Please note my temporary change uf usename from 'gringo.'

The idea of cost vs value is always contentious, and provokes interesting argument.

Here in Oz a while ago a panel of 'experts' pooled a heap of (disguised) #6 weight rods across all price brackets and blind tested them with a range of experts and then scored the results, based entirely on handling characteristics.

While they attempted to be as impartial and scientific as they could, there was the inevitable criticism that their statistical analyses were flawed. Nevertheless the resulting article is an interesting read and highlights a couple of surprises - a couple of top range rods were rated lower than some cheapies, and a couple of cheapies that rated very well.

Overall though, the general trend was that the higher rated rods were the dearer ones, and the cheaper rods generally rated lower.

While the statistitians argue over the validity of the supposed 'blind testing' I think it was an interesting experiment that showed something we all feared: That the more you spend, the better the rod casts.

Of course, do you need that rod or to cast that distance? Probably not, and human variables will dictate that a decent caster with a cheap rod will easily outcast me with a prime rod.


Still, if you want a particular expensive rod, and can afford it, it is definitely worth it to you at least, whether it catches more fish or not!