none
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The looks & specifications of the LL Bean boots looked very promising. But ordering boots (or waders) just from the website without trying several sizes (or models) is pretty tough decision from Europe.
Maybe you guys in the US have much better conditions with sending it back if it doesn’t fit, etc. But sending boots back, shipping it back here and guessing the next pair would fit is just too expensive & time consuming when you’re in Europe.That’s why waders & wading boots I MUST try them on in the shop.
So far the Simms Freestone have proved their quality and duty.My 2 cts:
* Simms L2 are too narrow for me. Especially the toe area. I find my toes getting ‘cross wrapped’ in these shoes and my toes start to hurt due to the rubbing. In fact, I can’t wear wading shoes without the ‘gel tubes’ on one of my left toe to keep it from wraping.
* Patagonia shoes look nice and are very lightweight. But they have hardly *no* ankle support. Just a lightly padded and only a certain part of the upper part. Not sure about the durability either. I’ve heard stories about soles coming lose etc.
* My choice is, since it came on the market (1992?), the Simms Freestones. Durable as hell, a bit heavy indeed, excellent ankle support and VERY roomy toe area. I just keep coming back and I’m with my 4th pair now.
I’ve always used felted soles. I got the studded screws that I can screw on. Aquasole are a blank area for me…
Check my posting on the wood carving: http://bassbug.blogspot.com/
Something completely different but it’s essentially the same: how to capture only the essential contours.Logo’s should be the same in my view. Just the essential contours yet still recognizable.
As so many things in life, keep it simple.
A logo has only one function: to be remembered by who sees it.Cattle company = skull
But fly fishing and a skull and/or cattle, I don’t see the link.Like Zach said, try to cut down the details, just look for the most elementary part.
I’d say the horns of the skull is an elementary part that is worth a look to keep?
The link with fly fishing should be visable in some way.Interesting case!
Jay
Yes, it makes a huge difference where I fish.
Do you THINK it makes a difference (‘placebo effect’) or do you really CATCH more fish?
I think I have to try a whole season using fluoro only to see what the differece is. Also I need to fish the same river I fish regulary in the past to be able to compare it. Hmm.. that sounds kinda boring BTW
I use full flouro tapered leaders as well, its stiffer and turns big flies over better.
Why not just use mono that is one X lower (=thicker / stiffer)?
Jay
I think we have three characteristics we would like to have here:
1) (added) strength / toughness / etc. without being stiff
2) faster sinking
3) less visability under water.
I too fish 95% with nymphs, BTW.
1) The waters I fish I usually use 4x-5x. 4x for bigger & faster waters, 5x for calmer waters.
I think in faster water the additional stiffness of 4x over 5x is marginal because fish don’t have the time to become picky. To overcome stiffness one can use brands that are softer, but that usually goes with less strength.2) Since I use weighted nymphs (bead heads mainly) I don’t care much for even faster sinking. In faster water I even add more weight using split shots.
What MIGHT be usefull is when you fish with lightly (or unweighted) nymphs on calm water like spring creeks.3) This is the part I’m most interested in. What’s the added advantage of this compared to regular mono? Do trout even CARE whether it’s visable or not? Fish see all kind of debris coming down its path. I doubt it can see the difference of a mono or a twig, wire, piece of hair, piece of a bicycle, etc.
When fishing with dries on calm (spink creeks etc) water, you grease the leader all the way to the tip. So the advantage of fluoro being almost invisable UNDER water seems to be BS since the tippet (the whole leader in fact) will be FLOATING?
Jeez, looks like the fluoro manufacturers are pulling our leg are they?
Jay
The most important information is in my view the different casting ranges they tested. About cosmetics etc. is debatable. But when a rod cast badly on short distances while it excells on long distances means that it’s rated underweighted and/or it has a too stiff tip. This kind of information isn’t stated in the rod description.
Hmmm… I found the article to be quite interesting.
The problem with reviews(?) in magazines like Fly Fisherman is that they just publish the words the website of the rodmaker used. There is no personal view on the rod(s)…
Now this article by Anderson *is* a personal view. Yet I think a lot of his fly fishing and running a fly shop experience is incorporated in this article. He knows what is important in a fly rod.
Now, I always cast rods myself I’m interested because I want to see & feel myself rather than just go along with what someone else thinks. If I get REALLY interested in a certain rod, I bring along my own reel with my own fly line and see what happens.
Funny thing is how Anderson rates the cosmetics (X-factor & craftsmenship). I think the recent (in fact the past 5-10 years) Loomis rods actually pretty ugly. It looks too much like a mass production (printed rod specifications on the shaft!) rod rather than a high end ‘hand built’ (a few
The way I do it is I bring along my own reel with the fly line I use most (brand, WF) and I cast rods with it. Still the only way to judge a fly rod, no matter what the ‘others’ say or what the advertisement cries out…
Jay
Maybe Zach can help us here with the wide angle benifits. I think it’s much more usful than lots of zoom (which I rarely use because zooming means that it handles hand movement very bad).
Besides capable of taking wide angle shots (no need to step backwards to get the whole scene on picture), I’d say also check out for fast ready-to-go time when you turn the camera on (moments are gone when you have to wait 18 seconds for the camera to get ready…).
Jay
Talk about megapixels, zoom and waterproofness is okay. But doesn’t anyone take notice on wide angle capabilities?
Wide angle (<32 mm) makes taking breathtaking landscape shots better than regular ones (38 mm and larger). Taking full shots of the objects close is a snap too, rather than needing to walk away from the object resulting in shots with lots of surroundings.
There are several compact camera’s that has wide angle lenses:
* Fuji E series (I got the E550)
* Canon (Powershot S series)
* Ricoh (Caplio R series)I did some research when buying my camera. It’s on: http://bassbug.blogspot.com/2005/10/picture-books-by-apple-computers-part.html
Jay
Moosedog:
No they are ‘regular’ graylings. The arctic grayling doesn’t grow as big as these ones, at the most 12-14 inches? These regular graylings can grow up to 24-26 inches, but fish this big are rare.It’s a brook trout indeed, maybe slightly different cousin than the ones in the US? Here they are called ‘Bach Saibling’ (this is in german language).
And thanks for your compliment!
Jay
