Redington CT & Sage LL

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Codioos, Dec 11, 2012.

  1. Codioos Active Member

    Posts: 462
    Spokane
    Ratings: +102 / 0
    I may take a lot of crap for this, but am I the only one that see's how close these rods are in appearance and feel... Just saying.
  2. Rob Ast Active Member

    Posts: 1,907
    West Pugetopolis WA
    Ratings: +233 / 3
    Many have commented on it. I have not cast a LL, but most of the side-by-side reports actually indicate they are in fact quite distinct apart from being true medium action rods.
  3. rainbow My name is Mark Oberg

    Posts: 1,232
    Renton wa
    Ratings: +78 / 0
    Then there are going to be alot of people getting crap, ha ha. its a great rod for the price.
  4. freestoneangler Not to be confused with Freestone

    Posts: 4,022
    Edgewood, WA
    Ratings: +727 / 1
    LL series...routinely emulated, but never equaled...just saying. The LL-389 is still the holy grail of small water quivers IMHO.

    That said, $79 for what is a very nice rod series, is a bargain.
  5. Old406Kid Active Member

    Posts: 318
    Spokane, WA
    Ratings: +87 / 0
    And now you say this LL thing!
    I almost pulled the trigger on one of these when I saw them for 75$
    and finally talked myself out of it after looking at the pile of rods in my basement.
    I had a LL that I built blow out of my rod holder at Bailey a couple of years ago,
    still makes me sick. (Actually lost it twice in a week up there but that's another
    whole story) So please for sanity reasons tell me no comparison.
  6. Patrick Gould Active Member

    Posts: 2,356
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +688 / 1
    I have two CTs and they are nice, well built rods. They're a great buy even at full retail but the appearance and quality of the LL is well above.
  7. Josh dead in the water

    Posts: 2,938
    NW Washington
    Ratings: +497 / 2
    My CTs remind me somewhat of my 3wt 8'9 Sage VPS Lite. I wouldn't say they are exactly the same or anything, but I do find them similar in feel.

    But that's just me and I'm hardly a rod test expert.
  8. chief Active Member

    Posts: 349
    Portland, OR
    Ratings: +123 / 1
    In a tight race with the 7'11" 4wt LL.....
  9. Porter Active Member

    Posts: 6,436
    Kenmore, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +515 / 0
    I have compared the 386-4 CT to the LL 389-4 and like Josh find them similar in feel. Now, please correct me if wrong, but there were three different series of the LL put out. Graphite II models, Graphite III models, and the classic 500 limited run GIII 389-4. I have the latter. I don't know if there is a difference or how much of a difference between these different models not to mention 2pc/3pc/4pc versions. So when some are comparing the CT to the LL which one are they comparing it to? ....I'm not sure how controlled the variables are in these comparisons. But the LL wins the eye candy award.
  10. Drifter Active Member

    Posts: 1,631
    Ratings: +638 / 2
    I fished both for a day - a LL 590 2 pc. (this model was known to have to soft of tip) and a 8'6" 3 wt. CT

    the difference in blanks is in the butt section of the LL that I found. the LL has a lot more "SPRING" - "RESERVE POWER" in the butt section of the rolled blank for the LL. when you start going long with an LL and start getting the butt section in the cast it speeds up Quite nicely with great feel - not stiff, a great feature for any rod.

    The CT is built in a classic progressive taper (which is nice) but does not get the help and speed from the butt section like the LL does!

    I don't know if it's a better graphite thing - or if the butt sections on the LL just had more graphite in the butt sections but that would be the difference if you were to ask me. And makes them a world apart in my opinion. The CT just did not have that reserve power or "spring" to help it when going long.
    Kent Lufkin likes this.
  11. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,483
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,621 / 0
    I can't compare. My LL is a 5 wt, and CT is a 3 wt. Got them both at bargain prices and consider them both a good value for different reasons.

    Sg
  12. rainbow My name is Mark Oberg

    Posts: 1,232
    Renton wa
    Ratings: +78 / 0
    Think of it as a poor mans LL or vpsl. I mean its as close as your going to get for the money. Its not a LL or never will be, but what the hell
  13. Old406Kid Active Member

    Posts: 318
    Spokane, WA
    Ratings: +87 / 0
    Thanks rainbow, I feel better now.
  14. Gary C. Brown Les Paul Lover

    Posts: 258
    Maple Valley, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    My vote is for the 4-711, my first Sage and probably my favorite small stream rod. Caught a lot of small cutties in the Cascades on that rod.
  15. Steve Saville Active Member

    Posts: 2,491
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +317 / 1
    I have had a 490 LL for about 25 years. I wouldn't part with it if someone doubled the price I paid for it ($225 on closeout). It has been and will always be my "go to" trout rod. I just hope someone takes good care of it when I'm gone.
  16. Kyle Smith Active Member

    Posts: 1,956
    Bozeman, MT
    Ratings: +267 / 0
    I just couldn't bring myself to buy the CT 386. I knew it would just sit there in my closet while I was out with my LL 4711. I hope the $75 rods are going to good use.
  17. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,136
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,225 / 0
    If I had an LL in my closet I wouldn't have bought a CT either. But I don't so I did. It's a fine rod and well worth the $120 I paid for it (the 6-piece CTs are long gone and were never priced at $75, even when they were available.)

    K
  18. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,136
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,225 / 0
    It hardly seems fair to compare a 5wt 9 foot LL with a 3wt CT. Sorta like comparing a Dodge Ram 4x4 diesel with a Ford Ranger 4x2 V6. My strong suspicion is that even if you had compared the 5wt LL with a 3wt LL, they would still have seemed quite different.

    I have three 8'9" 5-piece Sage SPs in 3wt, 4wt and 5wt and the 3 and the 5wts couldn't be more different. I actually lawn cast my 389-5 SP side by side with my new 386 CT and even they were pretty dissimilar, despite being rated at the same line weight.

    As I mentioned in an earlier thread on CTs, a good friend who loaned me his 379 LL for a day last fall has offered to re-loan it for a side by side comparo with the 386 CT and the 389-5 SP. While I suspect the longer (and slower actioned) SP will be the odd rod out, I also suspect that the CT and the LL will still be pretty different.

    K
  19. Codioos Active Member

    Posts: 462
    Spokane
    Ratings: +102 / 0
    All this talk made me grab a new 8654. For $75 with traditional action its hard to say no. But if a 5wt LL comes across I will def pull the trigger.
  20. Thomas Mitchell Active Member

    Posts: 834
    Western, WA
    Ratings: +188 / 2
    I bought a CT386 for my 15yo son. I also bought a 486 to keep in the car and loan out to people I take fishing. It's a standing New Year's resolution for me to take out at least one person who has never flyfished before and help them catch their first trout. The CT is perfect for that stuff.

    Even given that I am lucky enough to own or have owned some of the best 3wts imaginable (Tom Morgan 386, Winston IM6 386, Burkheimer 389, Scott G 883, Hoffhines bamboo 380), I was very impressed with the quality of the CT386 & 486. It made the law of diminishing returns very apparent as I spent literally more than 20X on some of the other rods than I spent on the CTs. The Redington CTs are great rods for a fantastic price from a company that stands behind their products.

    The small CT gear & pawl reels were great too. Those aren't nearly as common which is too bad.
    Mark Mercer and Josh Smestad like this.