Scott G rods

[Paul B.]

Just wondering if anyone has seen the new Scott G 5 piece rods yet? If so how do they compare with the old ones or the G2? Thank you. Paul

[alpen glow]

the Scott g series rod to look for are the original G Power ply rods you can tell them by the chrome hardware on the real seats. the newer one s G2 are not as buttery and the quality is lower than when he owned the rod co. from my understanding. but then most 5 section rods are going to be clunky anyway...

theres two original G's on ebay right now for far prices a 10' 5wt and a 8'8" 3wt

see if you can cast an older one compared to the newer versions at your local casting club and you'll feel the difference right away.

[Paul B.]

Hello A.G.,
I am familliar with the old Scott G rods. I have a couple. The 4wt has done duty as my #1 trout rod for the past five or so years. I picked up the 6wt last summer because I liked the 4 so much. I'm glad I did. It's the same rod just bigger so off to the Yuba and Sac. it will go and probably replace a perfectly good SLT 5wt.


What I was wondering was if anyone had cast the new 5 piece rods to compare to the old 5ers or thoughts on the newer rods. I agree that they won't feel like my two section rods but I think the old ones were pretty good.
As for the G2s I think the quality is there. Very well made rods to compare with anything built today. I haven't owned or even cast one yet but I suspect they are great rods. I once asked a Scott rep why they sped the action up and he said because lines had changed and they needed to change with the times as well. I don't know about that since my 20 plus year old rods cast fine with Rio's selective trout lines (just discontinued last month).
Casting club? Whats that? You guys from oakland have no idea how lucky you are to have a casting pond just off I580. Pretty cool place. I use to visit there when I worked in Walnut Creek.
Cheers, Paul

[Paul B.]

I wanted to know because I was looking for something to pack in a motorcycle saddlebag and I like the Scott G action.

[OceanSunfish]

"Scott PowerPly - San Francisco" was printed on the rod tube for rods with the reel seats on your #4 and #6.

I have the #5 with orginal sock and tube too. I don't trust the reel seat to keep my modern fly reels on so I use a rubber band just in case......

I suppose it may be considered heavy or soft by today's standards, but it's a marvelous tool in the hands of a real tactical caster demanding presentations far beyond anything I'll ever do, etc.

The Scott G Series was the gold standard in #4 and #5 trout fly rods throughout the 90's for CA.

[LNelson]

It is the same rod as the last produced 8'4" Scott G. The G2 is an outstanding rod as well and would have to disagree that the quality is any lower than the original G, they simply are different rods with different tapers. I found the 8'8" 5wt to be the pick of the litter.

[OceanSunfish]

It is the same rod as the last produced 8'4" Scott G. The G2 is an outstanding rod as well and would have to disagree that the quality is any lower than the original G, they simply are different rods with different tapers. I found the 8'8" 5wt to be the pick of the litter.

I bet the 8'-8" config is not as tip heavy feeling in hand vs. the 9 foot version..... Not that I think it's an issue with the 9' version I have... I like the fact that some of the gold standard rods were built for performance in mind first, and perhaps length second.... meaning, that perhaps the rod was best at lengths a bit less or more than industry standard half foot increments.

The Sage 389 LL is another good example. I have a Sage 890 TCR that was one of the first out of the factory some years ago and it's 1" short of 9 feet and is flawless in performance.

Of course, materials and manufacturing processes today are very good and probably allow rods to perform at their best at a standard industry length.

[LNelson]

OSf,

Your assumption is absolutely correct. Those 4 inches make the shorter rod feel significantly lighter in the hand, although that actual weight is insignificant. The swing arc is less, which seems to make the rod load with less line out, which in turn reduces that amount of "hook ups" with the "shrubbery". Personally, for fishing situations where one is going to be using a 5wt rod or lighter, I see no need to be swinging around a 9ft rod.

I bet the 8'-8" config is not as tip heavy feeling in hand vs. the 9 foot version..... Not that I think it's an issue with the 9' version I have... I like the fact that some of the gold standard rods were built for performance in mind first, and perhaps length second.... meaning, that perhaps the rod was best at lengths a bit less or more than industry standard half foot increments.

The Sage 389 LL is another good example. I have a Sage 890 TCR that was one of the first out of the factory some years ago and it's 1" short of 9 feet and is flawless in performance.

Of course, materials and manufacturing processes today are very good and probably allow rods to perform at their best at a standard industry length.

[Ralph]

In practical fishing situations, rod length isn't going effect casting as much as it will mending, waterhauls and roll casts. One of my favorite rods in the world is a 7'6" 3 weight glass Scott but it isn't worth a dime when I need to reach out and over current seams.

[pvsprme]

Interesting subject; I picked up a 9'-6" custom build G in 6 weight a few years ago. Liked it for stillwaters. On the advise of Moose with Scott I overlined it with a Salmon/Steelhead taper in a 7 weight. It just rocks! Moose said it's closer to an ARC than a G in that length/weight.
I feel like I stole something.