I didn’t want to step on the post that asked whether the Sharkskin or the Ridge line was better so I started this post.
The assumption behind this question is that the questioner needs rather than wants one of these lines. I’m not sure that is true, so the question is why does anyone feel these lines do that is worth $100.00?
I’ve listened to a podcast by a member of the Sci Anglers pro staff as to why the Sharkskin was so great but I was not convinved that it was worth the cost.
To those of you that own these lines, WHY? What fishing situations are so technical that it requires a super line that cannot be fished with equal effectiveness with a $50.00 line? I’m sure there are a few so what are they?
They’re obviously going to be of most use where distance is an important factor (bonefish, or any other quarry where you can’t get in close) and you still want a floating line (otherwise, you’re probably going to be using a shooting head.)
IMO, it would be insane to own one for the type of trout fishing that I do – most casts under 30 feet.
I use all three … Sharkskin, Ridge line and a whole assortment of “regular” lines.
IMHO, the “super lines” do shoot better … even compared to a well maintained “regular” line. The jury is still out on which shoots better, the Shark skin or the ridge line.
Note though that for me, a light rod is a #5, so I really don’t know what difference these lines would make on a #3 rod casting 45 feet.
Also, I usually cast on my home waters between 65 and 90 feet, so shooting line is an everyday cast.
Both do seem to float well too and I prefer not to use shooting heads. I mend often as well as roll and Spey cast.
Lastly, price: Up here, I can get Ridgelines for 59$ cnd and a Mastery series Steelhead taper is 64.94 cnd.
The sharkskins are 90$ cnd … so for LESS, I get the Airflo product than I would for a “regular” line.
I don’t own any and don’t intend to but if I were regularly fishing for steelhead in big rivers …I would definitely have one…pretty much for the reasons Chris gave.
Folks seem to agree on the increase in distance…float-ability…durability and longevity.
They arent worth that kind of $$$ to me. I dont need to cast out line till Im in the backing. Certainly here at home where the streams are 30-40 feet wide it would be a waste of $$. When the wife and I go west to fish with a guide…they can normally get you within 30 feet of fish…so there again its not needed.
Some , that dont NEED that sort of line, will buy the “latest and greatest” simply because it IS the latest and greatest. I prefer to buy them when they have been superseded by the “next” generation and the price has become “reasonable”…??? And then ONLY if I NEED said item
You can get sharkskin in a 4w for $60 and yes, it’s worth it. I am the most frugal fisherman you don’t know and I will pay it. It mends easier than saying yes to grandma’s apple pie and requires no effort to cast/roll. I actually got mine for $40 or I might not know that. If it lasts as long as they claim, I would gladly buy another one for retail next time.
A silk line can cost $250.00 or more. However, that will last twenty years (I’ve fished forty year old lines for seasons and they were as good as new), so if you amoritize the expense over that time frame the lines are cheap.
OTOH, the modern plastic lines, we are told, should be replaced every few years because the plasticizers and floatants leach out and cannot be replaced. The Sharkskin and Rodge lines are the latest attempt at simulating the uneven texture of a silk line which is what permits silk to shoot better than PVC. (Silk also floats higher, cuts the wind better, and mends better.)
All that said, I like the Cortland “444” peach lines.
The Sharkskin and Rodge lines are the latest attempt at simulating the uneven texture of a silk line which is what permits silk to shoot better than PVC.
I do a lot of still water fishing (lakes) from shore. The so called super lines are worth it to me where casting 70+ feet is the norm to get out into the channels where the fish cruise. I used to use SA GPX in 5 and 6 weights, but found SharkSkin in those weights give me an advantage in that it shoots out the line better and adds 15 plus feet to the distance with the same casting effort. Also, I have had mine a few years now and they look and perform like new. Amortizing them to date comes to roughly $33/yr and will be even less with each passing year of service.
I’ve paid more for a line, quite a bit more, and would do so again if I need another weight. I fish silk lines almost exclusively these days and while I believe they have some definite advantages over plastic lines they aren’t for everyone any more than using the vintage bamboo I prefer is for every one.
I fish the silk because: they will last…far beyond my fishing career if I take care of them, they are definitely lighter on the water when they land than any plastic line I’ve used, they’re more dense than plastic thus smaller in diameter and beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind cut the wind better, they have no memory and they’re much more versatile than plastic.
They have disadvantages too: they’re expensive, if you want them to last you must maintain them, after several hours they begin to sink, if you buy a new one it must be broken in…and probably some others I can’t think of at the moment.
Mostly I use silk lines because I LIKE them…a LOT, and I don’t mind paying for that. And I don’t use plastic lines since discovering silk because they’re plastic…I don’t like plastic…on bows, gun stocks, fly rods or in my fly lines.
If someone likes Sharkskin or Ridge lines then that is what they should fish. That choice is no ones business but their own. It isn’t about whether you need it. If that were the case we could cut a hickory limb, string it up with kite string, tie on a 10 cent hook and put a worm on it and catch fish. We don’t NEED the fly rods we have to catch a fish. We own the rods, lines and reels we own because we WANT them to catch fish in our way…and it is no ones business but ours.
Something else worth considering for anyone looking at this type of line is that AirFlo has a 28 day satisfaction guarantee on the Ridge line. Fish it for a month. Dont like it? Send it back.
More importantly (to me), however, they have a 5 year non-crack warranty. If your line cracks, send it back.
I dont mean to sound like a Ridge sales rep or anything, and I dont think its the perfect line, but I DO think that for $60 it IS an excellent buy.
Its by no means the only line I use either. I have WF Ridge on my 3 and 7wts, an Orvis Wonderline on my 5wt, and a Cortland Sylk line on my 4wt glass and am pleased with them all, but that WF3F Ridge easily sees 5 times the punishment of any other line, and it’s still going strong.
The only rod that i use ridgeline on is a 8wt. It is useful casting on windy days, and also when i want to cast a long distance. I want every advantage i can get when fighting the winds, or wanting to put a bug 80’ from me.
The ridgeline has a distinctive noise, and when i am in a wilderness area it can be annoying.
Is a Sage Z Axis worth $700+? Or a Winston BIIX? To some, yes. To others, no. Same with the fly line.
I like nice things. I like Winston rods. Expensive, yes, but that’s what I want, like, and fish with (along with modern glass). Same with Sharkskin. I love the line, and it matches well with just about every rod I have.
If you like cheap lines, cheap reels, cheap rods-don’t even bother answering or commenting on this post. It’s not for you. Pairing up a nice rod with a great line on a great reel, I like it.
Now is the line worth $100? To me, yes. Unless you’ve fished with it, don’t knock it. I fish a lot of stillwater with it too- like Tyrone does. I also fish a lot of streams/rivers that a 40’ foot cast is long. SS makes it so much easier- picking it off the water, less false casting (more time on the water for the line) pretty much self cleaning. Like I mentioned in my post on Lotech’s thread, a friend of mine that fishes a hell of a lot more then 99% of the members here has used it for now for over 2 years. I talked to him today and asked him if he still had the original SS on his 5w (because of Lotech’s post). He is still using it.
So, doing the math (two lines per year @$59/line before Sharkskin = $236. [This is what he was going through]
Same spool of Sharkskin at $100 for 2 years = $100.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.
I second everything Tyrone said. There are those times I need the 70+ cast, but with no sweat, I can turn around and fish the 5’ creek with the same line.
It adds feet, floats higher so roll casting is easier and mending is easier.
No line is WORTH $100. but that is the going rate and it does do everything it is said to do.
Again, the difference in the Ridgeline and Sharkskin is SS is suppler, specially in cold climate.
Silk…the ultimate, but too high maintenance for me. Oh and the Sharkskin is suppose to be self cleaning. I have been using it on a sandy shore this summer and it does seem to clean it’s self up after use.
But if you can get your less expensive lines to do what you want, then no need to look any further. But, be careful if you decide to TRY them, cause there is no turning back…LOL
I have new in the box fly lines manufactured 20 years ago that when used perform as new and float high (Cortland, S.A AirCel Supreme 2). I have 15 year old used lines (light use -Cortland 444, S.A. Ultra) that have been cared for and performed as good as new when clean. I was told by reps from a couple line companies that old, unused, lines stored in cool, dark places should be good for many many years.
I have been recently using a Sharkskin shooting line. It shoots better than their standard floating shooting line, but the difference is maybe 10%. The rougher surface is easier to grip with wet hands, which I find more important than the extra distance gained. The shooting line is $60. Not convinced that I would pay for $100 for a full length line.
Define “worth it”. If you are talking $, then I would say probably not, since I can’t see someone catching 100 fish with a sharkskin where they were only catching 60 with, say, an XPS.
But a great deal of gear selection in this sport is not entirely logical. People use gear because they WANT to use it, and they feel comfortable doing so. So for some of those people, a $100 line that they think gives them five extra feet of cast is well worth it.
For me, I have to say not a chance. I tried the sharkskin once, and pretty much hated it from the get-go, regardless of price.