Redington CT & Sage LL


Active Member
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.

Rob Ast

Active Member
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.


Not to be confused with Freestone
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.


Active Member
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.
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.


dead in the water
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.


Active Member
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.


Active Member
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.


Well-Known Member
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.



My name is Mark Oberg
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
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.

Latest posts