Marquis 2 or 3?

2982 Views 17 Replies 11 Participants Last post by ajransom, Nov 14, 2014

ajransom

Discussion Starter · Nov 4, 2014

I'm looking at getting a Hardy Marquis for my 13' 7 weight. I fish mainly skagit heads but also scandi, and would also like to get a mid or long belly down the track.

Would a marquis 2 or 3 be better?

Thanks!

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

glcaddis

· #2 · Nov 4, 2014

It depends...

The #2 is great on the lighter weight 7 wts, balance is good and capacity is sufficient to hold plenty of backing and running line. If your rod is on the heavier side or 14' or longer, then the #3 may balance better. I just traded my #3 for a #2 because the longer, heavier rods are no longer in the quiver.

NVswitch

· #3 · Nov 4, 2014

I would think that the 2 would work best. Both my friends have the Salmon 2 on 7 and 8 wt rods and they fit well. I personally use a Salmon 1 with a 12" 6 wt. and find it perfect on that rod. Thats why I think the 2 would work on the 7 wt. rod. Mike

montanafos

· #4 · Nov 4, 2014

Salmon 2...

fish0n4evr

· #5 · Nov 4, 2014

The No.2 is a good match for a 7 weight 13'er.

FKrow

· #6 · Nov 5, 2014

I use the Marquis Salmon 2 on my 7wt rods.

Regards,
FK

ajransom

Discussion Starter · #7 · Nov 14, 2014

Red truck diesel reel

Anyone got experience with the Red Truck Diesel spey reel? Weighing up the Marquis and other comparable clickers.

Thanks.

chief_n8dub

· #8 · Nov 14, 2014

marquis reels

Marq 2 works great on any rod 14'ish-13'

Last Place

· #9 · Nov 14, 2014

The 2 would rock for those specs.

coastrider

· #10 · Nov 14, 2014

not to derail the thread but I got a speyco scandi and it fits well on a 13'er, Tims awesome to deal with too:smokin:

buff

· #11 · Nov 14, 2014

That depends...

coastrider said:
not to derail the thread but I got a speyco scandi and it fits well on a 13'er, Tims awesome to deal with too:smokin:

Well, Ed sorry to burst your good cheer bubble, but Tim isn't always awesome to deal with. Depends on whether or not you have a problem, and whether there is a quick and cheap fix. If you have a problem, and there is no quick and easy fix, there is NO fix, as in my situation. Don't be recommending customer service unless you know all about it.

coastrider

· #12 · Nov 14, 2014

buff said:
Well, Ed sorry to burst your good cheer bubble, but Tim isn't always awesome to deal with. Depends on whether or not you have a problem, and whether there is a quick and cheap fix. If you have a problem, and there is no quick and easy fix, there is NO fix, as in my situation. Don't be recommending customer service unless you know all about it.

Well, mine blew apart on the first outing and I called Tim directly. He had a new set of upgraded springs and a gear at my door in a couple days. Id call that great service. So, in my case I will recommend him cause he is a class act fellow as far as my experiences go. He also made me a custom length foot for my reel to fit my odd ball rod. Sorry you had a bad experience, doesn't mean everybody has. Guaranteed there are many bad experiences with all sorts of companies. I witnessed Tim offer to buy a guys reel of him cause he was displeased with the reel. I think his reels have character and like supporting hard working people if I can. Cheers, Ed

buff

· #13 · Nov 14, 2014

Glad to read that you had a good service experience. The fact that your reel blew up sounds ominous. Quality control issue? And too bad Tim didn't fix that guy's reel instead of trying to buy his way out of trouble. How much effort could it take?

glcaddis

· #14 · Nov 14, 2014

Marquis vs Red Truck (Abel too)

I've no experience with the RT reel, but looking at the pictures and holding my Marquis #2 in my hand, I'd say the RT looks more like the Hardy Lightweight Series on steroids rather than the Marquis. The RT appears to be narrower, but slightly larger in diameter. The click system is definitely leaning toward the LW. But, for $100 less, who can say that it isn't as good. Since you are getting started and don't seem to be to price adverse, I'd spend the extra money on the Hardy.

I've owned both of the Abel Spey/Switch reels and had no real complaints about them, but I wanted to expand by stable (not really a good idea) and it was cheaper to do with Hardy.

$.02-worth, if you plan to fish mostly heads, I don't think you need more than one reel per rod. It is easy enough to switch heads compared to keeping track of spare spools. However, if I were taking two rods to the river, I'd always want a second reel. There isn't a lot written about reels failing, but it does happen. So some kind of backup plan is a good idea. To me the RT sounds like a good backup plan to a Hardy or other higher end C/P.

See less See more

ajransom

Discussion Starter · #15 · Nov 14, 2014

glcaddis said:
I've no experience with the RT reel, but looking at the pictures and holding my Marquis #2 in my hand, I'd say the RT looks more like the Hardy Lightweight Series on steroids rather than the Marquis. The RT appears to be narrower, but slightly larger in diameter. The click system is definitely leaning toward the LW. But, for $100 less, who can say that it isn't as good. Since you are getting started and don't seem to be to price adverse, I'd spend the extra money on the Hardy.

I've owned both of the Abel Spey/Switch reels and had no real complaints about them, but I wanted to expand by stable (not really a good idea) and it was cheaper to do with Hardy.

$.02-worth, if you plan to fish mostly heads, I don't think you need more than one reel per rod. It is easy enough to switch heads compared to keeping track of spare spools. However, if I were taking two rods to the river, I'd always want a second reel. There isn't a lot written about reels failing, but it does happen. So some kind of backup plan is a good idea. To me the RT sounds like a good backup plan to a Hardy or other higher end C/P.

Thanks Gene. Been fishing for a couple of years and have a couple of lower priced disc reel... Just need (well, want...) a clicker. Ha ha

I appreciate the input - hard to judge if you cant hold and play with both reels next to each other. Think I'm leaning towards the Hardy.

SW Slinger

· #16 · Nov 14, 2014

Hardy Marquis 3

I fish a Hardy Marquis 3 on my 14'6" Decho 7 wt, 14' Sage 9 wt, and my 13' Golden West 8wt. The Marquis 3 is only slightly heavier than the number 2. However it has far more capacity than the number 2,something you might want to consider if you plan to use mid or long belly lines.
For a few years I only had the one reel to use between these rods and by using extra spools I was able to switch from 500 grain to 650 grain Skagit heads, 9/10/11 Windcutter lines and other longer belly lines.
The only change I had to make while fishing the shorter rod was to grip the cork handle a little closer to the reel to counter the reels weight in relation to the amount of rod extending past the handle. I grip the longer rod closer to the top end of the cork grip to achieve a comfortable balance point.
If you plan on getting a 14 ft rod anytime in the future you will appreciate the extra weight of the Marquis 3 and it's larger line capacity.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Peter

glcaddis

· #17 · Nov 14, 2014

Backing Capacity

Is the main difference between the 2 and 3, IMO. If I were going to fish the big rivers of the PNW most of the time, I'd opt for the 3 because I might actually benefit for 2 or 250 yards of backing. On the GL tribs I fish, 200 yards, running line, and fly line is around the next bend or two and if I can't stop the fish or chase it, it is a goner anyway. With the lighter weight of the modern spey rod, I think the 3 is overkill on most any river except the largest ones.

On my 2, I have 125 yards of backing, running line, and room for heads that don't crowd the frame. I can put 50' mid-belly heads on it and I'm fine. Shorter heads just give me more "Panic" room for the fish of a lifetime.

ajransom

Discussion Starter · #18 · Nov 14, 2014

glcaddis said:
Is the main difference between the 2 and 3, IMO. If I were going to fish the big rivers of the PNW most of the time, I'd opt for the 3 because I might actually benefit for 2 or 250 yards of backing. On the GL tribs I fish, 200 yards, running line, and fly line is around the next bend or two and if I can't stop the fish or chase it, it is a goner anyway. With the lighter weight of the modern spey rod, I think the 3 is overkill on most any river except the largest ones.

On my 2, I have 125 yards of backing, running line, and room for heads that don't crowd the frame. I can put 50' mid-belly heads on it and I'm fine. Shorter heads just give me more "Panic" room for the fish of a lifetime.

I live in Vancouver, BC, and do 90% of my fishing on local mid sized rivers for salmon and steelhead. I have a DH 7130 and skagit and scandis, and although I'd love a 14 or 15' rod for bigger rivers, its probably not going to happen anytime soon, with two young kids and a million other things to take up my time...

Sounds like a 2 might be a good option, and if I get a bigger rods, ok probably just bite the bullet and get a 3 as well.

Thanks again for the great tips!

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.