Education in Classic Tapers / Self-Study

[Aristotle]

Hello, friends.

In an effort to have a comprehensive education in classic tapers, it would seem helpful to make the most quintessential, classic split-cane rod from each of the classic “masters” (Dickerson, Edwards, Garrison, Leonard, etc.). Although there are countless tapers, I’m interested to know from our collective group what you consider “quintessential Edwards?” …quintessential Young?” For example: “Dickerson 8013?” “Young (PHY) Perfectionist?” “Payne 98?”

I’m not so interested in what’s the most “popular Young,” etc.. Rather, which specific model do you feel brings out that specific maker’s unique taper qualities. Obviously, there will be differing views on makers and models.

Thanks!

[3creeks]

First you need to settle on which of the many posted tapers you're looking at. There are numbers all over the internet, in books, and in old Planing Form newsletters. Which is the correct one? Nobody knows, really.

Last year I built 3 7'6" rods from reported Payne, Young, and Dickerson tapers. All in the 4 weight class. While they are all different who knows how each would cast against an original?

[Peales]

Last year I built 3 7'6" rods from reported Payne, Young, and Dickerson tapers. All in the 4 weight class. While they are all different who knows how each would cast against an original?

I don’t understand, couldn’t you just compare it to an original?

[Aristotle]

I fully understand that our renditions may cast very differently against an original. We make a host of choices along the way that impact the final product, such has adhesives.

What I’m interested in is what the collective believes is the “classic Young,” the “classic Dickerson,” etc.. Through this process, it seems that each classic builder’s unique taper qualities may be revealed, to some extent. Surely, useful data / attributes in their differences will be revealed.

Classic builders took risks, built a host of different tapers. But at least one or a small segment of those tapers would reveal that builder’s most classic taper qualities.

Again, I expect different opinions, but I’d guess there will be some agreement on models.

[munsey w]

Dickerson 8014, Payne 100, PHY Martha Marie, any available Edwards 8'6" 5wt rod, Garrison 206. I have made and enjoyed all of these tapers.

[3creeks]

Last year I built 3 7'6" rods from reported Payne, Young, and Dickerson tapers. All in the 4 weight class. While they are all different who knows how each would cast against an original?

I don’t understand, couldn’t you just compare it to an original?

Sure. If I had the original rods to compare them to. My poorly made point is that I didn't build a Perfectionist, or a Dickerson 7612, or a Payne 100. I built rods from published taper numbers that I read in a book or got from the internet. There are numerous variables that separate my efforts from those 3 makers.

[3creeks]

Also, you should buy the book "The Cracker Barrel" from Whitefish Press. The late Sante Giuliani wrote a bit about tapers, and it stands out (to me anyway) that he favored Dickerson. Do a search on the forum here through Quashnet's posts, our resident Paul Young expert. His website dedicated to Young rods is a great resource.
I don't know who'd be the go-to Payne expert. Maybe that's because there are so many people who are fans. For me, I just use the search function to find whatever I'm looking for on Payne rods. I bought what seems to be the second to last FE Thomas book available and I have been immersed in his sphere for a while now, planning to build a couple of rods from the many tapers that are in it.

[Aristotle]

Dickerson 8014, Payne 100, PHY Martha Marie, any available Edwards 8'6" 5wt rod, Garrison 206. I have made and enjoyed all of these tapers.

Thanks, Munsey.

[BigTJ]

Your time might be better spent studying EC Powell first, then thinking about how some of the things the classic makers did fit into the context of progressive, straight line, regressive, and compound tapers. Things like swelled butts, steps over ferrules, and fast tips are the little things I’m talking about.

Good luck.

[trland]

Your time might be better spent studying EC Powell first, then thinking about how some of the things the classic makers did fit into the context of progressive, straight line, regressive, and compound tapers. Things like swelled butts, steps over ferrules, and fast tips are the little things I’m talking about.

Good luck.

I think this is great advice. Understanding the difference between Powell's A, B, and C tapers really sets the stage for everything else.

[Aristotle]

BigTJ and trland,

Thank you. This is a great suggestion. I think Powell's mathematical progression of tapers is a great foundation.