marquis salmon #3 - Spey Pages
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-05-2005, 06:22 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2
marquis salmon #3

hi fellow double handers,
i have question about the marquis salmon #3 is this reel is to big for a sage 9141-4 rod?, or i need #2?
tkanks to all,
sea run is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-05-2005, 06:35 PM
fly on little wing
 
voodoofly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Western Michigan
Posts: 1,074
Send a message via AIM to voodoofly
marquis salmon #3

is a sweeeeeeeeeeet reel.

great for 9wt stuff and above.

G
voodoofly is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-05-2005, 07:04 PM
Registered User
 
Willie Gunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Spey, Deveron.Brora, Ness, Conon, Beauly
Posts: 885
Wink

Yes far to big I will swap you a 2 for it at no charge. Send me your address.

Willie Gunn
Quot homines tot sententiae

www(dot)speygillie.co.uk
Willie Gunn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-05-2005, 09:22 PM
chrome-magnon man
 
Dana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: west coast steelhead/salmon, BC/Alberta trout
Posts: 5,375
I would agree with Willie, the #3 is a pretty big reel for a 14ft rod. I've used mine on 13 and 14ft rods in the past and it is just too much reel--too heavy. The #2 would be a better choice.



Dana is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-06-2005, 01:05 AM
Steelhead are cool!
 
Big K1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: S rivers and a few other letters!
Posts: 572
Malcom,

You still have some 2's left?

Kevin
Big K1 is offline  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-06-2005, 06:01 AM
Speyngineer
 
Lohi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Finnish and Norwegian rivers
Posts: 167
Hardy Marquis Salmon #3

It is big, but not that different from the #2. Same diameter, #2 has only narrower spool and thus less line capacity.

The weight of #2 Salmon is 273g and #3 Salmon weights 294g...

I would keep the #3, as then you have the line capacity for the XL-lines, if needed. I have three of them, and use them in all my rods, from 13 ft to 16 ft B&W:s.

Disclaimer - the opinions above merely reflect the writers restricted ability to observe reality
Lohi is offline  
post #7 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-06-2005, 06:23 PM
Registered User
 
pescaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE Alaska
Posts: 460
You don't need a Salmon #2 for a 9141, but it would be preferable to the #3 model. The #2 is a wonderful reel and would match well with that rod. The #3 is also great but is a monster and better suited to 10+ weights and 15'+ rods. I fish both these reels and the extra size and weight is significant. It may only weigh another 3/4 oz. but all that wet backing adds significant weight too.
pescaphile is offline  
post #8 of 8 (permalink) Old 03-08-2005, 10:48 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: st. mary's
Posts: 65
Marquis salmom #3

I have Marquis #2, #3 and have fished with them on a few different spey rods. #3 has much more line capacity than #2 and #2 may fit 100 ft #30 lb backing with 9/10 SA midspey, it may work with short head spey line or micronite backing line. Both reels may be light for 9141. I always love the perfect balance between the rod and reel, which means the rod should be leveled even or slight butt heavy when it is balanced at the top end of handle with the reel lined with only backing line. If you think about spey casting, the rod tip never goes below the reel, that is why the unbalanced reel and rod fatigues your muscles and won't help casting. However if you fish a few hours once a week, the unbalanced rod will not affect you. Having said the above, #2 Marquis will not be balanced with 9141. Even #3 may be light for the rod although I am not 100% sure. The Sage spey rods are tip heavy and the reel seat is uplocking which require heavier reels, compared with T&T or G.Loomis. I know #3 is light for 9150 Sage traditional, but I still fish with 9150 and #3 lined with XLT, wishing #3 was heavier. #2 is best balanced with spey rods with a down locking reel seat which are less than 7.5oz in physical weight.
J. Lee is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Spey Pages forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome