Redington CT & Sage LL

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

  1. Kyle Smith

    Kyle Smith DBA BozoKlown406

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,731
    Likes Received:
    869
    Location:
    Bozeman, MT
    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.
     
  2. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,168
    Likes Received:
    1,257
    Location:
    Not sure
    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
     
  3. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,168
    Likes Received:
    1,257
    Location:
    Not sure
    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
     
  4. Codioos

    Codioos Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2012
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Spokane
    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.
     
  5. Thomas Mitchell

    Thomas Mitchell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    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.
  6. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,168
    Likes Received:
    1,257
    Location:
    Not sure
    Well put. I couldn't agree more.

    K
     
    Mark Mercer likes this.
  7. Drifter

    Drifter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,809
    Likes Received:
    852

    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.
     
  8. formerguide

    formerguide Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    843
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    My 486 LL+ is still my go-to dry fly rod.

    Dan
     
  9. orangeradish

    orangeradish 1/2 an Ira

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,572
    Likes Received:
    679
    Location:
    Capital City
    Home Page:
    All of this begs the question, if the LL was such a smoking rod, why would they not keep producing it???
     
  10. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,168
    Likes Received:
    1,257
    Location:
    Not sure
    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.

    K
     
    Porter likes this.
  11. Bradley Miller

    Bradley Miller Dances with fish

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    131
    Location:
    Tacoma
    I will!
    :)
     
  12. jwg

    jwg Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    300
    Location:
    West Richland, WA
    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.

    jay
     
  13. jwg

    jwg Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    300
    Location:
    West Richland, WA
    removed duplicate
     
  14. jwg

    jwg Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    300
    Location:
    West Richland, WA
    removed duplicate
     
  15. Be Jofus G

    Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Washington
    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.