Adding confusion

[Ray Kunz]

I may be simple minded but I don't understand how Mustad is renumbering their "Upgraded" hooks.
They set up a new numbering system in which a last digit is the shank length in the regular "X" designation but then they add an old hook number so we can do a translation.
The problem is that the "X" designation that is built into the old hook number is that of a different shank length. I can't see how one hook can be described as having TWO different lengths

[Cold]

There was a thread about this a while back, but I cant seem to locate it now...

[Normand]

They set up a new numbering system in which a last digit is the shank length in the regular "X" designation but then they add an old hook number so we can do a translation.

i think thats all its meant to be is a tranlation from the "classic" to the "signature". wouldnt you have to disregard the old "classic" number and go with the new "signature" numbers? the codes are for the "signature" hook not the "classic" hook.


here is a detailed explanation of the numbering system

http://www.mustad.no/products/premiu..._alphacode.htm

[john52948]

ive got a bunch of the new numbered hooks, and if you compare the old hooks to the supposed new matching hook you will see a noted difference . i compared an old size 18 9671 to its new version, and it looks like the new hook is one size larger. the new 18 compares to an old 16. i guess im going to have to go thru a transition period where i have two different size 18 flies for the same pattern.

thanks mustad.

[Cold]

ive got a bunch of the new numbered hooks, and if you compare the old hooks to the supposed new matching hook you will see a noted difference . i compared an old size 18 9671 to its new version, and it looks like the new hook is one size larger. the new 18 compares to an old 16. i guess im going to have to go thru a transition period where i have two different size 18 flies for the same pattern.

thanks mustad.

I've experienced nothing at all like that. In fact, I'd say that I've been impressed by how little they've changed in the transition. My #14 2X-Fine dry hooks, whether 94833 or R30 look identical. Likewise with the 79580 and R74.

[Normand]

i compared an old size 18 9671 to its new version, and it looks like the new hook is one size larger. the new 18 compares to an old 16.
thanks mustad.

i think there was some discussion about this awhile ago with Dr Fish, the mustad expert. something to do with correcting the proportions.

post #54

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/s...t=25511&page=6

[eaustin]

Well, no. The 94840 was the standard dry fly hook for years and years, so it was and is the defacto standard. As the standard, there's nothing to correct. It's proportions are correct, and hooks that deviate from it are therefor incorrect. Or were those proportions really way off and nobody noticed for 50 years? It's all subjective of course, but it's like saying the New Coke is now Coke. No, it's New Coke, and was so unsuccessful that they had to abandon it. Someone thought they had to correct the taste of Coke. There was nothing to correct, Coke is Coke. Someone thought they had to correct the proportions of a hook that was the standard for 50 years. This would have been fine, had they not done away with the original.

Whether or not a hook is chemically sharpened is meaningless to me. Were we not hooking fish all those years with the 94840 and the 3906B and the 3399? Life is change. I've always been a fan of Mustad, loved the old hooks, don't hate the new, just wish they had left well enough alone.
Eric

[kelkay]

I like the sharpness of the newer hooks....however I don't know if the upgrade in cost is worth it really. It is confusing, and I have charts. I wish they had just upgraded, and left the same hook number on the hook. For the older hooks till they are all sold, they could of said classic or something like that. Oh well, they won't change that now, I am sure of that.

[Cold]

it's like saying the New Coke is now Coke. No, it's New Coke, and was so unsuccessful that they had to abandon it. Someone thought they had to correct the taste of Coke. There was nothing to correct, Coke is Coke.

So when they moved away from natural sugar to artificial sweeteners years ago, did you say no this isn't coke and continue to refer to coke as it is today as "artificial coke"?

I know what you're driving at, but imvho, the 94840 is getting a bit too much of a pedestal. Its a bent wire, for pete's sake.

[Fly Goddess]

Just me, but I look at the hooks...if it is the length, size and type (streamer, scud, Nymph, Dry) that I am looking for, I buy it.....you mean there are #'s?