Reasoning that three years offered enough testing time to arrive at some conclusions, I sat down to do two things:

1. Write a review for the Trout Underground
2. Order RIO Gold lines in DT4 & DT5 for my “everyday” reels

Which is when I made a revolting discovery; the RIO Gold line isn’t available in a double taper.

Which means I’m recommending a fly line to my readers, yet can’t buy one for my own use.

Life, it seems, is rarely simple.

The Testing

I was given the RIO Gold line for testing about the same time SA gave me one of their then-new Sharkskin lines.

The Sharkskin floated nice and high (just as claimed) and cast nicely, but it made a lot of noise in the guides (I’d have gotten used to it) and over the course of a day, tried to saw my index finger off (I couldn’t get used to that).

The RIO Gold fished wonderfully too (it’s the current choice of noted fly line & leader crank [Name Redacted]), and did so without delivering third-degree rug burns. I even liked the moss/gold color scheme.

We had a winner. Or so I thought.

It turns out my beloved double-taper fly lines are slowly fading from the mainstream.

And in the style of bewildered geezers everywhere, I’m certain it’s not because I’m obsolete.

It’s because everyone else doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing.

Like RIO, who makes a fine fly line, then mucks everything up by only offering it in a WF design.

The only high-end DT actually available from RIO is a “delicate presentation” line whose taper charts suggests it would run (screaming like a little girl) if you tied on a stonefly or streamer.

No dice.

The Case For The DT

Fishing the 5wt RIO Gold WF on small streams renders its WF flaws a non-issue; I rarely get past the shooting head, so life is good.

On bigger rivers and lakes, I often get past the shooting head and into the running line, and that is a problem, especially when long roll casts are in the mix (a reality more often that you’d think).

In fact I’m going to firmly entrench myself in Cranky Geezer Land; I can’t fathom the popularity of the short-belly WF lines which seem to dominate the fly fishing world.

Much is made of their ability to “shoot” more line, but frankly, you can “shoot” plenty of DT line too. What’s the real difference in distance?

And how often does it really matter?

Meanwhile, the DT line offers us a powerful pair of reasons to buy:

• Great line control
• A second shot at life

The beauty of a DT (besides its ability to roll cast to great distances) is this: you can reverse a DT line on your reel after you’ve worn it out (or stepped on it or cut it or accidentally sucked it up in a vacuum cleaner, or…).

It’s basically two lines in one, which should mean a lot to fly fishermen paying $70-$100 for fly lines.

Cynics might suggest that’s precisely why DT lines aren’t pushed by manufacturers, but when confronted by a cranky, delusional blogger, the manufacturers simply blame “market forces.”

In fact, an industry marketing exec once happily told me the availability of a “delicate” tapers in WF formats meant DT lines no longer had a reason to exist.

I wrote back and suggested that specialty distance and stillwater lines had rendered the general purpose, trout-weight WF obsolete – unless you were a line manufacturer interested in selling 2x as many fly lines as necessary.

Oddly, I never heard from him again.

So why, I ask, are manufacturers – and anglers – so unwilling to make or buy DT lines?

A Quick Look At The Market

While RIO doesn’t offer a single “general purpose” DT fly line, Scientific Anglers does a little better, though their newest “textured” Mastery lines aren’t available in a DT taper. (The Textured Mastery lines are likely a response to complaints about abrasive Sharkskin lines leveled by sore-fingered anglers, and the dimpled lines received all sorts of fly gear love from the notoriously cranky and wanted in seven states Singlebarbed).

In total, SA offers six different series of fly lines, three of which are available in a “standard” DT format (including the regular “Mastery” series).

Meanwhile, Orvis offers their highest-end Wonderlines in a DT format, though I’ve never tested one (the Olive Dun color looks nice) and can’t give it a thumbs up or down.

Sadly, Cortland’s lineup – which includes “Premium” fly lines and a whole wad of “species specific” fly lines – relegates the all-around DT to the same product lines you’d have bought 30 years ago.

I’m not much of a fan of technology developed solely to sell fly lines – and never bought into what appears to be rampant over-specialization of the fly line industry – but I do like fly lines that float high and pop off the water nicely.

The Sharkskin and RIO Gold lines both did that better than my aging peach lines, and I was interested.

It’s a shame the fly line manufacturers can’t find their way to sell the two-ended version commonly used by cranky geezer types holding low-modulus fly rods.

See you on the river (and hey, you kids get off my lawn), Tom Chandler.

More water time for our test boots

We’re not quite ready to spring our testing extravaganza post yet, but the Simms Vibram-soled wading boots sent for testing have been seeing more river time at the hands (or feet, actually) of a pair of local fly fishing guides.

While Dave Roberts and I thought they performed surprisingly well on the rock-snotty Rogue River, reports from local guides Wayne Eng and Steve Bertrand aren’t quite as encouraging.

First, keep in mind we’re testing the bare rubber soles – to which no screws have been added.

Screwing in a couple of Simms metal studs would likely improve their traction in difficult circumstances, though it would also negate some of the benefits of non-studded boots (they don’t make guides crazy in drift boats, you can wear them in your car without attaching yourself to the gas pedal at an inopportune time, etc)

The Guide Word

First, Wayne said “I was feeling pretty good about the new boots… until I hit the McCloud. When I needed them, they simply weren’t there for me.”

Wayne has worn the Simms boots more than I have – and generally liked them – but once he hit the bigger, rounder, smoother rocks of the McCloud, he became an unhappy camper, suggesting the grip was simply unreliable.

A couple Undergrounders commented on similar experiences on the Pit River’s devilishly difficult bigger, smoother rocks, which clearly isn’t the strong suit of the Simms boots.

Steve Bertrand has also worn the boots enough to decide that they’re “a great wading boot, just not on this river.” Bertrand bemoaned almost falling twice on an Upper Sacramento river crossing he normally handles easily while wearing Simms’ older-model studded rubber boots.

Again, everybody loves the way they work out of the water – and how they operate under most conditions – but on the bigger, smoother surfaces, the no-studs Vibram sole isn’t making the grade.

Oddly, this isn’t end-of-the-world stuff. The McCloud and Pit are notoriously difficult rivers to wade, and the fact that the Vibram rubber soles have performed this well – sans a few easily installed studs – is a promising development.

In gravelly or cobbled rock environments, the Simms soles seems to be working well. For those fishing tougher water, screwing in a few studs might just offer the best of all worlds; a long-wearing rubber sole that works better than felt in many less-challenging environments (like climbing a bank or in the snow), but still grips well in the tougher stuff.

In other words, these rubber soles are clearly an improvement over Simms’ older rubber soles, so it stands to reason they’ll also exceed the performance of the older models once you add a few studs – while lasting far longer than felt.

Patagonia Riverwalkers

Sadly, the Patagonia Riverwalker boots (subject of a review here, and possessors of a softer sole material but a less-aggressive tread) weren’t being tested on the McCloud, so a side-by-side comparison isn’t yet possible (we’re working on it).

Ian Rutter – intrigued by my earlier post about the Riverwalkers – got a pair and has been testing them on the tailwaters and small streams of Eastern Tennessee, and has decided they’re close – but that slipping (and windmilling) an extra 10% of the time probably isn’t worth it to him.

He’s especially uncomfortable with their grip on very smooth, “bedrock” style surfaces.

Like the rest of us, he loves their dry-land performance and comfort, but will probably be sticking with felt a while longer.

We’ve got our hands full simply testing two pair of rubber soled boots, but we were still intrigued to learn that Cloudveil’s boots are going for a test ride over on the roughfisher.com blog.

So many boots. So little fly fishing time.

Still, we’ll keep you posted.

See you on the test range, Tom Chandler.

Simms, Patagonia wading boots for testing

Because today – instead of staying home and working (always my first choice) – I’m looming up the truck and going fly fishing with Dave Roberts on the Rogue. And yes, I’m selflessly doing it all for you.

I’ve got two kinds of rubber-soled wading boots that desperately need testing, and a 6wt fly rod & reel combo that’s crying out for a Rogue steelhead.

And yes, I know what you’re thinking: “That Chandler guy really gives his all to his readers – sacrificing a day sitting on his ass behind a desk so that his readers can know the inner peace born of comprehensive fly fishing gear reviews.”

You’d be right.

I’m just like Mother Theresa, only in waders.

I know many of you are doubtless phoning the Nobel Prize committee right now. And perhaps a few calls are going out to Vatican. (Could I become fly fishing’s living patron saint?)

To you, I say “Send cash instead.”

If enough of you recognize my selfless sacrifice with cold, hard cash, then I can afford to take more days off work to go fly fishing – dramatically improving the quality of your lives in the process.

At the Underground, that’s what we call a win-win situation (well, more a WIN [me] – win [you]).

I’d say more, but I’ve gotta pack up some gear.

See you on the river, Tom (Schweitzer) Chandler.