Paul H. Young Perfectionist Ferrule Sizing Debunked

[carl otto]

On several occasions folks have discussed the fact that some Young Perfectionist have 13/64 ferrules and others 14/64 ferrules....

A recent conversation with Bob Summers brought up the subject as to why at one point in the PHY history the 7'6" Perfectionist was listed with 13 or 14 ferrules? Were there two different tapers? With a dismissive "no" Bob explained that the shop ran out of the size 13/64 Super Z ferrules and came to find during re-ordering, there was some glitch in production which would delay acquiring more. The shop substituted the 14/64 ferrules in the interim (which they had), because they just so happened to have worked into the taper without much of an adjustment. Some how this "either / or" was placed into the catalog for a time.

Continuing with the discussion on ferrules, Bob makes his own and prefers step down ferrules. Most of his rods are built out this way. On occasion he would do a super Z style ferrule. To him there is no advantage of one over the other, they both work and provide un-compromised service in the use of his rods.

2 factoids of interest I thought would be of interest to some.

Best,

Carl

[quashnet]

Great stuff always, and of course. Nevertheless, without at all meaning to diminish Bob's report, I do suspect that PHY experimented with more than one ferrule option. The prototype rod that Young was working on in 1954, that became the Perfectionist, started out with a 14 ferrule, according to a letter written by PHY in May of that year to Chauncy Lively. Some PHY Perfectionists were also made by Mr. Young with lightweight aluminum ferrules. These rods include Mrs. Young's Perfectionist #2024 built in April 1955, and Charles Fox's Perfectionist #2238 built in April 1957. Fox complained privately about the aluminum ferrules to Chauncy Lively, who in turn passed along Fox's concerns to PHY. Young replied to Lively, "I may have forgotten to tell Charlie Fox that we expect to replace the aluminum ferrules at least once, and I still hesitate to use them, but they really do make these light rods feel better. I would never use them on heavy duty jobs" (September 6, 1957). On the other hand, I have seen aluminum ferrules used (not with complete success, in my opinion) on what I considered to be a rather "heavy duty job" made by PHY (4-piece pack rod version of the Para 15, #2284, built June 1957, three months before the letter was written). I have no doubt that Bob's work was more consistent than the old man.

[carl otto]

Yes, the Perfectionist started out with the 14/64 ferrule, but the shop soon felt the 13/64 was more correct to its action and so the majority of the rods were made thusly. So when Bob arrived in the shop circa 1956 they were into that production model. My comment was to dispel some urban legend that the 13 and 14 ferrule Perfectionist were separate tapers, versus the indicated supply chain glitch. The aluminum ferrule debate is a whole other can of worms. One can not deny the Young shop while Paul was alive did its share of experimenting, with outcomes of various degrees of success.

Best,

Carl

[creakycane]

Interesting reason for the 13 and 14 ---- and makes sense!
Another story was recounted to me regarding the late 60s/early 70s Perfectionists. The two I am most familiar with are one from 1966 I used to own, and one from 1972 I still own (#4566), both fairly typical 4 wts. 4566 was one of Mac Seaholm's, and the one that served as model to Lancaster's Perfect 4 and his light versions of the Falling Springs. Anyway, it is a quite nice 4 wt rod, and in no way a 5 wt. Some of the local guys in Pittsburgh area liked it so much, they ordered Perfectionists from Young that were delivered the next year (Bob S still there) The story goes that these were quite a bit crisper, and really more like 5s when put side-by-side with 4566. While measurements weren't much different among the versions, there were clearly differences in stiffness and feel. I am told the usual discussions ensued of old vs new cane, adhesives, butt-cut cane stiffer, etc etc. This was before my time, but recounted to me. I never asked if all ferrules were same.

[quashnet]

I have Mac Seaholm's "Perfect Four." Here it is, pictured in between Martha Marie Young's PHY Perfectionist #2024, built by her husband in April 1955 (top), and my Summers 275 that Bob built for me in January 1986 (bottom). The Perfectionist and the Perfect Four are both superb and nearly identical in casting characteristics (and the Lancaster rod has two extra ferrules! Yes, I know, I am a lucky guy).



I interviewed Mac Seaholm by phone in 2009. Mac said, "You may have heard about Bob Lancaster's rods. Bob is a good friend of mine. He miked all of my Young rods, and that's where he got his tapers to start with." Here is what Mac told me about the Paul Young Perfectionist rods that he and his friends shared: "There are a number of different Perfectionists around, also. A friend of mine had one that was much softer than mine. I think I cast it once or twice, but not enough to get really tuned in with it. It was definitely a different taper." But of course that doesn't necessarily mean that these rods had differently-sized ferrules.

[creakycane]

2 Lancaster takes on the Perfectionist 4wt: 1980's Perfect 4 on the left; 2015ish Falling Springs (light) on the right. Both feel pretty much identical, and as you say, cast eerily well compared to the 2/2 counterparts. Since Mac Seaholm never had these, the grips are unmodified by his file. He was very quick to remove cork he deemed extraneous! Here's a Lancaster Midge AKA Tributary AKA Baetis 6'3" 4wt that Mac gave the picket fence treatment:

[DaveNJ]

Following this subject, is there a preferred or first recognized weight for a Perfectionist? I seem them range from 2.5 ounces to 3. 4 and 5wt lines suggested.

[jim royston]

I've always considered the Perfectionist to be a pure 4 weight and I have made maybe 2 dozen to the numbers commonly attributed to the 275 version. Two weeks ago, out of necessity, I put a 5 wt. on it, It was MAHVELOUS. It was a dream to cast and fish with that line.

[ibookje]

The 275 I once owned was definitely a 5 weight rod. It came alive while with a 4 weight it was so-so

[quashnet]

I've always advised, "Judge the rod that's in your hands." Our descriptions of rods we've known can only take others part of the way toward discovering the potential of the specific rod they've acquired. That said, for 4-1/2 years (1986 to mid-1990) my Summers 275 was the only bamboo trout rod I owned. A 5-weight line is just too heavy for my 275. But with a 4-weight it is not always comfortable at short distances, although one thing it is really good at is throwing curve casts upstream to delicately bring a dry fly drifting down to a rising trout without the tippet crossing over the feeding zone. But I now use the Summers 275 primarily for delivering small flies at medium-to-longer distances where quiet stealth is required (I have accumulated such an embarrassment of 4- and 5-weight riches in the PHY Midge, Driggs, Perfectionist, and Martha Marie that I can afford to specialize). Mrs. Young's PHY-built Perfectionist is a 4-weight at all distances, while Clem Fullerton's Summers-built Perfectionist #4503 "is better with a #5" (Per Brandin quote, plus my brief lawn casting experience).

[ibookje]

Absolutely right Robert!
But I also think rods should be reported as such so people considering a certain rod know there are gradual differences.

I've always advised, "Judge the rod that's in your hands."

[DaveNJ]

Rod Madness

[teter]

This informative and respectful discussion is another example of what makes this forum so special. Thanks, guys.

[creakycane]

I've always considered the Perfectionist to be a pure 4 weight and I have made maybe 2 dozen to the numbers commonly attributed to the 275 version. Two weeks ago, out of necessity, I put a 5 wt. on it, It was MAHVELOUS. It was a dream to cast and fish with that line.

I had one of your Perfectionist tapers out a few weeks ago (Royston 275), and it was so pleasant with a Sylk DT 5 wt. The line was new, and actually I brought the wrong reel with me fishing, so it was by accident ( normally would have used a DT-4). Very nice, seemed to load and fish perfectly.

[carl otto]

So Wanigas, having been going to shows for over ten years, I make the following observation about casting as related to this discussion and the two rods (Model 275 and Perfectionist). I have found that folks based on their casting technique/style/skill/etc. enjoy the performance of these rods with either a 4 or 5 weight line, because its the way they cast. The same rod, two different individuals, two different preferences!! Some folks will take the recommended line weight and then refine their casting stroke/power delivery to marry with the intended line weight. Its a question many times of being in tune with the rod or the rod being in tune with the caster.

Carl @ Wanigas Rod Company

[Godfroy]

I have just spotted this three year old topic. For what it is worth, the only original "Perfectionist" which I have handled has 14/64", super Z, ferrules. It is not, however, a 14/64" rod. The tip next to the ferrule wrap measures .205" over varnish, say .201", which is 12.86/64".

This supports the information, provided in post #1 by Carl Otto, that 14/64" ferrules were sometimes fitted when or because 13/14" ferrules were not available.

[quashnet]

I wish we knew the full serial number. But I can see that the serial number is in the 4300's, which places date of construction in late 1966 or 1967, and the handwriting is by Bob Summers. All Perfectionists at that time were supplied with either Super-Z ferrules or featherweight aluminum ferrules, and all were considered 14/64" ferrules.

[Godfroy]

I wish we knew the full serial number. But I can see that the serial number is in the 4300's, which places date of construction in late 1966 or 1967, and the handwriting is by Bob Summers. All Perfectionists at that time were supplied with either Super-Z ferrules or featherweight aluminum ferrules, and all were considered 14/64" ferrules.

Thank you very much for that information. It is good to have the date confirmed. It is #4315 which I guess makes it 1966. That was the year I started fly fishing.

I will get around to making a copy of it soon. The question is, should I use 14/64" ferrules or 13/64" ferrules (which would fit and be closer in weight to aluminium ferrules) or my own titanium/bronze ferrules which would also be closer in weight to aluminum. Maybe I will make three rods, one with each. Paul.

[Oxbow]

This informative and respectful discussion is another example of what makes this forum so special. Thanks, guys.

Yes and also what makes fly fishing so special - a constant adventure of discovery and learning.

[Canewrap]

I'm not surprised, some of the tapers I work with actually benefit from going up one size on the ferrules.