I know that we had a nice long thread when the number system changed and I was one of those guys that really liked the proportial changes in the Signature line. I don’t think that Mustad has to take a back seat to any hook manufacturer with the Signature line.
They start off with an R50 as standard diameter and standard Length. An R30 is 2X light for hook wire diameter. OK fine. A R70 is 2X heavy standard length. Fine with me. A R72 is 2X heavy and 2X extra long, still cool. So first digit is hook wire diameter and the second digit is length, right - wrong.
A R48 is 2 times short and is standard wire diamter. With how things were going I would think that an R48 would have been 1X fine for wire and 8X long for length, but now they subtract 2 from the two digits of 50 and say a R 48 is 2X short. So much for the logical progression.
Someone could have come up with some kind of simple numbering system if they were going to change the world around that was easier to understand for this simple guy.
So if you get it, explain it to me? Maybe I need more coffee this morning.
[SIZE=2][COLOR=black]No purist here. I don’t care that they changed the line. I actually think that the signature changes made a lot of sense with the proportional consistencies. I just wish that they made the numbers as consistent as they did the hooks.
I agree, Clay. I really like Mustad hooks, but how could you expect a reasonable new numbering system from a company whose old system had, for example, 9671 for a 2x long hook, 9672 for a 3x long, and all those other strange numbers for the various hooks.
Again, no problems with making the changes - they made more sense. The numbers are just plain goofy. Sometimes the first digit is wire diamter, sometimes not, sometimes second digit is length, sometimes not. Frustrating.
Thanks for the chart, I saw it on the website. I like the new hooks. I should just quit trying to make the numbers make some kind of sense to me.
It’s not really that bad. I mean, when was the last time you saw a 1X fine 8X long hook?
Try to keep in mind that hooks (generally) dont get shorter than 2x or 3x short, or longer than 4x long. When you get a length digit of 8 or 9, its a shortie, when its -2, -3, or -4, its a long one.
Example: Their normal streamer hooks are 2x heavy, 4x long…R74. Egg hooks are C67S…high last number (7) means a short one. 2x heavy, 3x short. (The C is for curved shank, the S for straight eye). Long curved nymph hooks (formerly 80050BR) are C53S: std. thickness, 3x long.
For me, I MUCH prefer ‘R74’ to 79580 and C53S to 80050BR.
If we had hooks 5x or more long or short, yeah, it’d be a huge problem, but taking a moment to envision the hook will help sort things out.
Agreed it’s not that bad if it was consistant. Even in your example lets looks at the C67S vs. That number should be 1X light by 2X long. The number acording to their own discription should be a C77 if you use the high numbers for short shank. Maybe I’m just easily confused. Like I said, I should just quit trying to understand and tell myself who cares, but then they come out with an Alpha explaination that doesn’t explain and … UG!
The number acording to their own discription should be a C77 if you use the high numbers for short shank.
Its not just that they’re using high numbers for short length. They’re subtracting.
Take the C67S…read the number in steps:
C = Curved shank. No big deal.
67 = 70 - 3. 70 for a 2x heavy hook, minus 3 for the 3x short.
S = Straight-eye. Again, no biggie.
Basically, when you see a “high” number, its actually just a short hook from the weight its closest to. Just one guy’s opinion, but I feel it’s very consistent. You just have to get used to interpreting what the numbers are telling you.
If that second number is 0-4, it’s being added to the base number for that weight. If it’s 7-9 its actually subtracted from the base number.
It appears the problem is with the 2nd digit of the R50. They should never have used 0 - they should’ve used another 5. So the standard, “middle-of-the-road” dry fly hook would be R55. That would give them the ability to subtract or add to either 5 to go lighter or heavier, longer or shorter.
And SonofMartin - your chart may be old or not complete as it lists the R72 hook but my understanding is the R72 is discontinued. And it doesn’t list the S80 or S82 hooks which replace the 3906 and 3906B hooks respectively. You can see a more complete set of charts and conversions here:
Why do I have a feeling that Mustad had “some” of the Signature hooks already in production BEFORE They finalized the alpha-coding system causing them to do their best to fit the current hooks into the system but not being totally consistent.
Reminds me of high school chemistry when my teacher explained how the farenheit and celsius scales were devised. Farenheit built his thermometer and marked the gradients first, stuck it in the cold and hot liquid and saw where the mercury rose to - 32 and 212. Celsius built the thermometer, stuck it in the cold and hot liquid and the bottom was 0 and the top 100.
Who knows if that’s right - but it DID make sense.
Rumor has it the Mustad marketing ‘genius’ used to work for Coca-Cola and was the idiot responsible for the “New Coke” formula in the mid-80’s!
From a business perspective, logic SHOULD dictate a product numbering system for a retail line that’s intuitive toward the product description, and more important, doesn’t require a note pad and a slide rule to figure out what you’re looking at it. Although Tiemco, Gamakatsu and Daiichi are just as bad.
I myself just look for the WORDS Streamer, Dry, Nymph etc, and then for 4X long etc. I figure the numbers are for them not the consumer.
Than again I’m still trying to figure out the x-system in leader/tippet sizes too!:shock: (2X-8lb, 1X-6lb, 4X-6lb, 4X-5lb). Un-freakin-believable!!
