deep flexing), but personally I consider Scotts to be on the slower side of modern glass.
johan851
Well-known member
Reading between the lines of Richard Post's comments on Telluride Angler, it seems the FS 663 is not quite what the F2 653 was.
One thing I didn't like when I tried the FS 663 was the reel seat. A threaded uplocker didn't feel right, I would have preferred the downlocking slide band of the F2.
WNCtroutstalker
Well-known member
I cast the 663 immediately after casting the 583 and the 663 was noticeably heavier. I'd of course expect a longer rod to feel heavier than a shorter one, but the differing seat hardware was certainly a contributing factor. And as you said an uplocker (or anything other than a slide band) is hardly necessary for a 3 wt. Now don't get me wrong, the 663 is hardly a heavy rod, I'm just saying it felt noticeably different than the 583. I don't think the weight difference was the reason I didn't care for it though as after a few casts I forgot what the 583 felt like and the 663 felt fine/normal. But the 663 just didn't wow me and there are other 6 1/2'ish glass rods that I prefer. But the 583 is a real winner IMO.
johan851
Well-known member
I'll have to try the 583 sometime. This week I happen to have both the F2 653 and the Barclay Synthesis 68 in hand for side by side evaluation, so that'll be fun.
troutbum_74
Well-known member
I really like my “wee one” Taking it out tomorrow!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
As an angler who matches rods to habitat and technique, I fail to see much similarity between a 5 1/2' glass and 7 1/2' graphite rod. And the not particularly descriptive, more experiential "review" failed to make a case either. I don't, at this point in my life, fish tiny freestones as imaged in the review but if I did, I likely would fish some short glass rods. The newest such rod I have is 7'/#4 I built from a Phillipson blank in the 1970's. I do have 7 1/2'/#4 DART (w/ RIO Gold not Creek) and there is no stream I fish that it is too much rod for...and this super light, precise little rod is very un-glass like. There is a glass like (except in weight) graphite series and that is Douglas Upstream which combines plus elements of both types of rods.
proheli
Well-known member
Im very interested in your thoughts on these two. I hope you and WNCtroutstalker will give your feed back of both after you come back !
johan851
Well-known member
I spent an hour at the park the other day casting the Barclay Synthesis 68 and the Scott F2 653. I came to a clear conclusion for my preferences, but it wasn't quick. Here's my mini-review...
== Aesthetics ==
Chris' rod is very nicely done. I liked the relatively thin grip, the subtle alignment dots, and I thought the small stripping guide was a nice aesthetic touch. The blank isn't aggressively sanded and has an appealing texture. It's hard to criticize anything on this rod, really - even if you somehow don't like the grip, the wraps, the guides, the reel seat, or whatever, you can have it built exactly to your preferences (and photos of Chris' ventilated ritz grips make me drool a bit). I wouldn't change much, I really liked the way Chris put this one together, and overall I found the rod to have a little more personality than the Scott. It exuded that small-batch, handcrafted, work of art sort of finish.
The F2 is nicely polished. It definitely has more of a commercial feel, with a bit less of that authentic vibe from the 68, but it's very well executed and consistent throughout. The finish quality was actually a little higher than I had expected and I came away impressed. I liked the epoxy finish on the cork and the milled out reel seat.
== In Hand ==
They're both three piece, three weight, six and a half-ish foot fiberglass rods. The Synthesis is 2" longer. They're both so light that swing weight isn't a thing, and it took the whole casting session to start to detect the slight differences attributable to length. The Synthesis has two more guides than the Scott, if that's a factor for you one way or the other. Both balanced well with a 3oz reel, about an inch below the top of the grip. You could even go a hair lighter if you want, but I thought my Galvan Brookie 3/4 matched up nicely.
== Casting ==
I started with the F2, strung up with Rio Gold WF3. At the outset I struggled to adjust to the rod's action. In close the rod was incredibly accurate, landing inches from my pinpoint target on every cast, but I had a bit of difficulty at moderate distance and my loops were wider than I'd like. Wind varied throughout my casting session, which might have caused some of the early confusion.
Switching over the Barclay 68, paired with a Cortland 444 DT3, my first casts were sublime. There's something about this rod that's a bit like a laser pointer. I found it easy to lay out a perfectly straight line and throw tight loops right out of the gate. The leader unfurled with confidence and it was just as accurate in close as the Scott.
Back with the F2, I modified my casting stroke. The F2 required a lighter touch, and after making some changes I was able to dial in loops to a similar degree of tightness as the Barclay. The F2 is softer and I found it easier to shock with clumsy application of power or a poorly timed haul, resulting in loops that were either wobbly, wide open, or both. But once I adjusted my stroke, I found I could create nice tight loops while feeling a lot of flex and feedback in the action of the rod. It's slow enough that you can easily watch the cast form and see what's going wrong. A touch more wrist did wonders.
Switching back to the Barclay, there were those tight loops and laser straight casts again... and I went back and forth a couple more times between the two trying to figure things out further.
Hopping between the two for the better part of an hour helped me understand the differences in personality. Both felt great with a three weight line, and loaded as I'd expect, but the F2 is certainly the softer rod. I'm not sure its recovery is actually slower, but it deflects to a greater extent through the cast, resulting in much more distance to travel back to neutral. The F2's blank has pronounced flex in the tip and upper mid, almost an exaggerated progressive loading, while the Synthesis loads deeper and flexes more uniformly throughout the blank. Both feel very smooth, but that feeling is emphasized in the F2 because it spends more time loading and unloading.
Comparitively, the Synthesis has a faster, more authoritative tip and upper mid. Chris characterizes the Barclay as a perfect fusion of parabolic and progressive tapers, and I get that. There's a bit of both going on in a very appealing way. For some reason the Synthesis reminded me of the Sage MOD, where the rod achieves a moderate action through the blank with more limited tip deflection. A weird comparison - maybe heresy for the glass aficionados - but it made sense to me with the F2 as my reference mark. The faster tip lends itself to easier creation of those tight loops. The whole thing is crisp and precise.
Despite having different lines on the rods, my observations above were independent of line weight and taper. I swapped lines towards the end without a big change in rod personality, and ended up thinking both rods were better with the Cortland 444 DT3.
To wrap it all up, I think the Synthesis might be the more capable rod. It certainly was more intuitive for me in the first few minutes, where the Scott required more from me to adjust my casting stroke and timing. But when I got it right with the F2, I found it to be a great caster while flexing deeper and providing more feedback. The F2 is soft enough to accentuate small, imperfect movements, and it found many of those in my cast.
Interestingly, while the choice didn't come quickly, when I picked up the Scott for the third or fourth time I suddenly realized that the softer action and accentuated feedback was exactly what I was looking for. I needed to "get in the zone" a bit for that to happen, but when it clicked, it really clicked. Part of my interest in this rod genre is becoming a more proficient and versatile caster, and to that end I actually like that the Scott is less forgiving. I'd really prefer to keep both, and that capable, crisp action of the Synthesis 68 will probably haunt me a bit when I fish the F2, but I decided the Scott action is the way I want to fill this particular niche in my lineup.
Now I want to hear WCNtroutstalker, but based on a little previous intel I think I know what he picked.
troutbum_74
Well-known member
You absolutely cannot go wrong with a rod from Chris Barclay! I have owned and fished the 68 Synthesis for a year now. Wonderful fishing tool and the aesthetics are just wow. There’s a reason it’s the only other rod I own other than a Scott! I’m hopefully getting on the list for an 82 later this summer.I spent an hour at the park the other day casting the Barclay Synthesis 68 and the Scott F2 653. I came to a clear conclusion for my preferences, but it wasn't quick. Here's my mini-review...
== Aesthetics ==
Chris' rod is very nicely done. I liked the relatively thin grip, the subtle alignment dots, and I thought the small stripping guide was a nice aesthetic touch. The blank isn't aggressively sanded and has an appealing texture. It's hard to criticize anything on this rod, really - even if you somehow don't like the grip, the wraps, the guides, the reel seat, or whatever, you can have it built exactly to your preferences (and photos of Chris' ventilated ritz grips make me drool a bit). I wouldn't change much, I really liked the way Chris put this one together, and overall I found the rod to have a little more personality than the Scott. It exuded that small-batch, handcrafted, work of art sort of finish.
The F2 is nicely polished. It definitely has more of a commercial feel, with a bit less of that authentic vibe from the 68, but it's very well executed and consistent throughout. The finish quality was actually a little higher than I had expected and I came away impressed. I liked the epoxy finish on the cork and the milled out reel seat.
== In Hand ==
They're both three piece, three weight, six and a half-ish foot fiberglass rods. The Synthesis is 2" longer. They're both so light that swing weight isn't a thing, and it took the whole casting session to start to detect the slight differences attributable to length. The Synthesis has two more guides than the Scott, if that's a factor for you one way or the other. Both balanced well with a 3oz reel, about an inch below the top of the grip. You could even go a hair lighter if you want, but I thought my Galvan Brookie 3/4 matched up nicely.
== Casting ==
I started with the F2, strung up with Rio Gold WF3. At the outset I struggled to adjust to the rod's action. In close the rod was incredibly accurate, landing inches from my pinpoint target on every cast, but I had a bit of difficulty at moderate distance and my loops were wider than I'd like. Wind varied throughout my casting session, which might have caused some of the early confusion.
Switching over the Barclay 68, paired with a Cortland 444 DT3, my first casts were sublime. There's something about this rod that's a bit like a laser pointer. I found it easy to lay out a perfectly straight line and throw tight loops right out of the gate. The leader unfurled with confidence and it was just as accurate in close as the Scott.
Back with the F2, I modified my casting stroke. The F2 required a lighter touch, and after making some changes I was able to dial in loops to a similar degree of tightness as the Barclay. The F2 is softer and I found it easier to shock with clumsy application of power or a poorly timed haul, resulting in loops that were either wobbly, wide open, or both. But once I adjusted my stroke, I found I could create nice tight loops while feeling a lot of flex and feedback in the action of the rod. It's slow enough that you can easily watch the cast form and see what's going wrong. A touch more wrist did wonders.
Switching back to the Barclay, there were those tight loops and laser straight casts again... and I went back and forth a couple more times between the two trying to figure things out further.
Hopping between the two for the better part of an hour helped me understand the differences in personality. Both felt great with a three weight line, and loaded as I'd expect, but the F2 is certainly the softer rod. I'm not sure its recovery is actually slower, but it deflects to a greater extent through the cast, resulting in much more distance to travel back to neutral. The F2's blank has pronounced flex in the tip and upper mid, almost an exaggerated progressive loading, while the Synthesis loads deeper and flexes more uniformly throughout the blank. Both feel very smooth, but that feeling is emphasized in the F2 because it spends more time loading and unloading.
Comparitively, the Synthesis has a faster, more authoritative tip and upper mid. Chris characterizes the Barclay as a perfect fusion of parabolic and progressive tapers, and I get that. There's a bit of both going on in a very appealing way. For some reason the Synthesis reminded me of the Sage MOD, where the rod achieves a moderate action through the blank with more limited tip deflection. A weird comparison - maybe heresy for the glass aficionados - but it made sense to me with the F2 as my reference mark. The faster tip lends itself to easier creation of those tight loops. The whole thing is crisp and precise.
Despite having different lines on the rods, my observations above were independent of line weight and taper. I swapped lines towards the end without a big change in rod personality, and ended up thinking both rods were better with the Cortland 444 DT3.
To wrap it all up, I think the Synthesis might be the more capable rod. It certainly was more intuitive for me in the first few minutes, where the Scott required more from me to adjust my casting stroke and timing. But when I got it right with the F2, I found it to be a great caster while flexing deeper and providing more feedback. The F2 is soft enough to accentuate small, imperfect movements, and it found many of those in my cast.
Interestingly, while the choice didn't come quickly, when I picked up the Scott for the third or fourth time I suddenly realized that the softer action and accentuated feedback was exactly what I was looking for. I needed to "get in the zone" a bit for that to happen, but when it clicked, it really clicked. Part of my interest in this rod genre is becoming a more proficient and versatile caster, and to that end I actually like that the Scott is less forgiving. I'd really prefer to keep both, and that capable, crisp action of the Synthesis 68 will probably haunt me a bit when I fish the F2, but I decided the Scott action is the way I want to fill this particular niche in my lineup.
Now I want to hear WCNtroutstalker, but based on a little previous intel I think I know what he picked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
johan851
Well-known member
Agreed. Now that I've cast the 68, I think the 7'2" 4wt might be on my list to check out. It sounds like a nice configuration as well.