el jefe
Well-known member
Some other sources and reviews on the new Centric:
St. Peter's Fly Shop
Hatch Magazine
Angling Trade
St. Peter's Fly Shop
Hatch Magazine
Angling Trade
Scott Centric Fly Rods
- Thread starter brownbass
- Start date
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
czando, Where did you find the Centric #5 to cast with your own rods?
I like both bacon and ice cream but together? Too weird. But Ferdinand the Great put mustard in his coffee...
My experience is some new rods are straight forward and you can get a legitimate impression of them in just a few casting sessions and one fishing trip. I refer to such rods as single dimensional. Others take a learning curve like cooutlaw is experiencing with Centric, these tend to be rods that take time and experimentation to reveal their intricacies of design characteristics. Usually such rods are the ones I wind up liking the best, sometimes, given adequate time, I wind up wondering what was this rod maker thinking? I have a lot of respect and admiration for Jim Bartschi though so I'm not worried...but I sure would like to cast one of these new Scotts.
Regarding way heavy heads. I consider a 9'/#5 to be a dry fly rod to be best cast with a close to true weight line with a long head and rear taper. In my own fishing I can't imagine throwing an overweight shooting head on any of my #5's. However, in a couple of weeks I will be drilling a 350 gr. integrated intermediate head line on a 10-weight for false albacore. What occurs is you are bypassing the tip of the rod, so vital in presentation, reaching deeper into the power curve of the rod's lower tapers. The rods upper taper disappears and goes straight with the trajectory of the line to the point in the taper that sustains the mass of the line, a virtual tip. A good rod that is not small stream intended must have ample lower taper power to support line speed and potential distance casting so reaching deep to achieve the power to throw a much heavier line is very doable. This does not inform, however, what the rod will be like with a correctly matched to its line weight floating line. On any of my dry fly rods even a half heavy line like Infinity or MPX I feel begins to overload the tip, not the rod, causing a loss of sharp responsiveness, giving a sense of dullness. OK for tossing weighted payloads like nymph rigs or casting the entire line on one or two false casts to strafing albies but not articulating a dry fly presentation.
I like both bacon and ice cream but together? Too weird. But Ferdinand the Great put mustard in his coffee...
My experience is some new rods are straight forward and you can get a legitimate impression of them in just a few casting sessions and one fishing trip. I refer to such rods as single dimensional. Others take a learning curve like cooutlaw is experiencing with Centric, these tend to be rods that take time and experimentation to reveal their intricacies of design characteristics. Usually such rods are the ones I wind up liking the best, sometimes, given adequate time, I wind up wondering what was this rod maker thinking? I have a lot of respect and admiration for Jim Bartschi though so I'm not worried...but I sure would like to cast one of these new Scotts.
Regarding way heavy heads. I consider a 9'/#5 to be a dry fly rod to be best cast with a close to true weight line with a long head and rear taper. In my own fishing I can't imagine throwing an overweight shooting head on any of my #5's. However, in a couple of weeks I will be drilling a 350 gr. integrated intermediate head line on a 10-weight for false albacore. What occurs is you are bypassing the tip of the rod, so vital in presentation, reaching deeper into the power curve of the rod's lower tapers. The rods upper taper disappears and goes straight with the trajectory of the line to the point in the taper that sustains the mass of the line, a virtual tip. A good rod that is not small stream intended must have ample lower taper power to support line speed and potential distance casting so reaching deep to achieve the power to throw a much heavier line is very doable. This does not inform, however, what the rod will be like with a correctly matched to its line weight floating line. On any of my dry fly rods even a half heavy line like Infinity or MPX I feel begins to overload the tip, not the rod, causing a loss of sharp responsiveness, giving a sense of dullness. OK for tossing weighted payloads like nymph rigs or casting the entire line on one or two false casts to strafing albies but not articulating a dry fly presentation.
proheli
Well-known member
Haha. It's alright. There is nothing wrong with talking things to death and trying to nail down the minutia. It's great. Personally I'm looking forward to trying the 906. I want something FW/SW to stack on top of a 906 Air. But honestly, I had such a good experience with the 907 Sector I'm already leaning there. Scott has so many 906's right now but vary just enough to really satisfactorily fill someones personal requirement. GS886, GS906, Centric 906/906FB/956/1006, Sector 846, 906. That's all from just one company.
Another social media review on Scott's page......the in-description continues:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/44394462676/permalink/10157834242457677/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/44394462676/permalink/10157834242457677/
I cast the 9 foot 4 and 5 weights today. Both rods were lined with Rio Technical Trout and had a 9 foot tapered leader with a piece of yarn tied on.
I started with the 4 weight, thinking I had the 5 weight in my hand. That threw me off for a little bit. I next went to the 5, then came back to the 4. The last rod I cast prior to this was my Igniter 9 weight, which made the transition back to trout rods a bit more difficult while I remembered how to throw a 4/5 weight. The last couple of years I have tailored my casting practice to saltwater fishing, where line speed is king, and my stroke has likely adapted to throwing 7-12 weight rods. I live in the west, and my primary fishing opportunities are for trout, so I spend more time actually fishing with a 4 or 5 weight in hand.
My thoughts on the 4 weight:
First impression didn't make me fall in love. It felt like I couldn't lean on it and generate line speed. It isn't a rod that fit my natural casting stroke, which is why I took the time to come back to it again at the end once I had figured out how to adjust to it. Once I slowed things down, it started to sing for me. As I got more in-tune with it, I found I could put a bit more gas into it and get it to respond. I spent time casting at targets that were 25-30 and 45-50 feet away, and then made some casts out near the 70 foot mark.
At 25-30 feet, I could throw a tight, fast loop and turn the leader over in the air, or I could slow it down and unroll it across the grass. I don't like to comment too much on accuracy, because I think that's more on me to hold up that end of the bargain, I will say that it wasn't a rod that gave me any unpleasant surprises when casting. It went where I expected it to go. At this distance, I would still prefer my Sage Trout LL 490, but the Centric is more than serviceable.
At 45-50 feet it was great. It was super easy to put the fly on the mark at this distance. This is probably where you want your trout rod to be able to shine, and the Centric 904 really shined here. About as good of a rod as you can ask for at this distance.
At 70, I initially struggled to keep the tip from collapsing. Coming back to this rod for a second go-round, I found the rhythm with it and she started to lay out nicely for me at this distance.
Overall, I would have no issue taking a 904 Centric as a one-gun 4 weight. It is more than serviceable in-close, and exceptional at most trout distances. If it fits your casting stroke and you like it, buy it. I don't particularly love "decathlete rods," and prefer to have rods that do one thing really well. I'm probably better suited with a Trout LL 490 and an Igniter 490 for my needs.
My thoughts on the 5 weight:
I felt like this rod was most comparable to my Sage X 590. It felt a bit stiffer in the butt than my 590, but certainly felt like it swung as light or lighter than the X. It doesn't feel more powerful than the X, nor does it feel as "springy" either. I felt more flex in my X throughout all casting distances.
I would have loved to have some water to cast on, as I felt like this rod could roll cast really well. I also tend to use a 5 weight with a line like Gold or Infinity in lieu of a purely presentation taper like SA Trout or Rio Technical Trout. 5 weights for my use are more for large dries, drift boat fishing and walk/wade fishing where I might need to fish a variety of different techniques, including nymphing or small streamers.
At 25-30 feet, this rod wasn't as good as the 4 weight. You felt the stiffness of the butt, and couldn't cast as well off the tip. This is where I think you would probably just roll cast everything with this rod.
At 45-50 feet, it would certainly cast with accuracy and more feeling of power, but it didn't have the feel of the 4 weight. This is where I would feel more bend in the rod with a Sage X. I would argue the X casts with a bit better loop control here as well.
At 70 feet, it didn't blow my mind. It certainly is capable at this distance, and it will throw a nice loop, but it doesn't feel as commanding as other rods I have. It's possible it can cast at this distance with a little less input than some of the other options on the market, but it didn't wow me. It certainly didn't feel like it had better power than the X 590.
The five weight probably isn't a rod I would buy, but I'll go cast it again and see if I discover something more. I wouldn't trade my X for one of these at this point.
I've had a few rods really wow me instantly, some of those include the Sage X 486 and Igniter 790 and 990. Some took more time, such as my Loop Cross SX 590. It's possible the Centric 5 would just take more time, or need that Infinity taper line that I have come to love.
Fit and Finish:
New locking ring I loved and I loved red the spacer. I would prefer a nice wood insert on the reel seat, or something more tech looking than what Scott finished it with. To me, you have classic wood, or you have an awesome looking "techy" seat like what comes on the Loop Cross SX. The rods have a beautiful clear coat over the lightly sanded blank. The cellophane tape marks are starting to grow on me. The red wraps were well done, but not overbearing. The grip was great. I could live with that grip on every rod.
Bottom Line:
Scott isn't making a bad rod. If you're in the market for a new rod that is a go-to stick for most trout fishing scenarios, the Centric would suffice. If you're a Scott fan, you'll probably find yourself loving it. If you're looking for something to WOW you, I'm not sure this is it.
I would give the 904 serious consideration against the X, NRX+ and Asquith 4 weights as a do-all 4 weight. I would give the 905 a try, but I don't think it would win out for me.
I really wish they had a 6 weight on hand. My quiver is missing a good 9 foot 6 weight, and many are reporting the Centric 6 is the rod to have.
I started with the 4 weight, thinking I had the 5 weight in my hand. That threw me off for a little bit. I next went to the 5, then came back to the 4. The last rod I cast prior to this was my Igniter 9 weight, which made the transition back to trout rods a bit more difficult while I remembered how to throw a 4/5 weight. The last couple of years I have tailored my casting practice to saltwater fishing, where line speed is king, and my stroke has likely adapted to throwing 7-12 weight rods. I live in the west, and my primary fishing opportunities are for trout, so I spend more time actually fishing with a 4 or 5 weight in hand.
My thoughts on the 4 weight:
First impression didn't make me fall in love. It felt like I couldn't lean on it and generate line speed. It isn't a rod that fit my natural casting stroke, which is why I took the time to come back to it again at the end once I had figured out how to adjust to it. Once I slowed things down, it started to sing for me. As I got more in-tune with it, I found I could put a bit more gas into it and get it to respond. I spent time casting at targets that were 25-30 and 45-50 feet away, and then made some casts out near the 70 foot mark.
At 25-30 feet, I could throw a tight, fast loop and turn the leader over in the air, or I could slow it down and unroll it across the grass. I don't like to comment too much on accuracy, because I think that's more on me to hold up that end of the bargain, I will say that it wasn't a rod that gave me any unpleasant surprises when casting. It went where I expected it to go. At this distance, I would still prefer my Sage Trout LL 490, but the Centric is more than serviceable.
At 45-50 feet it was great. It was super easy to put the fly on the mark at this distance. This is probably where you want your trout rod to be able to shine, and the Centric 904 really shined here. About as good of a rod as you can ask for at this distance.
At 70, I initially struggled to keep the tip from collapsing. Coming back to this rod for a second go-round, I found the rhythm with it and she started to lay out nicely for me at this distance.
Overall, I would have no issue taking a 904 Centric as a one-gun 4 weight. It is more than serviceable in-close, and exceptional at most trout distances. If it fits your casting stroke and you like it, buy it. I don't particularly love "decathlete rods," and prefer to have rods that do one thing really well. I'm probably better suited with a Trout LL 490 and an Igniter 490 for my needs.
My thoughts on the 5 weight:
I felt like this rod was most comparable to my Sage X 590. It felt a bit stiffer in the butt than my 590, but certainly felt like it swung as light or lighter than the X. It doesn't feel more powerful than the X, nor does it feel as "springy" either. I felt more flex in my X throughout all casting distances.
I would have loved to have some water to cast on, as I felt like this rod could roll cast really well. I also tend to use a 5 weight with a line like Gold or Infinity in lieu of a purely presentation taper like SA Trout or Rio Technical Trout. 5 weights for my use are more for large dries, drift boat fishing and walk/wade fishing where I might need to fish a variety of different techniques, including nymphing or small streamers.
At 25-30 feet, this rod wasn't as good as the 4 weight. You felt the stiffness of the butt, and couldn't cast as well off the tip. This is where I think you would probably just roll cast everything with this rod.
At 45-50 feet, it would certainly cast with accuracy and more feeling of power, but it didn't have the feel of the 4 weight. This is where I would feel more bend in the rod with a Sage X. I would argue the X casts with a bit better loop control here as well.
At 70 feet, it didn't blow my mind. It certainly is capable at this distance, and it will throw a nice loop, but it doesn't feel as commanding as other rods I have. It's possible it can cast at this distance with a little less input than some of the other options on the market, but it didn't wow me. It certainly didn't feel like it had better power than the X 590.
The five weight probably isn't a rod I would buy, but I'll go cast it again and see if I discover something more. I wouldn't trade my X for one of these at this point.
I've had a few rods really wow me instantly, some of those include the Sage X 486 and Igniter 790 and 990. Some took more time, such as my Loop Cross SX 590. It's possible the Centric 5 would just take more time, or need that Infinity taper line that I have come to love.
Fit and Finish:
New locking ring I loved and I loved red the spacer. I would prefer a nice wood insert on the reel seat, or something more tech looking than what Scott finished it with. To me, you have classic wood, or you have an awesome looking "techy" seat like what comes on the Loop Cross SX. The rods have a beautiful clear coat over the lightly sanded blank. The cellophane tape marks are starting to grow on me. The red wraps were well done, but not overbearing. The grip was great. I could live with that grip on every rod.
Bottom Line:
Scott isn't making a bad rod. If you're in the market for a new rod that is a go-to stick for most trout fishing scenarios, the Centric would suffice. If you're a Scott fan, you'll probably find yourself loving it. If you're looking for something to WOW you, I'm not sure this is it.
I would give the 904 serious consideration against the X, NRX+ and Asquith 4 weights as a do-all 4 weight. I would give the 905 a try, but I don't think it would win out for me.
I really wish they had a 6 weight on hand. My quiver is missing a good 9 foot 6 weight, and many are reporting the Centric 6 is the rod to have.
Such is the case with any rod.
I will say I have bought rods sight unseen before based off of reviews from Telluride, specifically from Richard Post. His tastes and preferences seem to jive with mine, and John Duncan’s reviews have been useful as well.
Not sure what it was with the five weight, but I just never really seemed to connect with it like I was able to do with the four weight. Perhaps next time.
Everyone should make an effort to go cast it, if not just for the sake of it. I think most of us are fly fishing aficionados because we enjoy casting more than anything else. Test casting rods is at least half the fun.
Oh I love casting different rods
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
czando, What was Jon's impressions? For those who do not know of Jon Huff, he is a fabulous caster of trout, salt and two handed rods.
In addition to our 9 pages of comments here, I have read all the linked plus any other on-line comments about he Centric I can find. Virtually all of them have read to me like paraphrases or just quotes of Scott's own fine description of the rods' technology and intent...my favorite part is about the new rolling tables facilitating greater compacting of fiber alignment. Really only cooutlaws, czando's and steveid's above observations including cross comparisons have informed me at all. I'm trying to get my hands on a 9'/#4 Centric to cast beside the same size Hardy Ultralite, that would be a test! Also in November when Taylor releases new graphene infused Anomaly Z 9'/#5, based on the outstanding proto 8 1/2'/#4 I've sampled, there is now to be new rod competition aplenty.
In addition to our 9 pages of comments here, I have read all the linked plus any other on-line comments about he Centric I can find. Virtually all of them have read to me like paraphrases or just quotes of Scott's own fine description of the rods' technology and intent...my favorite part is about the new rolling tables facilitating greater compacting of fiber alignment. Really only cooutlaws, czando's and steveid's above observations including cross comparisons have informed me at all. I'm trying to get my hands on a 9'/#4 Centric to cast beside the same size Hardy Ultralite, that would be a test! Also in November when Taylor releases new graphene infused Anomaly Z 9'/#5, based on the outstanding proto 8 1/2'/#4 I've sampled, there is now to be new rod competition aplenty.
sweetandsalt
Well-known member
"I've had a few rods really wow me instantly, some of those include the Sage X 486 and Igniter 790." stevied
While I do not own either of these two rods, I have test cast them both and regard them, within the context of what I am familiar with, as two top rods in their respective classes in production today.
While I do not own either of these two rods, I have test cast them both and regard them, within the context of what I am familiar with, as two top rods in their respective classes in production today.
I do not have experience with Igniter 790....but I do aplenty with Sage 486X....I do not know if I would consider it to be a rod that provided me "wow" factor.....rather, what I would say, is that it is a rod that is "immediately friendly" to cast and spans a broad range of caster abilities and performs extremely well for most casters right out of the gate....it's easy to like....with little if any adjustment required. It's sibling 586X is far more complex and it takes more time to familiarize oneself with it's nuances. I suspect, but cannot be certain, that most casters would garner "wow" factor from rods that they can put in their hands and be immediately comfortable with.... achieving loops, line speed, distance, accuracy, that they find "easier" to achieve than they have with other/similar class rods. To this line of thought....there have been several rods over the decades that I have enjoyed casting and was impressed by.....fishing the same rods in actual practical application I found them average...some less than average....casting is not always indicative of fishing application....sometimes yes....but rarely does test casting mirror habitat or payload to any degree of certainty...which is why a review of substance may require a few actual days on the water.....I wish we as anglers had this benefit with all reviews....sadly...we get parking lot reviews more often than not.
Kalispheel
Member
I have not cast the rod yet, but some of the reviews remind me of PGA tournament golfers being fitted for clubs/shafts. The rule being you collect objective launch statistics and player feedback relatively quickly off of the initial swings because a great player with solid swing mechanics will unconsciously and quickly adjust his/her swing to a new club that is probably not their optimal shaft/club. Not making a determination one way or the other, but there is some similarity between the two...
czando
Well-known member
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 180
Sweet,
You will have to stop by the shop and ask Jon, I wouldn’t want to speak for him. He really is an amazing caster that challenges me whenever we cast together!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
el jefe
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
"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: