Scott Centric Fly Rods

bevanwj

Well-known member
Messages
180
Reaction score
24
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
I found the above video review somewhat confusing. He describes the Centric as being "faster" than the Radian which contradicts everything I have read about the Centric thus far. Yes, it is a fast rod, it casts longer with less effort, it bends further down the blank and it is has more reserve power down into the butt section but it falls somewhere between the G- Series and the Radian in terms of overall recovery speed. I'm sure that is how Telluride described the Centric or am I misunderstanding this?
 

cooutlaw

Well-known member
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
385
Location
Colorado
I found the above video review somewhat confusing. He describes the Centric as being "faster" than the Radian which contradicts everything I have read about the Centric thus far. Yes, it is a fast rod, it casts longer with less effort, it bends further down the blank and it is has more reserve power down into the butt section but it falls somewhere between the G- Series and the Radian in terms of overall recovery speed. I'm sure that is how Telluride described the Centric or am I misunderstanding this?
IMO, it depends on which model in the series and an individual description of fast and every other descriptor used - IE: Fast is more than just stiff. I opined earlier that while C906/FB is perhaps more shy and progressive than Radian 906FB...it has plenty of reserve, very capable, and just not as "in your face" with power...conversely I opined that C904 and C905 would compare more directly with a fast rod category....fast, by most accounts thus far, I see as referring to a combination of total power on tap, line speed, and the acceptable range of casting strokes the rod permits from the angler. The nuances are many with this series and I again opine that reviews will be all over the board, and that the 1st time opinions casting these rods will vary dramatically to the 10th time casting...the reviews we will need to pay attention to will be done by those who have spent an adequate amount of time with the rods to really know them.....I'm now in week 3 and still learning about C906FB every time I cast it. The general consensus however, is that the C905 is a faster 5wt than the C906 is a faster 6wt. I still contend moderate/fast, more progressive and more versatile range than Radian, some models faster, some fairly equal, and some appearing (because of progressiveness) slightly slower than Radian. All substantially faster than GS, all capable of Radian duties and many still give the illusion of less power until uncorked....an anomaly of sorts....with a wiiiide range of versatility. I don't think you are misunderstanding anything....I think all reviews thus far, INCLUDING mine, are struggling for accurate descriptors and to relay felt observations....it's tough to label this series...let alone the individual models.....I would encourage everyone to cast and/or fish them for themselves and report their feelings - lord knows we need all the help we can get describing these rods.
 

osseous

Well-known member
Messages
1,519
Reaction score
213
The number one selling rod in any range is usually the 9' 5wt...by a wide margin. I have heard Bartschi and other rod designers elaborate on just how critical that one model is to the success of the range- because not only is it the one that they stand to sell the most of, it is also the one most will review and talk up...or down.

I can envision the design of the 9' 5wt Centric straying less far from Radian than any other in the line. It's a smart move. We may be seeing a little different perception of the 9-5 than we will the remainder of Centric models

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

the norseman

Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
6
Location
Black Hills of South Dakota
Thank you for posting, what I call the "Visual Review " by
The Nordic Angler.

Daniel D. Holm is quite the Gentleman, and gave a very
entertaining review of the Scott Centric. He did all in a really
understandable way to me.

What I don't understand is why the Centric was not
manufactured with the Scott Internal Ferrules?

Even though I'm not in the Market for the Centric, it definitely
would be my next Fast Rod.

I'm really interested in the Scott G Fly Rod. As I "Grow Up"
I am finding out that the Scott G 8'8" 4wt would be perfect
for the Creek(s) around here.

Thanks for this Great Thread.

Enabling.JPG
 

el jefe

Well-known member
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
170
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Thank you for posting, what I call the "Visual Review " by
The Nordic Angler.

Daniel D. Holm is quite the Gentleman, and gave a very
entertaining review of the Scott Centric. He did all in a really
understandable way to me.

What I don't understand is why the Centric was not
manufactured with the Scott Internal Ferrules?

Even though I'm not in the Market for the Centric, it definitely
would be my next Fast Rod.

I'm really interested in the Scott G Fly Rod. As I "Grow Up"
I am finding out that the Scott G 8'8" 4wt would be perfect
for the Creek(s) around here.

Thanks for this Great Thread.

View attachment 26023
I don't know the reasoning, but when Scott went from the S3 to the S4 in their fast rod lineup, they went from the internal ferrules to the sleeve ferrules. I have the S3, and I really enjoy it. The S4 is highly regarded in its own right. I love the Scott rods with the internal ferrules, but I also have a Radian that I love, too, even though it does have a different feel.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
11,643
Reaction score
700
Location
-
The Hollow Internal Spigot Ferrule goes back to original Scott Pow-R-Ply fiberglass rods form the early 1970's. Their intent then was twofold, 1. to not create dead spots and 2. to actually contribute via stiffening a section to the taper of the rod...and they worked. The downside, which remains, is the are more fragile, harder to get a perfect fit as they are 3 pieces instead of tip-over's 2, which are stronger and today far less obtrusive than in the past.

So, for both performance, integrity and strength faster or higher line weight rods have most all gone to the Fenwick invented tip-over. I have some early graphites, notably Ted Simroe's Boron/Graphites, that have both, tip-overs in the lower rod and spigots (though his were solid boron) in the tip sections. Today, aesthetics notwithstanding (I like the way spigots look too), a well engineered tip-over built on mandrel as part of the section is the far superior design.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
11,643
Reaction score
700
Location
-
I didn't take his assessment of Igniter as negative. Just colorful. I have no experience with any of these rods.
Nor did I. Also, I recall his similar review of Igniter when it was new in which he similarly responded, "this is going to cost me a lot of money!" My Igniter #5 was a pre-production "top secret" field test sample I received in June prior to its September release. It came days prior to my departure for the West and I had no opportunity to lawn cast it. Its first cast was on the Henry's Fork and it was not love at first cast. I don't recall the existing reel and line I had fished out of my drawer to speculatively fish on it but it proved too light weight for balance and, the I think Cortland line, was not perfect either. Of courser, I persisted and learned it and began to see the brilliance of its design, while holding my hand over it's name whenever in the presence of other anglers and, yes, ask a few did to which I demurred.

Then I got a perfect matching for balance, performance, even color reel, a Sage 5 1/2 oz. Spectrum Max Chipotle and an IT Gold and the rod really began to sing it tune. Its song, like all its preceding Sage uber performance series from TCR to TCX to Method and now Igniter is certainly not, nor intended to be, for everyangler. For the fly fisher who requires full extension of 15'+ leaders followed by maximum articulation at any distance + on big rivers, very few current production rods perform in Igniter's league, perhaps Asquith #5 comes closest. This is likely why George Anderson did not include Igniter in the "power" group of his last 5-Weight Shootout, he couldn't bear a Sage beating out all his other, more preferred brands. It even has some progressiveness in it upper section which he could not complain about being too stiff.
 

steveid

Well-known member
Messages
525
Reaction score
36
Nor did I. Also, I recall his similar review of Igniter when it was new in which he similarly responded, "this is going to cost me a lot of money!" My Igniter #5 was a pre-production "top secret" field test sample I received in June prior to its September release. It came days prior to my departure for the West and I had no opportunity to lawn cast it. Its first cast was on the Henry's Fork and it was not love at first cast. I don't recall the existing reel and line I had fished out of my drawer to speculatively fish on it but it proved too light weight for balance and, the I think Cortland line, was not perfect either. Of courser, I persisted and learned it and began to see the brilliance of its design, while holding my hand over it's name whenever in the presence of other anglers and, yes, ask a few did to which I demurred.

Then I got a perfect matching for balance, performance, even color reel, a Sage 5 1/2 oz. Spectrum Max Chipotle and an IT Gold and the rod really began to sing it tune. Its song, like all its preceding Sage uber performance series from TCR to TCX to Method and now Igniter is certainly not, nor intended to be, for everyangler. For the fly fisher who requires full extension of 15'+ leaders followed by maximum articulation at any distance + on big rivers, very few current production rods perform in Igniter's league, perhaps Asquith #5 comes closest. This is likely why George Anderson did not include Igniter in the "power" group of his last 5-Weight Shootout, he couldn't bear a Sage beating out all his other, more preferred brands. It even has some progressiveness in it upper section which he could not complain about being too stiff.
I had avoided reading his 2020 shootout, but just took a look at it. Gads! It's getting worse and worse. It's like none of the reviewers have ever had an individual thought or preference, either. "MUST. COMPLY. WITH. GEORGE." This alone displays the major flaw in their testing. They are all getting influenced by each other in an echo chamber.

It's truly sad.
 
Last edited:

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
800
Reaction score
195
Location
North Carolina
It's getting worse and worse. It's like none of the reviewers have ever had an individual thought or preference, either. "MUST. COMPLY. WITH. GEORGE." This alone displays the major flaw in their testing. They are all getting influenced by each other in an echo chamber.
Totally agree, but the methodology/categories/testing procedures are at best flawed and at worst subject to manipulation such that pre-testing rankings are confirmed. But the shootouts are no doubt popular and many people apparently buy blind based on their rankings, without peeling back the onion. Just don't get it.
 

johan851

Well-known member
Messages
129
Reaction score
58
Totally agree, but the methodology/categories/testing procedures are at best flawed and at worst subject to manipulation such that pre-testing rankings are confirmed. But the shootouts are no doubt popular and many people apparently buy blind based on their rankings, without peeling back the onion. Just don't get it.
Not only that... I once pulled their data into a spreadsheet because I wanted to play with different weightings. I discovered that in some cases the totals didn't add up correctly, and when I fixed them the rankings changed. :D
 
Top