Scott Centric Fly Rods

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,137
Reaction score
548
Location
Colorado
Prudent approach. I am excited by the Centric reviews, as I was by the Radian reviews. Two things sold me on the Radian. One, I saw a customer review of the Radian model in which I was interested, on the TA site, and it was heaping praise on the rod. Two, I cast that same model, and I was hooked (a little fishing pun, there).

There is a lot of hyperbole when a new rod series launches from certain manufacturers. I think it takes some time for the consumers to sort out which are the best models; the cream will rise to the top, and as a group we will figure out which models are best. And, of course, in spite of all that, sometimes even the agreed upon stars of a series won't do it for you, which is why it's best to know yourself and your preferences, and view the fly shop reviews through your own filter.

As an example of the Radian and popular models, the 905 and 906 were kind of the stars of that series in reviews, but the 1004 proved to be very popular with consumers, though not as much talked about.

EDIT: And another thing...

Sometimes when a new rod series comes out, I have a hard time differentiating between words that are actually written about the rod, and words that are written for the aggrandizement of the reviewer. I think some shops try to "out-prose" the others; it's more the reviewer coming off as more sophisticated than the next guy, and it leads to overstatements about the rods. I mean, seriously, is the Centric 906 that much better than the Radian 906? That Radian 906 is a pretty damn good rod, had a production run of 7 years, and was still highly regarded and sought after by the public. I think that many fly shops and reviewers, in attempting to come off as more authoritative, inflate the actual attributes of the rod. As a for instance, go back and look at rod reviews from 20 years ago. You'll see some of the exact same phrases applied then as you do now. If you just go by the language and the hyperbole attending some of these rod introductions, there have been no actual improvements to fly rods in at least the last two decades. We didn't suddenly start being able to place a fly in a teacup at 50'; that's been going on since the turn of the century.
This is for sure the case amidst not only the fly fishing industry but every industry.....look at cars...is this years version with minor changes, maybe even cosmetic/aesthetic and a few moved switches and dials and a color change all that different from last years? AND....even if something is a complete remodel...is it necessarily better than it's predecessor - sometimes maybe - but often not the case. I have had pickups from the same brand and in many cases the older versions were superior to the new versions in almost all aspects. BUT...new designs are meant to enhance user experience and as such are hyped to be "latest and greatest" always has been and always will be to sell product....it's interesting too that consumers brought this on themselves...they always expect newer, bigger, better, stronger, faster....demand it....more style...more current....more, more....makers must produce to meet this demand and expectation.....imagine if consumers were just totally happy and satisfied with a product and expected no more ever.....heck, even 75 year old toothpaste brands keep introducing new whitening, flavorings, better this and that's....some people just brushed their teeth for 50 years with it contently. To this point, I have often wondered....why do makers keep these new intro products coming....and arguably the answer is always new tech....new insights...new style...new science....new whatever.....but really isn't it simply to keep up with the Joneses'.....stay competitive among their competition....?? Stay in front of consumers ? Ironically, our sport could be different...and it somewhat is....bamboo for instance.....there is no new science (to my knowledge) and likely never will be in bamboo....they are still selling the same tapers and same construction as they did 50+ years ago....makers didn't release anything new every few years....they haven't changed their standard line of products ever....oh maybe a new cosmetic or or an extra side to a hex....but same exact process and material.....still selling, just the same as it was 50 years ago. Meanwhile, carbon tech, weave, material science, resins, taper design, all continue to "play" with the material for moderate at best, if not microscopic changes with each introduction....I subscribe that the rods today are so far advanced that until they develop self casting rods....there are very limited changes available for improvement.....I do not expect to see any groundbreaking, game changing, introductions happen in my lifetime....better rods overall today than once were? Absolutely. An embarrassment of riches in choices for specialized usage? Yup. Game changing....year to year? Nope. Realistically, every seasoned angler on the planet could productively fish their rods of choice from yesterday or today for the rest of their days and be perfectly fine....never likely change the outcome of their enjoyment or fishing satisfaction....but, as humans, we have the innate desire to advance...to progress....to more....it's the demand of "more". I like to experience new stuff too....but is it always better....or just different? Rods, I have found, are usually more different...than better....relative of course....but specialized by intended usage and incremental in advancements....they simply become ANOTHER good fly rod......nobody is going to discover fire or electricity in the fly rod space. Tom Morgan may have been on to something when he said a good fly rod will always be a good fly rod. Luckily for us, there are plenty of good fly rods out there, decades of them,....and, they continue to produce "more".
 

Unknownflyman

Well-known member
Messages
3,161
Reaction score
457
Location
L'Étoile du Nord
I trust well known members reviews on this forum by a considerable margin over sales reviews. Steveid- nice review for me as well, it has context where I can evaluate his views and experiences with my own experiences, many sales reviews lack that context because they dont want to say much nice about other similar rods and divert attention from the target rod, so its really hard to trust for me those reviews and many just dont make any sense, many times they contradict themselves, trying to "sell" the ultimate ideal of the rod and a image, most of us that have been around the block more than a couple times view those inconsistencies as notable and glaring either errors or fabrications.

This is North America go to a car dealership and talk to the guy, its just the way it is, Ford, Dodge, Chevy, Tesla, need I say more?

Nice reviews forum members!

Sage aligned and compressed the fibers on the Konnetic HD built series, I see this Scott has that with the centric which is an improvement in design for me but not a deal breaker. For me the jump from One to X was good but I`m fishing the hell out of my One, with great satisfaction. A great fly rod will always be a beloved and great fly rod, and after nostalgia kicks in a collectors item.

A couple more thoughts...

The term fast could mean anything these days, remember when speed was needed to sell rods, the rod could be medium fast or medium but still a great rod, the term fast is a dog whistle term to draw in interest, it means little to me especially without context.

Scott builds fine, quality rods, and I wish them the best in their endeavors, the more companies building fine rods the better.
 

steveid

Well-known member
Messages
544
Reaction score
57
Another interesting thing to note is that the rod is merely a delivery mechanism. It's only purpose is to cast a line and deliver a desired presentation. Sure, there are many ways to deliver the presentation. High-line speed, slower and more delicate, with an aerial mend, straight as an arrow, tight loop, open loop.

How do we improve upon a rod that is delivering the exact loop we are looking for? Can we make a perfect cast more perfect? Would it be better to make that perfect cast with a rod that is 1/16 oz lighter?

Sometimes it feels we are chasing shadows.

I have a Sage Bolt 790 that casts incredibly. I bought the Igniter 790 anyways. The Igniter is 7/16 oz lighter, weighing the same as what a Bolt 6 weight weighed. Maybe it also swings lighter. I wouldn't know and I don't prioritize swing weight too highly, especially in a saltwater rod. I have no way of measuring line speed between the two. The point is, the Bolt delivers a heck of a loop that will catch any and every fish that the Igniter will catch. It's a rod that is some 3 or 4 generations of carbon older than the Igniter. Did I truly gain anything buying the Igniter, or did I just satisfy my desire to own cool rods?
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
11,745
Reaction score
860
Location
-
I agree, as I most often do, with cooutlaw about the brace of 8 1/2' X's. The #5 is the one that intrigued me and the one I got. Yes, it was wow on first cast but got better and more subtle as I fished it through the season. The first and only 8 1/2'/#5 I've attached to in laterally decades. I could be happy with the #4 too but already love this size in super technical ONE and also have the small stream optimized T LL in this same size, I'm covered. Sage has been nailing the 8 1/2' trout rods for a while now.

"I mean, seriously, is the Centric 906 that much better than the Radian 906? That Radian 906 is a pretty damn good rod." el jefe

I fish a hard to equal NRX 9'/#6 and dynamite (literally) specialized Method #6...try this rod during a brown drake spinner fall. My pard Dillon has the very fine Radian #6, arguably the star of Radians. So, George Anderson does a 6-Weight Shootout and do our rods top the chart? No Douglas SKY does. Now I like Douglas rods and like their designer Fred Contaoi a lot so, not that I'm influenced by Anderson, I give the #6 a test cast at the January Show. Holy Cow, by springtime its in my kit. In camp on the Missouri in Montana we give a few 6's a lawn comparo, SKY #6 easily dominates. Latter, dillon and I switched 6's on a broad stretch of river...he wants to trade. (Both with Golds)

It is hard, many of us admire and have a long positive relationship with our great rod makers like Scott, Sage and Loomis and when one of them introduces a much anticipated flagship line-up we are legitimately excited. Smaller, newer, less storied companies we are less connected with...lack of history. Nevertheless, from a fishing perspective, the question for me is not whether Centric is better than Radian #6, I'll bet it is, but is it better than SKY #6, which also has a (not red) snugging bushing in the reel seat lock nut and a Recoil guide set.
 
Last edited:

dswice

Well-known member
Messages
94
Reaction score
41
Location
FL
Another interesting thing to note is that the rod is merely a delivery mechanism. It's only purpose is to cast a line and deliver a desired presentation. Sure, there are many ways to deliver the presentation. High-line speed, slower and more delicate, with an aerial mend, straight as an arrow, tight loop, open loop.

How do we improve upon a rod that is delivering the exact loop we are looking for? Can we make a perfect cast more perfect? Would it be better to make that perfect cast with a rod that is 1/16 oz lighter?

Sometimes it feels we are chasing shadows.

I have a Sage Bolt 790 that casts incredibly. I bought the Igniter 790 anyways. The Igniter is 7/16 oz lighter, weighing the same as what a Bolt 6 weight weighed. Maybe it also swings lighter. I wouldn't know and I don't prioritize swing weight too highly, especially in a saltwater rod. I have no way of measuring line speed between the two. The point is, the Bolt delivers a heck of a loop that will catch any and every fish that the Igniter will catch. It's a rod that is some 3 or 4 generations of carbon older than the Igniter. Did I truly gain anything buying the Igniter, or did I just satisfy my desire to own cool rods?
Your statements and rhetorical questions in this post ring true and remind me of the "law of diminishing returns".
 

el jefe

Well-known member
Messages
2,657
Reaction score
214
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Fly rods have certainly improved over the years. They have gotten lighter and more responsive, and I do think that the manufacturers are utilizing new materials to improve recovery rates, that combine fast with feel. And the evolution of the Euro rods is another improvement in fly rods, as are trout spey. At the end of the day, though, fly rods are tubes, and there is only so much one can do with them. I get the big improvements in cars and trucks, but those have a lot of moving parts; a fly rod has none. You can only make a fly rod so light, and then it's important to find the taper that works for you (and properly matched with line) in the appropriate line weight so you can fish it at your normal distance range.

I would like to try the Centric 1004. It sounds like it is built more as a Euro/crossover rod, more so than the Radian. That is an example of a new rod with something truly new to offer.
 

callihan_44

Well-known member
Messages
141
Reaction score
50
For me, the Centric 904 will replace an NRX+ 490 that I like but don’t love (headed soon to a popular auction site under the same username)
curious how well you like the centric 904 over the nrx+490? I picked up the nrx+490 and spent 10 hrs on the water loaded with sa infinity line and Im on the fence about it's performance.. my favorite 4wt is the sage x which I can cast with ease long and short, it seems the nrx+ loads about half way tip to center section then hits a brick wall in the lower section with very little flexing... to me the nrx+ wants lots of line in the air , roll casting didnt do it for me either....Im gonna give it one more shot then decide , the rod itself is very nice looking though and I like the grip ...I really like the way the radians cast
 

dr d

Well-known member
Messages
394
Reaction score
58
hi,

maybe one problem is to keep it simple as r+d. there is - imho - too much influencing and hype today.

fact is to achieve or perhaps modificate a taper that really works is on top.beyond it

all the technical ingredients that really works.not every resin or supplement will be

a winner.

it´s interesting for me that f.e. rajeff, szmutni, croston, contanoi and carl mc neil stay actual on the surer side ...;)

no or relative small technical overloading, in most cases strictly defined tapers .

btw i´ve heard from a designer which is very estimated in this forum that 3 of them should

work with the same "korea-kitchen".

and in the end they must have top practical experience - i´ve no doubt by the above mentioned.


nice we.


thomas
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
11,745
Reaction score
860
Location
-
it´s interesting for me that f.e. rajeff, szmutni, croston, contanoi and carl mc neil stay actual on the surer side ...;)

no or relative small technical overloading, in most cases strictly defined tapers .

btw i´ve heard from a designer which is very estimated in this forum that 3 of them should

work with the same "korea-kitchen". nice we. thomas
As a fan of creative taper designers and material science applications from the aero-space-military industries I find plenty of new rods to embrace advancement that enhance my angling enjoyment. Do I catch more fish as a result? Arguably no. cooutlaw refers to "self casting" rods, well, I hope to stay in the game personally but back in 1986 my old pal, Greg, upon getting a Sage RPL said, "This rods is a self caster, I can't make it do anything wrong". Today he fishes Asquith. I tend to buy the same toothpaste over and over but did convert years ago to electric toothbrushes, I even take one in my travel kit on fishing trips. Because of my volunteering with PHWFF, I have cast plenty of their standards issue simple TFO rods and reels. These are the simple tube delivery systems mentioned above. And they ae not bad, other than some highly technical presentations, I would no doubt catch most of the fish I can catch with one of these...I choose not to though.

So last winter I got a new Sage 8 1/2'/#4 Trout LL. I did not need it as I was already happily fishing a Scott 8'4"/#4 for the same type of environments it is intended by design for. Come spring I fished both of them, by late spring the T LL was dominating 90% of the time and the wonderful Scott was staying home; the Sage was lighter, quicker recovering, more capable and felt better. Now a Taylor Anomaly Z 8 1/2'/#4 proto is in my kit for sampling, you would not know it is the same size and class rod...maybe it isn't. It fishes radically differently. Lighter yet than the feather light T LL with a very different taper, I'm not sure what it projects to be for habitat matching. This advanced tech little thing could surly handle more creek than the Sage or Scott.

dr d mentions the esteemed rod designers from Loomis, Stickman, Hardy and Douglas to which I'll add Sage's Siem and Knox, Scott's Bartschi and the upcoming young designers Matthew Taylor at Taylor and Joe Goodspeed at T&T. These taper experts, and their may be others I don't know of, are intent on creating the finest, most uncompromising fly rods they can and work tirelessly to that end. Like the three #4's I described some in the previous paragraph, the results of their development may yield dramatically differing results even with the same habitat intent. They all want us to catch fish with their rods but our individual interpretation of which one we want to do that with will vary by how many of us there are.
 

ibookje

Well-known member
Messages
310
Reaction score
9
It still amazes me that people want to judge a 4 or 5wt.rod on it's ability to cast 100 feet.Who really does that?
Go to a fly show and that’s all I see when folks are checking out a rod.
“Yes i like this rod” :)
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,137
Reaction score
548
Location
Colorado
el jefe said " there have been no actual improvements to fly rods in at least the last two decades"
I disagree strongly with that statement.
Might wanna read the entire context of what he said, not just one extracted line :

"As a for instance, go back and look at rod reviews from 20 years ago. You'll see some of the exact same phrases applied then as you do now. If you just go by the language and the hyperbole attending some of these rod introductions, there have been no actual improvements to fly rods in at least the last two decades. We didn't suddenly start being able to place a fly in a teacup at 50'; that's been going on since the turn of the century."

He was comparing decade to decade rod descriptors in reviews not having changed and thus using the same verbiage - where one could draw the assumption that with descriptors being identical that no actual changes made could be assumed.

His next post in the thread #186 offered his beliefs:

Fly rods have certainly improved over the years. They have gotten lighter and more responsive, and I do think that the manufacturers are utilizing new materials to improve recovery rates, that combine fast with feel. And the evolution of the Euro rods is another improvement in fly rods, as are trout spey.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
11,745
Reaction score
860
Location
-
I agree it is an issue to take comments out of context and some Members respond without reading through the thread, and this is a long one.

dynaflow, It may be me you are referring to as I wrote about hooking a fish 100' away on a 5-weight. My actual cast I'm guessing was perhaps 65 - 70' followed by a long, much mended, slack line feed, dead drift. I attempt this extra long drift with occasional blocked approaches to rising trout, infrequently successful but sometimes I get lucky.

I field four 5-weights in my kit; currently a Sage X 8 1/2'/#5 and a Douglas SKY-G 9'/#5 both medium fast but for me are my deeper flexing, big creek to mid size river, in close to further out more delicate dry fly rods. I find inappropriate the division of rods into Presentation and Power rods as all my trout rods are for presentation. My second brace are Sage Igniter and Taylor Truth these are my most fished bigger river rods. Not ideal though adequately capable of casting off the tip in close but offer precisely articulate presentations from 35' out to wherever the trout is rising. These are my Delaware-Missouri rods. I do the same with 4-weights from small stream DART to spring creek various 8 1/2' models to a 9' bigger water rod, currently Hardy Ultralite. In 6-weight though I field but one 9'er, currently SKY but have been wondering for some time now about a deeper flexing #6 that crosses over into 5-weight territory. I like extra line mass for both live and slack line control but there are not a lot of rods in this specialized and not too popular class...8'8" GS, 9' T LL, 9' Upstream+ and perhaps this new Centric. Maybe early next spring.
 

callihan_44

Well-known member
Messages
141
Reaction score
50
well I jumped onboard and ordered a 904 sight unseen, should arrive by friday and will hit the water this weekend to test it out...will compare it to my nrx+490 with infinity smooth line.... havent decided on a reel yet but an abel tr 4/5 might get the nod
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
11,745
Reaction score
860
Location
-
well I jumped onboard and ordered a 904 sight unseen, should arrive by friday and will hit the water this weekend to test it out...will compare it to my nrx+490 with infinity smooth line.... havent decided on a reel yet but an abel tr 4/5 might get the nod
I'll, as no doubt we all will be, interested in your comparative opinion. Because of where I mostly fished this season, 9'#4's have been a dominant configuration for me.
 

omas

Well-known member
Messages
206
Reaction score
40
Location
Great State of Texas
well I jumped onboard and ordered a 904 sight unseen, should arrive by friday and will hit the water this weekend to test it out...will compare it to my nrx+490 with infinity smooth line.... havent decided on a reel yet but an abel tr 4/5 might get the nod
Very interested to hear your thoughts on the comparison.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
11,745
Reaction score
860
Location
-
When I compared 4 9'/#4 rods up on the West Branch which I wrote about a few weeks ago, they were all good +. I do wish a Centric had been available but the H3D was fine the Sage X special and the new Hardy and Loomis NRX+ both very impressive. I identified, nor did my fishing companion, any flaws in NRX+; super smooth and potently progressive it easily generated tight, flat loops at any distance. Well, maybe not at 25' but none of these 4 rod were designed with the intent to be fished on smaller waters. With RIO Gold, NRX+ and Ultralite are both spectacular river sized 4-weights from 2 of our top designers, Rajeff and Croston.
 
Top