New Ross San Miguel

el jefe

Well-known member
Messages
3,098
Reaction score
907
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Anybody else see this? I got my most recent edition of American Angler yesterday, and on the back cover is an ad for a new Ross San Miguel, with a serious nod toward the aesthetics of the original. Says it is coming in December 2019. Anyone have a scoop?
 

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
920
Location
North Carolina
Had not heard about this, but not a huge surprise after the updates to the Colorado (with the LT) and Gunnison series reels. Trident has pics on its site. Looks like there will be 3/4, 4/5 and a 5/6 - all at $595 (yikes!).

I'm a huge Ross fan, but never quite understood the love for the San Miguel. By no means a bad reel, and very smooth, but I just preferred the rugged looks (especially the pre-98s) and sounds of the Gunnisons to the silent, glossy San Miguels. That said, as with other Ross updates/re-issues, I prefer the looks of the original over this new version. The new SM is certainly more similar to the original SM than the new Gunnison is to the original Gunnison or the Colorado LT is to the original Colorado. I like that they stuck with the daisy spool, but am not nuts about the RR logo on the drag knob and I really don't like the canvas handle (or whatever that new material is). I can understand using it on reels like the Evo R Salt as the material is supposed to result in a better grip and presumably is less susceptible to corrosion for salt, but it just looks wrong, to me at least, on a glamour reel like the SM, especially when the vast majority of the time it'll be nothing more than a line holder.

It's always hard to update a classic and I give Ross credit for bringing back one of its most iconic reels. But to me the end result falls short, especially considering the price point.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
12,837
Reaction score
2,238
Location
-
I was not a fan of original Ross Reels, the designs were all over the palace, not all so great and often overly complex. Sure, I have few, a Canyon and F1 and my wife has one whose name I forget and want to. New Ross/Abel is a whole new company though with new design consistency and manufacturing excellence...Evolution R and its siblings are top choices, weight matching dependent. I did not have an original San Miguel but one of my buds did and it was clearly one of their best reels. I imagine the upcoming new San Miguel will be a hallmark reel for them though I know nothing about its design. I will say that no reel I own is a "line holder" and each is matched in balance and performance to its rod outfit. No piece of equipment is absolutely perfect but my modern Ross Evo's are right up there with my Hatch and Nautilus reels.
 

silver creek

Well-known member
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
2,028
Location
Rothschld, Wisconsin
The original San Miguel was about $500 as I recall. It might have been $550.

The original SM was only ported on the handle side of the reel. The backplate was solid.



The next version was the Ross Vision which was ported on both sides.

 

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
920
Location
North Carolina
The original San Miguel was about $500 as I recall. It might have been $550.
Found an old web page, from 2002 I think, with a review of the original SM. It only provided info for the size 1, but it listed the MSRP at $375. The original San Miguels have certainly held their value.
 

osseous

Well-known member
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
720
Looks nice to these eyes

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
1,091
Location
Colorado
The San Miguel was one of, if not the, best reels ever made. Way ahead of it's time. It was rumored to have been discontinued because of the high cost to produce it. I scrimped and saved relentlessly back in the day to purchase an SM One $375 and SM Two $425 (I just looked at the price tags on the boxes).

The issue is for their use today a couple things....they are somewhat heavy SM1 4.2 oz 2.5" diameter - SM2 4.6oz 3.0" diameter - SM3 5.4 oz 3.4" diameter.....the SM3 would make an OK modern 5/6 wt reel...but the SM2 is too heavy for a 3wt- light 4 wt which is where it is sized.....and the advertised weights are lighter than reality...my SM2 weighs 4.9oz empty. And additionally, they are small arbor and small diameter reels, they match vintage rods better than current day fair.

That said, they are classics and great for vintage rods. I have been bugging the ears of Ross for a remake of this reel for years....earlier this year I was told " be patient, it's coming".....I was sworn to silence.

I'm as stoked as a kid in a candy store.
 

silver creek

Well-known member
Messages
8,209
Reaction score
2,028
Location
Rothschld, Wisconsin
I have both the original SM 2 which I still use and the Vision 2 (new in the box). I had another SM 1 that I used which went "missing" but I didn't notice it was gone for months. I never found it.
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
1,091
Location
Colorado
I have both the original SM 2 which I still use and the Vision 2 (new in the box). I had another SM 1 that I used which went "missing" but I didn't notice it was gone for months. I never found it.
I had, at one time, 2 SM2's and 2 SM1's....one of each being used and one of each new in the box as a collectible. I also lost one of my SM1's that also went "missing" from my office at work years ago...I often fished a small pond at lunch near my work so I left that outfit there for the days I could slip away. I came in one day and opened my storage closet and noticed my rod and SM1 were both "missing".....I had to put my other unused SM1 into service at that point, but no longer left any gear at work. Ironically, I owned the company....so even an owners items are not completely safe. The SM1 is unique in that it is likely one of the smallest reels ever produced with a full sealed/stacked drag. At 2.5" diameter it's quite tiny and a gem on a 6'6" +/- range 2wt or 3wt rod.
 

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
920
Location
North Carolina
The issue is for their use today a couple things....they are somewhat heavy SM1 4.2 oz 2.5" diameter - SM2 4.6oz 3.0" diameter - SM3 5.4 oz 3.4" diameter.....the SM3 would make an OK modern 5/6 wt reel...but the SM2 is too heavy for a 3wt- light 4 wt which is where it is sized.....and the advertised weights are lighter than reality...my SM2 weighs 4.9oz empty. And additionally, they are small arbor and small diameter reels
You nailed exactly why I've always been underwhelmed with the SMs (well, what you said plus I prefer reels with a sound). Beautiful to look at (stunning) and so smooth, but just had a hard time pairing them with a rod. A few years back I picked up a never fished SM2 (the SM1 was just too tiny for me to consider - line coiling concerns) but sold it a year or so later because I just always found myself deciding that some other reel was a better fit for a particular rod (even glass rods), and it was too expensive to keep in a box in the closet. It'll be interesting to see the specs on the new reels. I certainly would expect the diameters to be more modern, but curious to see how much they weigh (Ross certainly didn't go light with the new Gunnisons). I guess I'm the only one underwhelmed by the looks of the new one. I certainly don't hate it, I just think the original wins the beauty contest.
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
1,091
Location
Colorado
You nailed exactly why I've always been underwhelmed with the SMs (well, what you said plus I prefer reels with a sound). Beautiful to look at (stunning) and so smooth, but just had a hard time pairing them with a rod. A few years back I picked up a never fished SM2 (the SM1 was just too tiny for me to consider - line coiling concerns) but sold it a year or so later because I just always found myself deciding that some other reel was a better fit for a particular rod (even glass rods), and it was too expensive to keep in a box in the closet. It'll be interesting to see the specs on the new reels. I certainly would expect the diameters to be more modern, but curious to see how much they weigh (Ross certainly didn't go light with the new Gunnisons). I guess I'm the only one underwhelmed by the looks of the new one. I certainly don't hate it, I just think the original wins the beauty contest.
I would agree that the original was a beautiful reel....it was silent retrieve, but a nice click outgoing. Smooth it was, maybe the best I have ever felt and the free spool was unbelievable. The pairing issue for modern rods, both in diameter and weight...is tough...SM2 must almost be regulated to an 8' 3wt or 8' 4wt and that is about it. What my hope for the new SM is - it will not be as heavy as the new Gunnison, it will be as smooth as the original, it will not have the 3.4"+ diameter for a 3/4 that the Evo R/LTX have, it will also not have the dinner plate sized 3.8" diameter for 5/6 that Evo R/LTX has....it will have a narrower than 1.1" spool...it's tolerances and arbor will be as tight and un-flexing as the original. I would love to see a 3/4 - 3" at 4oz, a 4/5 at 3.25"-3.4" at 5 oz and a 5/6 at 3.5-3.6" at 5.4-5.9 oz. The new one's looks will take some getting used to...I like some of the original repeat details...but part of me wonders if they shouldn't have also offered a ported version like the SM Vision, rather than solid backed.
 

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
920
Location
North Carolina
What my hope for the new SM is - it will not be as heavy as the new Gunnison, it will be as smooth as the original, it will not have the 3.4"+ diameter for a 3/4 that the Evo R/LTX have, it will also not have the dinner plate sized 3.8" diameter for 5/6 that Evo R/LTX has....it will have a narrower than 1.1" spool...it's tolerances and arbor will be as tight and un-flexing as the original. I would love to see a 3/4 - 3" at 4oz, a 4/5 at 3.25"-3.4" at 5 oz and a 5/6 at 3.5-3.6" at 5.4-5.9 oz.
Was looking at the pics again (still don't love the looks; the front/spool side looks great, though I'd have chosen a different handle, but just think that the drag knob cap makes the reel look less classy for lack of a better term). Anyways, not sure which model is shown in the photos, but assuming the foot is the Ross standard foot, the interior spool width looks to be 0.875" (so wider than on the originals, but still relatively narrow) and diameter looks to be around 3.125" +/- (so perhaps that's the 3/4?). Hard to tell from the pics, but the spool looks to have some pretty wide openings and so perhaps that will keep the weight down (though it didn't on the new Gunnisons). Anyways, presumably the official specs will be known soon enough.
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
1,091
Location
Colorado
The Specs are in.............


Since Ross Reels started in 1973, there has been one model that epitomizes what a Ross Reel is: The San Miguel. It defined the ultimate in class and finesse, and now, over two decades since it was first launched, the classic returns.

Meticulously designed in our Colorado factory, the new San Miguel blends modern machining and materials with all of the elements that made the original iconic. Returning are the polished high gloss black finish on a solid backed frame, the liquid smooth free spool, wide range adjustable sealed drag and the famous "flower petal" porting.

This new version also debuts modernizing features such as a canvas micarta handle, a material used in high end custom knives to improve grip when wet. The precision sealed drag system consists of a carbon / stainless steel stack up, yielding powerful yet smooth resistance. The large arbor spool is accentuated by a machined stainless steel push-button release that looks as good as it performs.

This integration of classic and new features make this reel a worthy heir of the iconic San Miguel name.




Features:

- Classic San Miguel aethetic coupled with modern performance updates.

- Polished, high gloss black finish

- Powerful and smooth carbon / stainless drag system

- Canvas micarta handle enhances grip when wet.

- Large arbor for fast retrieval and reduced line memory.

- Push-button spool release

- Available in sizes 3/4, 4/5, 5/6

SIZE 3/4 4/5 5/6
Width 0.88" 0.88" 0.88"
Diameter 2.95" 3.27" 3.52"
Weight 5.40 oz 5.80 oz 6.00 oz
Line Weight 3-4wt 4-5wt 5-6wt
Line Capacity
WF3 + 65 WF4 + 50 WF4 + 90 WF5 + 100 WF5 + 75 WF6 + 80
Reel MSRP $595 $595 $595
Spool MSRP $446 $446 $446




LIMITED LIFETIME WARRANTY


MADE IN COLORADO
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
1,091
Location
Colorado
Pretty hefty.
I was hoping for a shade lighter in weight. The 3/4 is basically an SM2 in size, but the original SM2 is actually lighter- I don't see that reel balancing any 3wts other than a long 3wt...like 8'6"+ and on current rods it will be on the heavy side. The 4/5 is heavier than most 4/5's but still in the wheelhouse by a mere 1/2oz or so. The 5/6 is a winner at 3.5"s and 6oz. An Abel Super 5/6 is 6.23oz and a Hatch 5plus is 6.2oz an original Abel SD was 3.5" and 5.9oz....so I see the new SM 5/6 being the most likely to balance well on modern big 5wts and moderate 6wts...it's the one of the three that most falls into modern market wheelhouse of dimensions and weight. The 4/5 is a close second also being almost identical to an Abel Super 4/5. The 3/4 is still a 3" San Miguel that is heavy and gives me angst as to where it fills a role.
 

justahack

Well-known member
Messages
208
Reaction score
101
Location
co
Thanks cooutlaw. Those look a bit heavy for what I've got, both in terms of fly rods and budget. I could see the 3/4 on a 9'4wt, but a pretty penny.
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
1,091
Location
Colorado
Thanks cooutlaw. Those look a bit heavy for what I've got, both in terms of fly rods and budget. I could see the 3/4 on a 9'4wt, but a pretty penny.
I agree, back in the day a 3" reel on a 5wt wasn't unusual, today those rods are using 3.5" + size reels, at 2.95" diameter the 3/4 although could go on 9' 4wt, by today's standards it would look pretty small - think of this- a Hatch 2 plus has a 3" diameter and an Abel TR 2/3 has a 3" diameter, both are slightly LARGER than the upcoming 3/4 San Miguel, but weigh MUCH less... it's basically just like the original SM2, which again was slightly lighter even than the new 3/4, it's just a hard to utilize size for the weight. I could be all wet here...but I suspect that's what has kept Ross Gunnison sales at marginal levels compared to other Ross models too...I appreciate the legacy and the originality factor...it's nostalgic and I can't help but like it....but for me...the 4/5 model could have a place, the 5/6 will definitely have a place with me (I'm thinking my GS886- for a really sweet vintage type configuration with modern tech.)....but the 3/4 I just can't see a place for....it's a 5.4oz, sub 3", 3wt class reel....I can't think of a 3 wt or 4wt modern rod I own that configuration would work well on. Now, maybe a 3oz + vintage 3 or 4wt, 8' - 8'6" rod....but then, why wouldn't you just match that to a vintage reel of same proportions. 4/5 and 5/6 I'm a fan....the 3/4 I'm disappointed...and would rather just use an original SM2 instead on a vintage rod, or a different model reel altogether on a modern rod. I think they missed the mark with the 3/4.
 

justahack

Well-known member
Messages
208
Reaction score
101
Location
co
I agree, back in the day a 3" reel on a 5wt wasn't unusual, today those rods are using 3.5" + size reels, at 2.95" diameter the 3/4 although could go on 9' 4wt, by today's standards it would look pretty small - think of this- a Hatch 2 plus has a 3" diameter and an Abel TR 2/3 has a 3" diameter, both are slightly LARGER than the upcoming 3/4 San Miguel, but weigh MUCH less... it's basically just like the original SM2, which again was slightly lighter even than the new 3/4, it's just a hard to utilize size for the weight. I could be all wet here...but I suspect that's what has kept Ross Gunnison sales at marginal levels compared to other Ross models too...I appreciate the legacy and the originality factor...it's nostalgic and I can't help but like it....but for me...the 4/5 model could have a place, the 5/6 will definitely have a place with me (I'm thinking my GS886- for a really sweet vintage type configuration with modern tech.)....but the 3/4 I just can't see a place for....it's a 5.4oz, sub 3", 3wt class reel....I can't think of a 3 wt or 4wt modern rod I own that configuration would work well on. Now, maybe a 3oz + vintage 3 or 4wt, 8' - 8'6" rod....but then, why wouldn't you just match that to a vintage reel of same proportions. 4/5 and 5/6 I'm a fan....the 3/4 I'm disappointed...and would rather just use an original SM2 instead on a vintage rod, or a different model reel altogether on a modern rod. I think they missed the mark with the 3/4.
Yeah, that sums it up nicely. I was really hoping that these would be a bit lighter. I suspect the functionality is an upgrade from the original, but it would have been nice to see the other attributes updated at the same time.
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,403
Reaction score
1,091
Location
Colorado
Yeah, that sums it up nicely. I was really hoping that these would be a bit lighter. I suspect the functionality is an upgrade from the original, but it would have been nice to see the other attributes updated at the same time.
I'm more afraid, not having seen one in person yet, that it won't be up to the standards of the original quality wise - you've got to remember, the original SM series sold for $395 to $495 back in the early 1990's. It was the smoothest and most "ball bearing" like arbor of any fly reel ever produced...a light flick of the handle would yield spool spinning you could time on a watch....way smooth, the machining fit and tolerances were impeccable, they quit producing it because the cost to manufacture it was so high and very labor intensive in assembly by hand...the drag was a work of art and infinitely adjustable. I look at my originals and to this day, I have not found a reel that compares quality wise....BUT....the sizing of the originals is, by today's standards, very antiquated and just won't work well with modern material weight rods. I almost wish they would have ported the back like the SM Visions were...that would have shaved another 1/2- 1 oz+ off each reel and put them more solidly in today's weight classes. But I suppose they wanted to honor the original design. I'm not sure that other than adding a large arbor, there was much they could have done to improve on, or upgrade, from the original other than making it a touch more "current day" friendly in dimensions than they did.
 
Top