Scott Tidal 9-wt

[mjkirshner]

This will be quick, as I bought a Scott Tidal and cast it on the grass, but returned it without fishing it. I returned not because I didn't like it, but because I liked it so much that I upgraded to the Meridian. I have never bought more than a mid-priced rod before, but the Tidal looked and performed so well that I decided to splurge and step up to the top tier. I figured if the Tidal was that enjoyable to cast, the Meridian should be pretty spectacular. I cast the Tidal alongside a Sage Motive, and it compared quite favorably. The build quality of the Scott is at least equal to the Sage in every visible aspect other than the grip, and in that respect, the Scott appears to have better quality cork. The Scott is lighter in hand than the Sage, and balanced better with my Lamson reels. The Scott felt better to cast than the Sage, and while I couldn't reach any greater distance with the Tidal, it equaled the Motive. In fact, it was ridiculously equal. I cast the rods four times, one with Rio Bonefish Quickshooter and other with Airflo Tropical Punch line. Four casts and never more than about 6 to 8 inches difference in the distance. Then I switched the reels/lines and did it again, with almost exactly the same result. Disclaimer: I am not a great distance caster, so we are talking about 70 feet max, but I couldn't get either one to outperform the other by even one foot. However, the Tidal has a slightly narrower grip, lighter swing weight, and felt better in my hand. After discussing it with someone from Scott and with the seller, I decided to upgrade to the Meridian and drop down to an 8-wt. I will post a review of that rod once I get the chance to try it, but for anyone looking for a saltwater rod in a middle tier price range, I would highly recommend that you check out the Tidal.

 

[pnc]

Been trying to think of way of saying this. Best I can do is this. I do hope you enjoy the new rod. In my honest opinion, the difference between your new rod & BVK, will be slight at best. With eyes closed you might not know which is in hand.

........ pc

 

[dennyk]

I've got a Scott Tidal in a 7wt. Love it! I'ts primarily my smallmouth/largemouth bass rod and also is at home on medium size steelhead rivers. I've got it paired up with a Hatch 5+.

Denny

 

[scotty macfly]

If you like the Tidal, and you're into fast action rods, then you are going to absolutely love the Meridian!!!! So much lighter in hand, very crisp when casting. You don't need to do more than two false casts with it, and it'll throw a line like you wouldn't believe.

I'd get one, but they intimidate me.

 

[mjkirshner]

Been trying to think of way of saying this. Best I can do is this. I do hope you enjoy the new rod. In my honest opinion, the difference between your new rod & BVK, will be slight at best. With eyes closed you might not know which is in hand.

........ pc

No need to be diplomatic. I enjoy my BVK and think it is a great rod. However, I would take a bet that I can't tell them apart with eyes closed. I don't need another 8 wt, but here's my thinking: a top tier rod may not improve my casting, but if it doesn't, I never have to wonder if the problem is the rod; and if it does improve my casting, then it's worth the price. Win/win...

 

[sweetandsalt]

I would take the bet about not being able to tell the difference between a Meridian and a same size BVK. Just for starters, and this applies to my wife's BVK#8 and my BVK#6, BVK favors a half or more over-size line with an aggressive forward weight bias, I think something like older SA Saltwater Titan graces the 8-weight, newer Grand Slam might be better. The Scott though would prefer a more graceful line like RIO Bonefish...this line difference alone makes a huge difference. Now, I do not believe a fine outfit makes one a better caster but it sure won't inhibit one from practicing and learning.

 

[mjkirshner]

Now, I do not believe a fine outfit makes one a better caster but it sure won't inhibit one from practicing and learning.

This puzzles me. If the assumption/experience is not that one casts a SALT or NRX better than a Motive or Pro4x, why pay twice the price for the NRX or SALT? Of course, factors such as weight, balance, and quality of materials, may play a part, but isn't the ability to cast farther and with more accuracy the primary reason that someone would buy a premium rod?

Maybe I should rephrase my previous point. Rather than making me a better caster, I expect the new rod to make my casts better. Not improve my technique, but rather give better results from the same technique. And if my technique does improve, the better rod should highlight that improvement even more.

 

[pnc]

Short ans. no. Rods do not provide ability. Many make the assumption the more spent the better they will be. Doesn't work like that. In the hands of a competant caster. Practicality every graphite rod made will throw a whole fly line. Modern rods do not inhibit casting.

....... pc
Check pm

 

[sweetandsalt]

This puzzles me. If the assumption/experience is not that one casts a SALT or NRX better than a Motive or Pro4x, why pay twice the price for the NRX or SALT? Of course, factors such as weight, balance, and quality of materials, may play a part, but isn't the ability to cast farther and with more accuracy the primary reason that someone would buy a premium rod?

Maybe I should rephrase my previous point. Rather than making me a better caster, I expect the new rod to make my casts better. Not improve my technique, but rather give better results from the same technique. And if my technique does improve, the better rod should highlight that improvement even more.

I agree with pnc, it is the caster not the rod. I recently spent time fishing a mid-priced Korean import, Rajeff Sports ECHO3S#9. It is robust, potent and very well constructed. I probably can cast it as far as my same size and color Sage SALT#9 which costs at least twice as much. There are some premium priced rods from prestigious brands whose rod designer seems to have had zero experience fishing flats and hence produce a useless salty rod accordingly (I'm not naming names but it is not blue but green).

So, to answer your question, a great flats rod elicits a certain joy in casting, a feeling of elation as a precise, tight , parallel leg, bullet shaped loop, effortlessly turns over your 14' leader alighting your crustacean imitation right in front of that big tailer. Very similar to a brilliant technical dry fly rod on a challenging trout river. Lots of rods, from modest priced to costly can make the cast fine, in both environments, but only a select few embody a unique synthesis of inspired design and impeccable fabrication and build quality.

I have a lot of rods from #4 - 12, they all, old and new, can catch fish as long as I am up to the challenge. However, and this has been evolving since the 1974 dawn of graphite, I only field a select few, the ones that delight me most. I may believe they enhance my performance incrementally but it is really the casting pleasure they provide that enriches my angling experience.

 

[mjkirshner]

I guess there can be different ways to interpret "improving the cast." I didn't mean to suggest that it is just a matter of distance. It is all the things that make casting enjoyable. Distance, yes, but those other elements that you mention, too. I expect the Meridian, or any other premium rod, to make casting more enjoyable and thus "better." Maybe farther, or maybe more accurate, but maybe just more fun...just better.

 

[pnc]

I agree with pnc, it is the caster not the rod. I recently spent time fishing a mid-priced Korean import, Rajeff Sports ECHO3S#9. It is robust, potent and very well constructed. I probably can cast it as far as my same size and color Sage SALT#9 which costs at least twice as much. There are some premium priced rods from prestigious brands whose rod designer seems to have had zero experience fishing flats and hence produce a useless salty rod accordingly (I'm not naming names but it is not blue but green).

So, to answer your question, a great flats rod elicits a certain joy in casting, a feeling of elation as a precise, tight , parallel leg, bullet shaped loop, effortlessly turns over your 14' leader alighting your crustacean imitation right in front of that big tailer. Very similar to a brilliant technical dry fly rod on a challenging trout river. Lots of rods, from modest priced to costly can make the cast fine, in both environments, but only a select few embody a unique synthesis of inspired design and impeccable fabrication and build quality.

I have a lot of rods from #4 - 12, they all, old and new, can catch fish as long as I am up to the challenge. However, and this has been evolving since the 1974 dawn of graphite, I only field a select few, the ones that delight me most. I may believe they enhance my performance incrementally but it is really the casting pleasure they provide that enriches my angling experience.

Had to slip in the green thing........ lol.

......... pc

 

[sweetandsalt]

I guess there can be different ways to interpret "improving the cast." I didn't mean to suggest that it is just a matter of distance. It is all the things that make casting enjoyable. Distance, yes, but those other elements that you mention, too. I expect the Meridian, or any other premium rod, to make casting more enjoyable and thus "better." Maybe farther, or maybe more accurate, but maybe just more fun...just better.

Sure, while distance is more important on the flats than in many other forms of fly fishing, it is merely one component of performance. Fishing for bonefish and permit too involve something unusual, you fundamentally get one real casting opportunity. Oh, there are plenty of instances where second, third and fourth casts can be made, each with diminishing potential for success, but that first cast is the one...at whatever distance. Trout remain in their lie feeding on drifting mayflies until you hook or spook them...often I get a fine fish to eat on my umpteenth cast. Blind casting a streamer or nymph might have one casting continuously. Bonefish graze across a flat, you make your cast when you (or your guide) see one and you can. Often a fish or group of fish are seen but at a distance or wind direction that makes a good presentation difficult or impossible. The guide poles or you wade toward a more optimal distance/angel. The reason accurate distance casting is particularly relevant is the further away you can generate a quality presentation, the less likely it is that you motions and sounds will spoke an already nervous bonefish.

Therefore, the more in tune and happy you are with your rod-reel-line and leader combined outfit, the higher the probability of executing that first perfect shot. Bonefishing, which I spend far fewer days doing than trout fishing, has informed my #'s 4 and 5-weight trout fishing in the sense that I am more conscious of gravity neutral balance of my outfit and "unbreakable" rigging. My trout reels are large arbor, narrow width, rigidly constructed, smooth drag models like my bonefish reels...only smaller. RIO Gold and RIO Bonefish are basically the same taper design with a long rear taper to preclude hinging and maintain loop stability at distance. Despite the obvious geological and biological differences, I find a harmony between Bonefish Flat on the Henry's Fork and a bonefish flat on the west side of Andros. And, in both places, I seek to outfit myself with tackle and prey imitating flies that enrich my already great joy in angling there.

 

[mnigro]

How about this perspective...I’ve cast many cheap rods and high end rods. I’ve found many more high end rods which I like vs cheap rods. If I’m going to be casting for hundreds, if not thousands of hours with the rod, what’s the cost of ownership per fishing day? That alone justifies the extra cost for me to buy the rods that feels great to cast. I even tend to prefer used, high end rods vs new cheap rods. To each his own.

Btw, the Meridian is a blast to cast.

 

[gidva]

I have fished the tidal extensive for Dorado in South America with @highlandanglers and the rod just needs more power everywhere we have broke the tip 3 or 4 times it is really not a great rod. Look for Orvis Recon or even the Clearwater!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WNCtroutstalker]

I have fished the tidal extensive for Dorado in South America with @highlandanglers and the rod just needs more power everywhere we have broke the tip 3 or 4 times it is really not a great rod.

Interesting. I needed a 9 wt for a trip last year where the main target species was Golden Dorado. I bought a Tidal that a guy had used for a single trip. Re-sold it almost immediately after lawn casting it. Like you, I thought it was lacking in power, at least compared to other 9 wts and even some other 8 wts. I just thought it struggled to cast those really large flies. I know the Tidal is generally well thought of, but I'm not a fan (I owned and re-sold the 7 also). I am surprised to hear about the high breakage rate, though Golden Dorado can be tough on gear, not that I'm an expert after a one-week trip. Perhaps those occurred in a boat while high sticking in attempting to land the fish?

 

[sweetandsalt]

I may be guilty of a generalization here and I've not contemplated a study of this phenomenon. My observation though is that the mid-tier rods produced by "premium' Brands to supplement their sales and offer their "prestige" to a lower price-point clientele are often not as good as the $350 - $650 rods produced by the companies that specialize in their top rods being in this bracket.

So, to use my 3-year old example from above in this thread, Tim Rajeff's ECHO3S #9 is more powerful and tougher than Tidal #9 and to morph to today, Douglas's SKY #6 is a notably better casting rod than Radian or H3 #6's (in my opinion). And I'm going out on a thin limb here but I regard my Taylor Truth #5 to be among the very top tier of 9'/#5's...if I didn't I would not be fishing it.

 

[WNCtroutstalker]

I may be guilty of a generalization here and I've not contemplated a study of this phenomenon. My observation though is that the mid-tier rods produced by "premium' Brands to supplement their sales and offer their "prestige" to a lower price-point clientele are often not as good as the $350 - $650 rods produced by the companies that specialize in their top rods being in this bracket.

It's of course tough to generalize as there are exceptions (e.g., IMO the T&T Zone 8 wt and the G Loomis IMX Pro 7 and 8 wts are very nice rods and I would think cast at least as nicely as and probably better than the competing Echos--and I totally agree with you about the Echo 3S 9 wt and the EPR also is a solid rod albeit a bit stiff), but there's something to be said for focusing on what you do best and not trying to be all things to all people. Winston seems to have adopted this strategy, dropping its mid-priced rods--I know you generally aren't impressed with most of Winston's recent and current offerings, but my point is they are widely viewed as a premium brand. The last thing a company wants is a lower priced rod cannibalizing the sales of its premium models (although the margins on the lower priced rods may be better if built overseas), or even worse making crappy "cheap" rods that dilute the value and prestige of the brand.

The company that seems to have mastered the multi-price point strategy is Sage. This is based largely on second-hand info (i.e., I have not cast all of them) and I always view dealer reviews with a dose of skepticism, but recent and current rods like the Bolt, Pulse and Motive seem to be quite solid. Lower down on the price scale, the Foundation gets good reviews and moving even further down the price spectrum within the Far Bank family the Redington Classic Trout is a very nice rod (not a cheap rod, but a nice rod that happens to be inexpensive).

But I do think there's definitely something to your generalization.

 

[scotty macfly]

I may be guilty of a generalization here and I've not contemplated a study of this phenomenon. My observation though is that the mid-tier rods produced by "premium' Brands to supplement their sales and offer their "prestige" to a lower price-point clientele are often not as good as the $350 - $650 rods produced by the companies that specialize in their top rods being in this bracket.

So, to use my 3-year old example from above in this thread, Tim Rajeff's ECHO3S #9 is more powerful and tougher than Tidal #9 and to morph to today, Douglas's SKY #6 is a notably better casting rod than Radian or H3 #6's (in my opinion). And I'm going out on a thin limb here but I regard my Taylor Truth #5 to be among the very top tier of 9'/#5's...if I didn't I would not be fishing it.

S&S, so what you're saying is, a $500 rod from a big name brand is not as good as a $500 rod from a brand known to make less expensive rods? For example, and Elkhorn AMP being the same price, give or take a few bucks, as the Scott Flex at $495, the Elkhorn "could", again, "could" be the better rod?

And would this also say that private rod makers could actually be the way to go when buying a new rod?

 

[sweetandsalt]

WNC and Scotty, Generalizations are always easy to prove untrue by the numerous exceptions. Each rod must be evaluated on its own merits, price notwithstanding. I have ECHO's, Redington's and St.Croix's that do what they are intended to do very well. I had and Elkhorn #9 rod and reel outfit that was destined for donation, clunk. Orvis dilutes its brand in my opinion with their name on truly awful rods like their Chinese intro outfit in a box. Sage chooses not to by having the import rods having the Redington name on them...some are pretty good too. I forget the name of the two Winston series they introduce a couple of years ago. I cast both of them in Twin and they were right to make them short lived, real stinkers. I have not tested many of the Sage or Loomis second tier rods but those two know what they are doing as does Scott...usually.

We all know the big, old names makes some great rods but if one is willing, as I am, to experiment with new little brands that don't enjoy long prestigious reputations...companies like Douglas, Rise Fly Fishing or Taylor, there are gems to be discovered for less money that in some instances may be better than a given famous premium priced rod. I am done making any generalizations though for the rest of the day.

 

[scotty macfly]

We all know the big, old names makes some great rods but if one is willing, as I am, to experiment with new little brands that don't enjoy long prestigious reputations...companies like Douglas, Rise Fly Fishing or Taylor, there are gems to be discovered for less money that in some instances may be better than a given famous premium priced rod. I am done making any generalizations though for the rest of the day.

That does make some sense. If I remember correctly, when Douglas came out on the market with their first fly rod, it didn't get too much of a good rating. But they kept at it and tweaked some things around, and now look at them. They are getting really good reviews. Mystic didn't do very good either in their beginning, and from what I understand, they have gotten a little better as well. Not great, but better.