What species do fish for with your bamboo rods?




View Results
Free poll from Free Website Polls
 

Ask About Fly Fishing

affiliate_link
 

Rod Selection - Payne Tapers

I’m hoping this will be a fairly  straightforward question. But somehow I sense it will be more difficult than I think!

I’m thinking about what to build  for rod #4 and would like to build a Payne. I like to make rods I can  fish, so a mid-weight rod is most desirable (4-6 wt. for Oregon  fishing). I prefer 2 piece rods, but that’s not a show-stopper.  I also like rods 7’ or longer. I've looked through the Hex rod list. But would like personal recommendations.

Given this information, what  Payne rod best represents his work with (or near) the dimensions above?

Examples of what I’d provide, if  someone asked me about Paul Young rods (those I’m most familiar with).

I’d recommend a Perfectionist 4  wt. for a faster, but great dry or nymphing rod.

Or a Driggs River 5 wt. if you  like your rods to really bend deep into the handle (slower??) and a rod  that feels one weight lower while fishing.

Or a Martha Marie for a bit more  of a backbone.  A rod suited for larger western river fishing (if that  really means anything!?).

Thanks for your help on selecting a Payne to build! (Scott Turner)

    I made a Payne 98 (7', 4 wt.) for my son, and liked it so well I'm making one for myself.  I used the Ron Barch  taper which smoothes out the jump between the tip and butt so you can  use a standard ferrule instead of a stepdown. For a heavier rod (7'6", 5 wt.) you might look at the Waara 5 weight.  (Neil Savage)

    I cast a couple of Payne 101's at Super Boo 2 in Maine, nice rod, 7.5' 5 wt.  It moved way up on my list of rods to build.  (Pete Van Schaack)

      I would recommend the Payne 102, as it a lot  like the Granger 8040, a nice light-line trout rod. (Bill Walters)

    The Jim Payne 101 is in my opinion the best rod ever designed and built for fresh water fishing for trout!

    Big claim. Big performance.

    If you are going to build this rod, take  the little bit of extra trouble to use the taper as circulated by Dennis Higham, as, again in my opinion, it and the one in the archives are  like chalk and cheese.

    By the way, it's a 7'6" for a 5-weight, so, as you can see, Jim Payne designed this rod with you in mind!

    Wasn't that thoughtful of him? (Peter  McKean)


I've decided to build a Payne because of how often they get mentioned here. What is your favorite Payne taper that would fit the following criteria? I like crisp fast action rods best but can accept med. fast action. Nothing over 7 1/2' as I couldn't keep an open enough mind to ever give any 8' rod a fair chance. If I'm going to fish an 8' rod it will be a Dickerson 8014 Guide. Period. Any Payne Taper 6 1/2',7', or 7 1/2' and what you like best about it and it's action.  I'll choose the one I think fits me best.  (Will Price)

    Payne 101 - 7.5' 5wt.

    There are some modified tapers out there that are fantastic - I believe Harry makes one.  (Pete Van Schaack)

      I'll second the Payne 101.  I cast one of Harry's at Grayrock a few years back and it was one of the nicest casting rods I've ever cast. IIRC, there was a Dickerson 8014 there that year.  I liked the Payne 101 a bit better.  (George Bourke)

    If you want "crisp" action, IE a faster rod then either the 101 or the 7', 4wt .. 98. You can't go wrong with either taper. In 3 piece configuration the 197 is a 7 1/2' fast 6 wt. Anything else in Payne under 7 1/2' is going to be medium fast.  (Dennis Higham)

    I'm partial to the 96, a 6'6" 4 wt. I would call it medium/fast and very pleasant to fish with, a bit snappier than Dickerson's 6611.  (John Channer)

    The Payne 101, 7'6" for 5 weight is a great taper for general river fishing situations.  For a line weight lighter, the 98 is also bloody good.

    To add a bit to your thoughts on 8'0" rods, I believe that the Gillum 8'0" 6 weight as detailed in The Lovely Reed is a better and more pleasant rod than the Dickerson.  I have made a few of these big Dickersons, and they seem to me to be just "brute force and ignorance", to use a hackneyed quote - pick 'em up and put 'em down again,  whereas the Gillum has a magnificent action. Not so stiff as the Dickerson, admittedly, but very powerful.  I have never had a buyer complain about this taper. Make one and compare.   (Peter McKean)

      I agree, I made a Dickerson 8015.  I call it "The Club". Fishing it all day will wear out your arm.  (Ron Larsen)

        The problems with the few Dickersons I have built are similar to most of them, i.e. the step down ferrule and what I have previously referred to as the gorilla butt. This produces a rod with most of its action in the zone above the ferrule, the tip and butt being usually rather straight! Many early carbon rods seemed to suffer from a similar affliction, Bruce and Walker and the Shakespeare boron that everyone except me raved about being the other, it was a 9'10'' #9. I think we know a lot more about rod design these days.  (Robin Haywood)


Anybody have the taper for a 3-piece Payne 100?  (Bill Walters)

    Hope this helps.  (Don Green)

    Payne 100 7.5 Ft 4 Wt
         Rod Name Payne 100
         Length (inches) 90
         Length (feet) 7.5
         Line Weight 4
         Number of pieces 2
         Construction Hex
         Comments Taper from George Maurer
         Deduction for varnish 0
         Allowance for form setting 0
         Ferrule 1 0/64 Location 0

         Station Dimension Form Setting

         0            0.064          0.032
         5            0.070          0.035
         10          0.086          0.043
         15          0.101          0.051
         20          0.116          0.058
         25          0.131          0.066
         30          0.143          0.072
         35          0.155          0.078
         40          0.167          0.084
         45          0.180          0.090
         50          0.191          0.096
         55          0.203          0.102
         60          0.218          0.109
         65          0.231          0.116
         70          0.244          0.122
         75          0.268          0.134
         80          0.300          0.150
         85          0.300          0.150

    Bill, go into Hexrod and change either the Payne 100 or the 100h to 3 piece, depending on which you want to build.  (Neil Savage)

    I believe Mike Brooks has the taper of an actual 3 piece 100 made by Payne. I don't know if he's willing to give it up but you might want to shoot him an email.  (Jim Lowe)

      The Payne model 100 is a 2 piece rod, The 3 piece rod that is similar is the model 197 which is the slower of the 7'6" 3 piece rods.  (Hal Bacon)

        Yeah I know;  but, Mike swears it's a 100 3 piece one-off made by Payne and marked that way.

        To quote what Mike wrote on Clarks: "Rev. Lee Eames... actually has an original Payne 100 that was custom built by Jim Payne as a 3 piece rod. I got it from him a couple of years back to make a new tip for one that was down. Neat rod. "  (Jim Lowe)


I've searched high & low for the Payne 201 8' 3 piece 5 wt.  Would anyone be willing to share the taper or point me in the right direction where I might find it?  (Paul Julius)

    The taper I have for the Payne 8 foot 3 piece 5 wt. I had it listed as a 200 but that is probably wrong.

    I would beef up the tip 10-15 inches a bit if I were to build it again.

    Payne 200

    8' 3 Piece 5 Weight

    0.058
    0.067
    0.086
    0.105
    0.115
    0.132
    0.152
    0.152
    0.163
    0.175
    0.188
    0.203
    0.218
    0.227
    0.235
    0.248
    0.261
    0.275
    0.295
    0.345
    0.345  (Gordon Koppin)

    This taper was very popular at last year's CRR. One of the favorites in the rod evaluation event. This rod gets a lot of use.

    Payne 201, 8', 5/6-wt, 3/2

    The original that I took the taper from was made by Payne for Abercrombie & Fitch, NY.     I Measured three flats and averaged them, then took .006 off for varnish. Here are the measurements for the rod with the tip I used.

        1    .056
        5    .0725
        10  .090
        15  .098
        20  .112
        25  .130
        30  .146
        31  .147
        35  .158
        40  .176
        45  .193
        50  .208
        55  .218
        60  .226
        62  .229
        64  .234  (interpolated)
        65  .248 (interpolated)
        67  .246
        70  .254
        75  .271
        80  .282
        85  .306
        86  .3325
              .340 to the end of the butt

    I glued the rod with resorcinol.

    The original has stepped ferrules, so I used CSE stepped ferrules.

    There are 10 snakes plus the stripper. The guide spacing from the tiptop is: 

    4 5/8
    9 3/4
    15
    20 3/8
    25 7/8
    34 (against the female ferrule)
    40 1/4
    47 11/16
    56 3/4
    66 5/16 (against the female ferrule)
    74 5/8 (Stripper).  (Steve Weiss)

      I may be mistaken but the taper above looks more like a 3/4 wt to me. What am I missing? Maybe the 0.006 for varnish is too much?  (Stephen Dugmore)

        I would say it's a 3/4 also. Taper does look like it could be a Payne. (Bob Norwood)

          I'd fish with a 4. Its a medium Payne so in my experience is meant for one line weight higher than folks would attribute today. Drop the line to 4 and the curve is an almost exact match for one of the 200s I've made which is a 5 and one I through bass bugs with.  (Jim Lowe)

        I've made at least 5 of these rods and none were a 3/4-wt. but it sure casts a 5. None of the evaluators at CRR thought that it was over-lined. If anyone who cast it last year wants to weigh in here, have at it.  (Steve Weiss)

          I buy that, I'd initially put that .229 at 65. That butt is pretty beefy compared to the 11 other 8' 3 piece Paynes I have. LOL.

          Thanks for the taper, it looks like a great rod.  (Jim Lowe)

          I cast this rod at CRR, and loved it.  But I thought you had a WF6 line on this one Steve??

          Pure Payne, IMO.  (Harry Boyd)

            I can't remember for sure, it could have been, but I usually use it with a 5. My friend Mike uses his with a 6.  (Steve Weiss)

              I am really curious about what it is about the design of this lighter version of the 201 that it can still handle this line weight, and apparently well, too!

              If you compare the figures with eg. a Garrison 209, the dims in the first 40” (which are possibly the most critical in terms of line weight definition) are consistently 0.010 or more thinner than the Garrison (2 line weights lighter if you go with Ray Gould’s rule of thumb and significantly lighter even if you don’t)! For the remainder of the rod the dims are essentially 0.005 or more thinner. It is comparatively a much lighter rod. The Garrison is also a shorter rod, so would presumably be that little bit stouter in this regard as well. 

              How does this work? Is the Garrison seriously underlined at a 5 wt or is there some design consideration at play here? Could the convex taper of the Payne really make  such a  massive difference? If so, why then are so many classic  rods so seriously overdesigned? Did they all miss the boat in not going convex?

              Incidentally how does the Payne handle distance?  (Stephen Dugmore)

          I hope nobody is trying to interpret, from this discussion, that one person is right, and everybody else is wrong.  A Payne 201 was a 3-piece, 2-tip, 8' 5wt rod.  Obviously, Steve and Mike measured 2 very different rods, but they both were marked, by Jim Payne himself, as 201's.

          The dimensions Steve has provided for the Payne 201 appear to be beefed up version of the Payne 200, which would make sense.  I ran both these tapers through HexRod to get the stress curves, and the results are quite interesting.  The Weiss rod has higher stress in the tip, while the Troutgetter rod has a more parabolic mid.  Neither is drastic, though.

          When you compare graph of the dimensions, though, there really isn't much difference, suggesting that one may well have been a refinement of the other.  Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing which rod came first.

          I am attaching the graphs (click for larger versions) for anybody who's interested.

          Gruver_stress

          Gruver_dimension

          (Paul Gruver)

            Did you notice the triple convex taper a la Vince Marinaro?  (Steve Weiss)

              My friend and bamboo guru,  rodmaker Syd Smith, let me cast his version of the Payne 201 just last week.  It has been tweaked to suit his ideas of taper design.

              Casting with a Triangle Taper 5 wt, this rod was very impressive. Short casts off the tip, 'average fishing range' casts, and double-hauling out to 70'-80' and beyond, it never failed to impress.   I just thought someone might be interested in one more take on this wonderful 8' 3/2 5 wt.  (Reed Guice)

              Reed - As you can see there are a lot of tapers attributed to Payne's 201. IT IS TWEAKED.  Here is the taper for the rod I made.     8 foot, 3 piece.

              Measurements are on the UNVARNISHED sections:

              Ferrules 16 and 11  -  Super Z  -  with step down at ferrules as shown

              Butt (inches)                 Mid (inches)                  Tip
               0 - .355                        0 - .242                   0 - .158
               5 - .355                        5 - .2355                 5 - .146
              10 - .355                      10 - .2255                10 - .135
              15 - .304                      15 - .215                  15 - .123
              20 - .285    `                20 - .202                  20 - .111
              25 - .271                      25 - .191                  25 - .093
              30 -  257                      30 - .1755                30 - .071
              32 - .254                      32 - .171                  32 - .067

              Measurements on the VARNISHED/FINISHED rod from tip down: measured as close to the inch indicated as possible  given ferrules and guide wraps, but clearly not as accurate as above.

              Dipped: 4 coats butt , 4 coats mid, 3 coats tips.

               0 - .067
               5 - .078
              10 -.103
              15 -.118
              20 - .134
              25 - .143
              30 - .150
              35 - .180
              40 - .194
              45 - .205
              50 - .219
              55 - .228
              60 - .238
              65 - ferrule
              70 - .274
              75 - .286
              80 - .296 (begin swell)
              85 - .352 (swell)
              90 - grip
              95 - grip
              96 - grip

              Sydney A. Smith

                Interesting. It looks like it started out looking like Mike's taper and ended up more like a slow Payne 198.  (Jim Lowe)


I'm hoping to make a Payne 101 as my next rod.  It will be my first venture out of the Paul Young taper family.  And like the Young tapers, there is more than one taper for the Payne 101. There is the George Maurer version, Dennis Higham's measured version in Hexrod and the Hexrod version.  I kindly request members of the list for some guidance on this matter.  Which taper would you recommend?  (Paul Julius)

    I have made thirty or forty of the Dennis Higham version, and while I have now made several empirical modifications to the numbers (of the kind of which Jerry would NOT approve, being very subjective and derivative and all), I have no problems with that version. The rods that I made to the accurate Higham numbers are lovely rods to use, and thought of very well by their owners.  (Peter McKean)

      You misjudge me. I think you would find that the only difference between our methods is that for empirical changes I use a computer instead of of charcoal on a rock.  (Jerry Foster)


I am looking for a Payne 98 taper and would like to hear from anyone who has a nice version as I gather there are quite a few.

The two well publicized tapers are so dissimilar as to be totally different rods, one being a fast action, Dickerson like (from Ron Barch), the other much deeper flexing although the latter is reported as being a modified taper (Ted Knott).  These two are in David Rays taper library and RodDNA.  (Gary Marshall)

    I've made 4 or 5 of the Ron Barch version and I like it a lot. I think the drop over the ferrule is very important to the feel of this rod, so if you get the taper from a computer program, extrapolate the taper into the ferrule from each direction.  You should wind up with a tip

    dimension inside the male of .173 or so and a butt dimension inside the ferrule of .196. I use Swiss ferrules, so the butt gets turned full round while the tips just get the corners rounded off slightly, with Accraglas epoxy they hold just fine.  (John Channer)

      That should be .173 and .190.  (John Channer)

    I made the Ron Barch taper for my son, and the first time I cast it, I said to myself "Self, you NEED one of these!"  (Neil Savage)


Can anyone give me the correct taper for the Payne Canadian Canoe.

I know there are a few out there

The two I have seen are very different from each other.

So what would you recommend as the correct one to make.

The one in Jacks book looks very light for a 7wt with 6 thou taken off for varnish?

Any help would be much appreciated.  (Gary Nicholson)

    This is from David Ray's taper library:

    Payne Canadian Canoe 8.5 Ft 7 Wt
    Rod Name Payne Canadian Canoe
    Length (inches) 102
    Length (feet) 8.5
    Line Weight 7
    Number of pieces 3
    Number of tips 1
    Construction Hex

           Butt     Mid      Tip
    0     .385    .268    .172
    5     .385    .262    .164 
    10   .385    .253    .153
    15   .333    .237    .139
    20   .311    .229    .125
    25   .311    .229    .125
    30   .289    .195    .085
    34   .276    .184    .072

    Deduction for varnish 0.004
    Allowance for form setting 0
    Ferrule 1 0/64 Location 0
    Ferrule 2 0/64 Location 0
    Station Dimension Form Setting
    Guide Location Size

    It took a while to figure it out, he gives the #’s from the butt of each section, then 5" up for each section etc. 

    This says deduct .004" for the varnish.

    Kevin Little made a very well-received one, hopefully the voice of experience will chime in.  (Henry Mitchell)

    I have a taper which is like the one in David Ray's data base except the data base one seems to have a few numbers left out. When I look at the taper as  it is in DR's It just doesn't look right.

    I cant guarantee the one I'm sending,  but it looks like a 7 wt rod, average in the tip and it falling off (or is softer) into the butt, making the action a little slower.

    It looks like a 6 wt to me.  (Bob Norwood)

    Here's the taper I have. Not sure where it came from but it's in the 3 piece format with all the numbers showing.

    .072    .085    .108    .125    .139    .153    .164    .172

    .184    .195    .216    .229    .237    .253    .262    .268

    .276    .289    .300    .311    .333    .385    .385    .385

    Looking at how Payne chooses line weights then it does look like a 7wt.  (Ken Paterson)

      Your Payne Canadian Canoe taper came from Shawn Pineo. Shawn posted it to the list 6/19/2001.

      The rest of the post....Payne Canadian Canoe 8'6" 7wt 3pc (17/64 and 12/64 ferrules)

      Deduct .004-.006 for varnish

      Shawn didn't mention where the #'s came from.  (Dennis Higham)

      That’s the one I have also.  It's in Jack Howell’s book, but he tells you to take of 6 thou for varnish.  I would agree without taking the 6 thou it's a 7wt but with 6 thou off it's got to be a 6wt.  (Gary Nicholson)

      ...but that's the same as the one in David Ray's Taper Library.  The format is a bit messed up, but when you realign the columns you get:

              Butt      Mid      Tip
       0     .385    .268    .172
       5     .385    .262    .164
      10    .385    .253    .153
      15    .333    .237    .139
      20    .311    .229    .125
      25    .311    .229    .125
      30    .289    .195    .085
      34    .276    .184    .072

      Deduction for varnish 0.004  (Paul Gruver)

        Please do not take this as a criticism.  This is a perfect example of what screws up most new rod makers.

        Do the numbers reflect a .004 deduction for varnish or is .004 the recommended amount to reduce the numbers shown?  (Ralph Tuttle)

          Some sites say deduct .004 from the taper for varnish, and some don't say anything. This is why I only build my own tapers now. LOL  (Ken Paterson)

            I agree but if a customer asks for a specific rod. I think you should do your best.  (Gary Nicholson)


Does anybody have a taper for a Payne 104?

I have a bit of a mystery.  A couple of years ago I made a 8'6" 3 piece 5 wt that I have listed in my notes as derived from a Payne 104.  The only Payne 104 taper I can find is in David Ray's taper library.  That is listed as a 8'6" 6 wt, so it is a likely candidate.  However, my taper was modified using RodDNA, and it is not consistent with having been derived from David Ray's using either controlled modification or stress values.  (Robert Kope)

    This is per Dennis Higham. (Timothy Troester)

    I got this from Rob Hoffhines some years ago.

    Payne 104, 2/2, 8 1/2', 5 1/4 ounces measured over varnish

    1" = .075
    2.5" = .080
    5" = .089
    10" = .109
    15" = .130
    20" = .143
    25" = .163
    30" = .172
    35" = .192
    40" = .201
    45" = .214
    49.5" = .228
    55" = .244
    60" = .263
    65" = .274
    70" = .283
    80" = .315
    90" = .350
    92" = .375

    guides
    -------
    5 1/4
    10 1/2
    17 1/16
    23 5/16
    30 1/8
    37 3/4
    45 3/8
    53 1/8
    61 1/16
    stripper 77 1/8

    winding check at 92 11/16"
    cork grip 6 1/8"
    UL seat 3 1/8"


I don’t understand why it is but the Payne Parabolics tend to take a back seat to Youngs or Pezon.  But why?  (Gary Nicholson)

    I personally don't consider the Payne Parabolics to be parabolic. They look to me like parabolic tip sections mated to fast butt sections. Look at the action length slopes.  They  are  mostly over .003/inch. I would expect a Parabolic to be significantly less than that. Also look at the stress charts. The rods get stiffer as you approach the grip. That also, is not parabolic. I'm not saying they are bad casters, or bad rods. I don't think Jim Payne liked true parabolic action.  (Tom Smithwick)

      As always Tom thanks for the speedy reply. Never looked at them in any great detail Tom but I am going to have a close look now. Just occurred to me no one specks of the Payne parabolics..Well I guess that answers it. Anyone rate them?  (Gary Nicholson)

        I cast a Payne Parabolic made by Rich Margiotta at a gathering last summer in Townsend, TN.  It was a 7'-1" #3/4 and I loved it.  I like parabolic rods so this is no real surprise.  It has a very fine tip as I remember.  I looked and it is 0.054 at the tip.  The tip itself seems to have the stress curve of a parabolic rod and the butt is stronger.  It casts well enough that I wanted the taper.  (Hal Manas)

          I should have mentioned that there are a several  Payne Parabolic tapers out there. I understand that  Payne struggled with the whole idea of para rods According to Schwiebert, much of  the Payne Parabolics' development  was done by John Alden Knight and Charles Ritz.  This may explain why there are 4 Payne Paras in Rod DNA in the 7-8 ft 3-5 wt range . I think I see the taper you mention in there. I guess I picked the wrong one for me. Thanks for the info maybe I will try again.  (Doug Easton)

          There were 4 models of Payne Paras:

              * 7'1" for 3 or 4wt
              * 7'6" for 4 or 5wt
              * 7'9" for 4 or 5wt
              * 7'9" for 6 or 7wt

          The 7'6" was not cataloged, I believe.  I seem to remember that a few experimental 7'7" rods were made and sold, but I can't find a reference.

          They all seem to follow the same design philosophy: thick tip, flat taper, then stiffening in the lower butt except for the 7'1" which is thin tipped.

          BTW, the 7'1" Payne Para that Hal cast was built out from a blank from Tim Zietak.  (Rich Margiotta)

    My understanding is that the average joe has trouble casting. I've never seen one so I don't know if that's true.  (Jim Lowe)

      OK I was gonna take offense to that statement..........then I saw the word average!  (Joe Arguello)

      Looks to me as if Payne didn't make many Para's either that or I don't have them. I have a grand total of 4, of which two look the same (79 and 214),  the 79 has a butt swell. not much to choose from.  (Bob Norwood)

    The Paynes are quite different from the the Young family of paras. I made a Payne 214 7'9" parabolic 4 wt. I tried it with a Wulff TT #4 wt and I didn't like it at all it felt rather tip heavy, slow and not particularly powerful. I have yet to try other lines so I might like it better with a different line. I have also cast various Young tapers and I love them. They are characterized by a flexible but a stiffer middle and a relatively fine tips. They are, when you get the timing right, cannons. The Payne 262 is a bit stiffer than the 214 in the middle and the tip is finer. I believe that I cast a 262 once at Grayrock and liked it. The Pezons are quite variable and the parabolic rods do not all share the same tapers.

    These are my own opinions. Any opinions I have are personal preferences that are influenced  by my casting style and the type of fishing I do.  (Doug Easton)

      I made a Young Perfectionist (parabolic) and didn't like it a bit.  A few years later, I tried a different--heavier--reel and I like it a lot that way.  The balance never felt "right" to me before.  (Neil Savage)

    Just a couple of thoughts re: the Payne Parabolics. First ..What Rich said...4 models and the 7'6" never cataloged..the Payne paras are not really parabolic as we think of parabolic today. Rather than being stiff in the middle and flexible in the butt like Young and Ritz they are flexible in the middle and get stiffer toward  the butt. I have an original 7'9" in the lighter 4/5wt and it's a  great casting  rod but  quite different  than the  Young Para-14's I've built. (both 7'9",5wt's). A couple of years ago I thought I might build the ultimate 7'9" parabolic 5wt by blending the Payne and the Para-14 until I looked at the stress curves. Two very different rods.

    Regarding model numbers. There were a number of Payne rods that never had model numbers assigned. The  Streamer rods, the Bass Bug rod, the Circular Bend Trout rod, the Spinning rods, the Bonefish rods and the Parabolics. Some of the taper libraries out there list model numbers associated with the parabolics...that's wrong...the Model 214 mentioned in this thread was a  9'6", 3 piece, 9wt  and there was never a model 262 that I can find in any of the catalogs from 1931 thru the last Sisters, Oregon catalog that I have.  (Dennis Higham)


The next rod I want to make should become a #5-6, 8.5 footer. After some time gambling around with the taper I ended with a stress curve very similar to the Payne 204.

Now my question: Can somebody tell me his experience with this rod. How it cast's and do you think I should have a look at some other 8.5 foot tapers before i start?  (Markus Rohrbach)

    I have built and use the following 8.5 footers . Payne 204L. Granger 8642 and Dickerson 861711. All nice rods. I use them all regularly, but  Payne  the most. This because this I think it is better at protecting light tippets. If you want a rod with a bit more punch have a look at the Granger.  (Tor Skarpodde)

      Thanks a lot for your comments.  What line are you using with the 204? Is it possible to handle a streamer or a heavy nymph with this rod? When I have a look at the taper I think the dimension of the tip is to small. And I think to enlarge the Tip from 0.063 to 0.074. What you think?  (Markus Rohrbach)

      I'm not sure if the following numbers are the L or H taper of the 204 rod.

      Can someone help me with the correct L and H Taper?

      I guess H stands for heavy and L for light. Is this correct?

      If so, is the 204L the dry fly and the 204H the nymph rod?

      Hhuuch... Many questions are coming up in my brian when I'm  thinking about that taper.

      Thank' s for your estimated assistance.

      Payne Jim - Nr. 204 - 8'6'' - #5 - 3T

      Station Dimension
          0           .063
          5           .085
          10         .104
          15         .124
          20         .133
          25         .145
          30         .155
          35         .177
          40         .196
          45         .213
          50         .227
          55         .239
          60         .251
          65         .258
          70         .277
          75         .289
          80         .307
          85         .322
          90         .353
          95         .353
          100       .353  (Markus Rohrbach)

        After receiving some post regarding the Payne 204 Taper, I'm quite confused. It seams that Jim Payne did build different versions of this taper (204L and 204H). After searching the internet I found only a 204 taper. Can somebody give me the tapers or a recommendation where I can find it?

        If one of you have good experience with other 8'6'' #5 dry fly/nymph rods please let me know.  (Markus Rohrbach)


I guess nobody is really familiar with the casting characteristics of the Payne 202, but I have a request to build a rod that must be a fast 3-piece 8 footer for 5-6 line weight. The requester would prefer that the taper was a Payne, but that is secondary to the quick action. The buyer has Payniamania, but is prepared to compromise. My records are pretty incomplete from years ago, but the reason I am asking for some help here is that I seem to recall that years ago I built this 202 rod (claimed by the 1951 Payne catalogue to be Fast DF action) only to find it to be pretty slow and deliberate; like, I am afraid, most 3-piece 8 footers I have built. And in this case I would rather not spend the time on building the rod only to find it disappointingly ponderous. Paynes aside, I am open to suggestion here.  (Peter McKean)

    Dickerson 801611.  (Mark Wendt)

      I agree with Wendt that Dickerson is a great rod.  (Bret Reiter)


 

Site Design by:  Talsma Web Creations

[Tips Home] [What's New] [Tips] [Articles] [Tutorials] [Contraptions] [Contributors] [Contact Us] [Taper Archives] [Christmas Missives] [Chat Room] [Photo Galleries] [Line Conversions] [The Journey] [Extreme Rodmaking] [Rodmaker's Pictures] [Donate] [Store]