Redington CT & Sage LL

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

  1. Well put. I couldn't agree more.

    Mark Mercer likes this.

  2. Kent I can see where you and salmo g are both right in not being able to compare the 5 wt LL with a 3 wt. ct and that was not what i was trying to do.

    What I was trying to point out is the difference between an "LL" and and a "CT" and state that it was the "graphite" the "spring" in the LL. to me it's a much better graphite and was easy to tell that by casting two different wt rods but two rods of different graphite!

    I actually did not like the 5 wt LL 2 pc. because it felt like they took a 4 wt. top half and mounted it on a 6 wt. bottom half of a rod. I actually liked the ct taper better but not it's graphite. I have also read other people say that about the 2 pc 5 wt. LL but what I did like was the graphite used in the LL I just feel they rolled that model wrong. I also compared the LL graphite against my 8 ft. 4 wt. 1984 "tight loop" orvis super fine and a 3 wt 8'6" HLS 2pc orvis . and a 6 wt 3 pc sp. (the sp came the closest to having the same graphite as the LL imo) and also compared it to my 2 - 2 pc 5 wt. 9'3" super fines. and the b2x 6 wt. winston I just bought and a 6 wt. sage SLT that a friend has. the graphite was IMO better then my super fines which is hard for me to say since I am a big fan of the late 70's and 80's un-sanded super fine orvis rods. all the super fine tapers I liked better! All the super fines I have are the same graphite, rolled different for each model and wt. but I know what I can expect from the graphite used. some are faster then others, some are real slow but it's the same graphite that I love.

    Out of all the posts I liked porters the best. I did not know there were a graphite 2 and 3 series of the LL since I'M not a follower, but I was always reading and researching them before buying the 5 wt. but hardly ever read anybody say "WHY" they are so good???????? is it the actions of the LL? how is the action put together for different models? is the best LL action built on the 389 3 or 4 pc? from what I have read I would vote for that model because it is coveted by "SO MANY" I cant tell you if the 3 pc 5 wt LL is rolled better then the 2 pc but I would suggest against the 2 pc unless you like a "REAL LIGHT TIP "

    After reading so many post of people landing chum salmon - steelhead - and silvers on there 4 wt. LL's I would bet the 4 wts have the same strong butts "spring" "strength" "reserve power" "good graphite" that do not fail when pushed just like the 5 wt I bought did not fail when pushed but I sold the same week because the blank did not match my stroke - not because I did not like the graphite used. So I assumed (my bad) the 3 wt. LL butt has somewhat of the same "action" "traits", does not feel weak under long casts since so many love them and call them the best.

    I guess I should of posted how well I liked the looks of the LL
    or how I would never part with mine
    or how it is the best rod I ever cast
    or the nickle silver reel seat
    or how they are the best ever made.
    or how sage makes the best rods ever.

    I have to ask the question "WHY" because the things above tell me nothing about the rod but that they look good.

    WHY is the 389 LL the best light rod ever built?
    WHY does everyone love the 711 - 4 wt?
    I actually want to buy a 389 3 wt LL but know nothing about them but that I like the LL's graphite.
    how is the blank rolled?
    is the tip soft?
    is the butt section strong?
    Hows the mid section.

    The 3 wt. 8' 6" 4 pc CT feels good and it's taper stays true to a progressive flow from the tip to the butt, when going long the tip seemed soft to me and when pushing for distance I felt the butt section failed a bit but still a very nice rod in looks and cost that's why my daughter has a brand new one at $120 not $75. at $120 still the best rod at that price range "new"

    What I have always tried to find out about the "LL" before I bought one was - what makes them so special? It's not like you can go to a shop and test cast one! I bought the wrong "blank" for me but could tell what made them special and tried to post that but didn't do that very well!

    I tried to give the "OP" what I thought the "difference" between the LL and the ct was.

    I guess this should of been my post!
    The LL graphite "IMO" is better then the CT.
  3. My 486 LL+ is still my go-to dry fly rod.

  4. All of this begs the question, if the LL was such a smoking rod, why would they not keep producing it???
  5. SImple. Because once you buy one, why would you ever buy another?

    Sage (or any other maker) would simply go out of business because nobody would need to buy another of their rods. Instead, every year, their marketing machine pumps their latest and greatest to get folks to lust after yet a newer (and faster) rod.

    The fact that over a decade later so many folks acknowledge that the LL was perhaps the best trout rod ever built confirms that newer, faster and more expensive are not always better.

    Porter likes this.
  6. I will!
  7. seems like most of the love for the CTs is in the 3 and 4 wt, especially the 3 wt.
    Not sure what message I am hearing about the CT in the 5 wt.

  8. removed duplicate
  9. removed duplicate
  10. The graphite isn't really better, there's just more of it in the butt section of the taper on the LL. That is where the extra bottom end in the LL comes from. If you want to stiffen up the butt on a CT you can but it's a PITA since you can't just buy blanks. I've had success adding 4oz fiberglass cloth under the butt to the hookkeep to some similar midflex blanks. It's a hack, of course, but isn't visually noticable if done properly.

    All better graphite does is save you weight and diameter by having to use less cloth. The flex comes from the taper. Most of the manufacturers score their graphite from the same sources anyway.
  11. I agree that it is not all about the graphite and much more about resins used with the graphite that change strength and gives the differences between graphite rod blanks like the nano tech and the helios tech to g5 tech and what every company changes to try and up the game as far as making a better rod then the competition.

    I really liked the LL graphite "MIX" which was probably fiberglass resin.
  12. Whatever epoxy they used to bond it, it sure as hell was durable. I don't think I've ever met anyone who took proper care of one and actually blew one up.
  13. All this graphite talk cracks me up. I've never cast a rod that made me think the graphite was lacking. Sometimes they aren't as well-made, or a series is just poorly conceptualized. But the graphite used only affects the weight, and that's a matter of modulus (stiffness). High modulus graphite is also brittle, which is why so much has been put into nano resins and silica scrims and shit like that. SO much work is put into getting all this graphite and resin just right, when personally I've never cast a graphite rod that felt heavy. Now, if they can come out with a 10 footer that feels like a 9-footer I'll be convinced. I know that the Sage ESN feels like a 10-footer (and a nice one), same with the Helios.
  14. Kyle - you state you have the "4711 LL" would you mind doing a write up on how the rod blank is rolled? how the taper is from top to bottom? how strong is the butt section? What do you think of the graphite - resin "mix" in the LL how does the rolled blank "feel"

    Even if it's just your opinion I would be very interested on your write up on that rod.

    Would someone else like to give a write up on the 389, seems plenty have them or love them. I'm very interested!

    Would anyone like to compare the two rods "LL against the CT" and how the blanks are different? how the graphite and resins are different? How one "feels" different then the other?

    Why the hell buy an LL if they are the same? I thought this was the original posters question. I must of been wrong!
    Codioos likes this.
  15. I just got a CT 7'6" 3wt awhile back, and would like to compare to LL 3wt, as well as hearing what a CT 8'0" 4wt compares to the 4711 LL.
  16. Well, I may have to step out tomorrow and try my 279LL against my CT 3wt.-8'-6" and see how they feel. I use a 3wt. line on the Sage 2wt. LL.
    Mark Kraniger likes this.
  17. Same reason the RPL, the XP and, more recently, the Z-axis are no longer being made... flyfisherman are as gullible to marketing hype as cutthroat are to goldenstones.
    orangeradish likes this.
  18. We disagree on guns, but not on flyrods... imagine that :D
    Kent Lufkin likes this.

  19. Yup, thank you.
    Mark Kraniger likes this.
  20. Several points in reponse:

    First, the LL and the CT are NOT the same rod. Some folks posted they thought they were identical (most likely because the blanks are similar in color), but several knowledgeable sources insist that in fact they're not. Remember that the LLs were designed almost twenty years ago. While they were (and still are) remarkable rods, they were built using design, material and assembly technology that's nearly two decades old. If anything, IMHO the CT is an updated version of the LL.

    Second, neither the LL or the CT are for any- or everybody. They both have a decidedly moderate action that I for one think is delightfully out of step with the progression towards making faster and faster action rods every year. As primarily a bamboo rod fisher, both have a much faster action than I'm used to, but not so fast that they feel out of control. But that's me. For the fisher that likes a fast rod and has the stroke and control to get the most out of it, neither the LL or the CT might be a good fit.

    Third, contrary to one poster's opinion in another thread on the CTs, in my firsthand experience, the 3wt CT is NOT limited to casts of 40 feet or less. I've lawn cast my 8' 3wt 6-piece CT nearly the entire 90 foot length of a Scientific Angler GPX DT4. I'm far from an accomplished caster, but if I can get out a good 75-80 feet of line, with a little patience and practice, anyone can.

    Finally, the CT is far from being the best or most perfect rod available. They're a darned good rod and priced at around $100 or so, I think that makes them one hell of a value (especially for the 6-piece version), especially when one considers how much the market still values a twenty year old LL.

    As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking forward to a side by side comparison between a 379LL (7'9" 3wt 2-piece) and my CT 803 6-piece. I'll do my best to eliminate as many variables as possible by using the same lines and reels and use a 100 foot tape to actually measure and photograph the distances of the best casts with each. If time permits, perhaps I can persuade one of my bamboo rodmaker friends to 'mike' both rods' tapers so we can compare them using direct measurements. Finally, I'll recruit some other friends to join the party so the final report won't just reflect my own biases.

    Codioos likes this.

Share This Page