Sharkskin

[steelieslayer]

Whats the deal with this 100$ line. I use 8.99$ scientific angler WF. Can there be that big of a difference?

[Joe Valencic]

Whats the deal with this 100$ line. I use 8.99$ scientific angler WF. Can there be that big of a difference?

Glad you asked. I received a Sharkskin line (#5wf) as part of an award. I also received a TFO Large Arbor Prism 4-5 reel and new TFO rod. I put 100 yards of 20# backing on the reel then wound the Sharskin line on the reel. I had to strip the line off and remove 55 yds of backing in order to get the full 100' of flyline on the reel.

Here are my thoughts on the line:

1. It shoots extremely well with very little effort on my part. This is a big plus.

2. 100' of fly line is an unbelievable amount of line for a 5wt outfit. I can't think of one good reason for that much flyline at this low weight.

3. With only 45 yds of backing on the LA reel, the line binds the reel if it is not wound perfectly on the reel. I will be cutting off 20' of Sharkskin line so that I don't have to watch the reel each time I wind the line.

4. The Sharkskin line is annoyingly noisy. If it were not such a great shooting line, I would get rid of it. I still may do so.

Since I have the pulpit, I will add that I hate the large arbor design. I think it is just a gimmick to sell reels of a different design. If this Prism 4-5 reel were of standard design, I believe I could have put the full compliment of backing and line on the reel. I'm actually going to try to transfer the line and backing to a STH MR-POP2 spare spool to see what the fill looks like.

I cast my Sharkskin line in a friendly competition at the MI-FI last Friday and cast 68'-2" during practice using my TFO 8'-6" 4-piece rod. At the same competition last year, I cast just about the same distance using JC's Gatti 9'-0" rod with a standard fly line. I'm sure this is because of my limitations as a distance caster, but I never have need of that kind of distance during normal fishing trips.

In closing, I don't see the value in the Sharkskin line for everyday fishing. I believe SA has other lines that meet the needs of the everyday angler for much less money, and they don't 'sing off key' when you cast them.

Joe

[Ron Eagle Elk]

I have just the opposite take as Joe. After test casting JC's Sharkskin line at the Idaho Fish-In last year I bought one for my wife and one for myself, in 5 wgt, heron blue color. The line, as Joe said, shoots really well, better than any other line I've used. It floats higher so mending and roll casting are easier, at least for me.

As far as the noise, I barely notice any noise, but then I'm hard of hearing in certain pitches so that may account for it.

The line, according to SA, is supposed to last three times as long as a regular line. If it does, then the $100 price tag is a relative bargain. My wife and I both love the Sharkskin lines and won't give them up.

[Jackster]

I got a five weight Sharkskin on-the-cheap because a friend of mine couldn't handle the noise.
Once in the river the sound it makes is hardly noticable to me.
The benifits I find so far are as others have stated, low friction, high floating and simply a grand fishing line.
If anyone else out there who can't hack the sound it makes drop me a line. I'll take it!

Joe, a true large arbor reel will have as much capacity as a standard reel... sometimes more. There are manufactures who make add-on 'large-arbor' spools that fit on their conventional reel frames but all they've done is make the hub larger. Doing that without widening the spool simply takes away line capacity.
I like true large arbor reels and really learned to like them when the line was wound tight around the small diameter hub of a conventional spool. Can you say 'Shirley Temple'?

[Fly Goddess]

But, then Orvis came out with a wider/larger hub and they call it a MID arbor, to go with there LARGE ARBOR (which doesn't hold allot of backing)

I am still waiting for reports on long term damage to guides and rods with the Sharkskin. For now I keep using my RIDGELINE and darn happy with it

[Joe Valencic]

Joe, a true large arbor reel will have as much capacity as a standard reel... sometimes more. There are manufactures who make add-on 'large-arbor' spools that fit on their conventional reel frames but all they've done is make the hub larger. Doing that without widening the spool simply takes away line capacity.

I'm not certain if the TFO Prism reel design was intended for a Sharkskin line with its additional 20' of line. I shouldn't pass judgment on it until I find that out.

[TyroneFly]

I have SA Sharkskin in the 4 wt. I use it on both my 4 wts, Sage FLi 480-2 and ZXL 490-4. For small streams and pools which require short distance casting I find it takes little effort to cast 15 to 45 feet compared to SA trout. I also find when the wind kicks up that I can cast much farther with less effort using this line as well. The sound of the line is not an issue for me, but then again I do not hear certain sounds unless one of my ears is directly in line with the source of the sound.

I just realized I have one in the 6 wt as well, but I have not used it much this year.

Would I buy another, yes. I plan on buying a 5 wt.

[Ray]

Whats the deal with this 100$ line. I use 8.99$ scientific angler WF. Can there be that big of a difference?

Man I love reading stuff like this. Scientific Anglers makes lines that cost $.8.99 and they make lines that cost $100.

I'm sure there's no difference. Same line different packaging.

It amazes me how many peoples only concern is the price.

You can drive a 10 old pick-up truck with 200,000 miles or a new Ferrari. Same thing, just a motor covered with glass, plastic & steel. Both just take you to work & back.

Scientific Angler's makes lines for many different markets. They know there are anglers who only want the cheapest stuff they can find and make lines for this market. Trust me, they get what they pay for! Then they make lines for anglers who are looking for maximum performance from their lines. The sharkskin line floats very high on the water surface. I find this to be huge advantage, I can pick up a lot of line easily. It mends like nothing I've ever fished, with so little water contact it's easy to manipulate. It loads the rod and casts farther and easier with fewer if not one 1 back cast.

Many of the posts listed here have never cast, fished or even seen this line, yet they insist on commenting. Maybe looking at the price tag isn't the best way to shop.

[ohiotuber]

Man I love reading stuff like this. Scientific Anglers makes lines that cost $.8.99 and they make lines that cost $100.

I'm sure there's no difference. Same line different packaging.

It amazes me how many peoples only concern is the price.

You can drive a 10 old pick-up truck with 200,000 miles or a new Ferrari. Same thing, just a motor covered with glass, plastic & steel. Both just take you to work & back.

Scientific Angler's makes lines for many different markets. They know there are anglers who only want the cheapest stuff they can find and make lines for this market. Trust me, they get what they pay for! Then they make lines for anglers who are looking for maximum performance from their lines. The sharkskin line floats very high on the water surface. I find this to be huge advantage, I can pick up a lot of line easily. It mends like nothing I've ever fished, with so little water contact it's easy to manipulate. It loads the rod and casts farther and easier with fewer if not one 1 back cast.

Many of the posts listed here have never cast, fished or even seen this line, yet they insist on commenting. Maybe looking at the price tag isn't the best way to shop.

Ray,
I always love reading your responses.....Nothing fancy, just "meat & potatoes"...sort of like Joe Friday on "Dragnet" used to say.."Just the facts, ma'am.". You may just have changed some minds about this line.
Thanks,
Mike

[catman]

Ray,
I always love reading your responses.....Nothing fancy, just "meat & potatoes"...sort of like Joe Friday on "Dragnet" used to say.."Just the facts, ma'am.". You may just have changed some minds about this line.
Thanks,
Mike

Man I love reading stuff like this. Scientific Anglers makes lines that cost $.8.99 and they make lines that cost $100.

I'm sure there's no difference. Same line different packaging.

It amazes me how many peoples only concern is the price.

You can drive a 10 old pick-up truck with 200,000 miles or a new Ferrari. Same thing, just a motor covered with glass, plastic & steel. Both just take you to work & back.

Scientific Angler's makes lines for many different markets. They know there are anglers who only want the cheapest stuff they can find and make lines for this market. Trust me, they get what they pay for! Then they make lines for anglers who are looking for maximum performance from their lines. The sharkskin line floats very high on the water surface. I find this to be huge advantage, I can pick up a lot of line easily. It mends like nothing I've ever fished, with so little water contact it's easy to manipulate. It loads the rod and casts farther and easier with fewer if not one 1 back cast.

Many of the posts listed here have never cast, fished or even seen this line, yet they insist on commenting. Maybe looking at the price tag isn't the best way to shop.

OK I'll bite on the subject of SA Shark Skin. I picked up a 5wt. about 3 months ago from my local fly shop for ($50) that was used once, what the heck the price was right. Someone had bought from the shop originaly and the guy just couldn't handle the noise. I haven't cleaned or done anything to it since I've had it, it mends great, shoots great and floats great (yes it makes a noise) can't hear anything anyway so my wife says..

I like it, I wish I had one in a 4wt, but I'm not paying a "C" note for it yet.

After I wrote this I did go out and clean the Shark Skin line and there was some stuff that came of the line of course, but the Mog-Mog that came of the line apears to me hasn't affected the performance of the line that I can see, I'm heading out this afternoon to little stream to see if the cleaning did help..