MickD

"in shore implies saltwater near shore" As opposed to deep water or off shore or that kind of thing. In shore species are typically bones, trout, redfish, groupers, even sharks and a few more. But in the context of what the duty cycle on the equipment it, it is salt. If a reel is designated "in-shore" then it will not be magnesium, and it will be most likely better designed for exposure to salt, often sealed gears and drag.

4 of my last 6 smallies over 3 pounds came on maribou jigs I tied. For smallies the experts say black is best, olive is very good, now and then pink. I've not used them in good largemouth habitat, but they should work, and I'd start with black. I like maribou better than hair, limper, really enticing look in the water.

They are excellent rods, very sensitive (a quality that has no objective measure, it's all about feel and perceptions). Given equal power the lighter rod will be more sensitive than the heavier one. I doubt if you will find anything that will be significantly more sensitive. St Croix power ratings are a little different than most others. What they call a medium power, most others will call it medium heavy, or close to that. One of the most popular favorite rods on this forum over the years has been the SCV medium light power, fast action 6 1/2 feet (Ithink, maybe 6-8) or 7 feet. I've built 4 of the 7 foot medium power, fast action for me and my family, and they are our favorite rods for finesse fishing. If you don't like the grip ergonomics, you probably won't like the rod.

There is no need to get rid of your rods. There is essentially no difference between a salt water rod and a fresh water rod exc possibly the use of titanium guides on some more expensive salt rods. Even if you buy new "salt water rods," you have to treat them the same way, rinse and dry as mentioned above after EVERY day of fishing them. Even if your rods don't have the best corrosion resistant guides, if you treat them right it will take years for them to be damaged by salt. Reels are a different story, but still, if you treat whatever you have right they will last for years. The exception is magnesium. It will be attacked by salt very quickly unless it's designed for salt. I have used a Shimano Stradic FI for many years for a week of salt fishing and rinse it and dry it after every day, then when I get home I take the spool off and give it a good cleaning and lube, but I don't take it all down to replace all grease and oil, and it is doing fine. If you immerse your reels then I'd send them immediately to a qualified service person. But I see no need to simply sell everything and start over, unless you want to do it anyway. Once you use a lure in salt, don't put it back into the box. Have a separate box for the ones you use. Then you can wash and dry them at the end of the day. Most hooks will deteriorate very quickly after use in salt unless you clean them. Same for tools, like clippers, pliers, etc.

DVT is exactly right, if you just put a tiptop on, the action will slow, and slow a lot with that much gone. It will sort of resemble a broomstick. (an exaggeration, but it will move significantly in that direction). That will not yield a fishable rod, IMO. Good to hear Jimmyjoe tell how it broke, because from a pic like that I don't believe one can diagnose very well how the break was caused. You need a much closer, more detailed photo of the break area. It can be repaired to be quite fishable, as stated by DVT, but it will get a little heavier in the tip. And it will have a visible repair. This tells how. Before anyone argues that this process cannot yield a fishable rod, I have done it many times successfully. In one case I broke a rod for which I had CCS numbers, and when I tested for them again after the break, they came in unchanged. But the tip will be a little heavier. The closer to the tip the break is, the more the weight will be felt and the more the response time will be affected. https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/repair-oquinn.html

Depends on the details of the question. For casting, it is most important for the reel to be of high quality, with a high degree of functionality. For spinning, at least for bass as opposed to redfish, the rod is most important. Just about any $30 spinning reel will function well enough for quite a while. This is not so for casting.

If you have, or can get, a black maribou jig, give it a try. They don't cast a mile, but if you can get one into the area of a smallie, it most likely will get hit.

I thought CA had outlawed everything. My bad.

Think he would be knowledgeable enough to provide an answer that would be better than what this forum provides to the original poster?

Come on folks, it's not about performance. You can handle any differences in performance. It's about whether you want to, or think you can afford to, do the best for the environment. Make your decision.

Daiwa CC 80 is about $60. I've no experience with this reel, but I've never seen a Daiwa reel that was not excellent. For about $110 you can get the Fuego CT, and I assure you , it's a great reel. I started my granddaughter on it and she has had no trouble learning to handle it.

5-1 SMB on a black maribou jig that I tied, part of a 20 pound bag. Only 5 fish caught that day in early October.

You can match any blank in the US. But the problem is that the descriptions are not objective. If you can get it to DVT he can match it and make a new build for you. Then you have two rods with your favorite power/action. I don't think that converting makes any sense at all. I think if you took that rod to a big store, with a big selection of rods, you could pretty well match it right off the shelf. Take a duck decoy anchor (or something similar) with you to deflect the rods, find one that deflects about the same (match power) and look at the deflected shape (match action) and you've got it.

No, just build for family and me. I think DVT posted good advice earlier. I've heard good stuff on his builds, and there are a lot of very good builders out there who sell rods. So get in touch, let them know ALL of what you want the rod to do, including the appearance/bling (or not bling) stuff you want. As long as you are doing it this way, I say go whole hog with the blank. The difference between a good blank and the best blank is probably less than a hundred bucks. I'm big on Point Blanks. The last two builds of Point Blanks, one spin and one cast have quickly become my favorite rods. Consider which guide design you want. I build ALL Fuji now, would go with the RV as the first guide, then KB and KT's all the way to the end. Size 5.5. Talk to your builder about them; he/she will know them.

Medium power, fast action graphite, I like 7 foot. Make sure you pick a blank that has the lure weights you want to cast well within its recommended lure range. Rainshadow Revelations are very nice blanks for the money, as are American Tackle Bushidos. I wouldn't spend a fortune on a blank for the first build because you most likely will get a lot better with each early rod. You could go lower than these and still get a good rod. CRB's from Mudhole, and Get Bit Outdoors lower end blanks. Don't go crazy on guides either. Most any guide on the market today is superior to those that have caught millions of fish on big box rods. Use a double foot size 10 for the first guide, about 19 inches out from the reel, then single foot guides (ceramic ring guides often called "fly guides") of about size 5.5 all the way to the tip. Locate with the stress test/guide locator found at Anglersresource.net. A two line stress test is easier than a one line because the guides can be moved while the rod is stressed and the guides do not take the load of stressing the blank. I like to use 9 guides + tiptop on 7 foot rods.

you need to define what you want the rod to do. Fly, spin, cast, technique, fresh, salt, lure weight, line type and pound test?

I have built a few, didn't notice a difference in performance, but it looks screwy! Different strokes. . .

based on the appearance of the grooves (not chips, notice that these are grooves oriented parallel with the direction of the line) it has to be that the line was not going through the line guide for a long time. Or possibly holding the line down as mentioned above, but not sure how or why someone would want to do it. This is not caused by a defective reel. Normally the line would not even contact this area.

Different custom builders charge different rates for labor. Almost all will get the components for about the same price. I believe if you are going to go custom, find a good builder with a good reputation, maybe DVT on this forum, and discuss in detail what you want to do with the rod and what your priorities are (function/style/bling/etc). Some techniques can prosper from the best of the blanks; others, like cranking, can be done very well with blanks costing well less than $100. A good guide set will run about $50-60, seat about $10-20 depending on how deluxe (but a seat costing about $10 will work just fine) you want to go. Spoonplugger put it at about $150 + components, so you could get a good cranking rod for 150 + 80 blank + 55 guides +10 seat + 20 grips (can vary a lot), + thread/epoxy/keeper/etc, total about $325. For a good finesse rod I would go with a premium blank, add another $100. Keep in mind a rough estimate. Basic but handsome guide wraps. Will most likely perform better than big box store rods. Will last a lifetime or more with good care. Won't be $2K. Probably should mention the federal excise tax of another $10. If I were to make that rod I would be working for minimum wage or less; I'm a half-fast builder.

Even on a tip down presentation the fish will be played with the rod up, and the spiral will not generate the twisting (torque) that a guide-on-top rod will. It will be stable like a spinner. It's this torque reduction (and possibly the reduction in guide count of one) that is the reason for spiral.

If the rod is loaded properly by optimum guide placement then it logically will cast a little longer than one not loaded properly (by having too few guides). But the differences will be small. The friction of the line to the guides is very small. The effect of air resistance is likely more than friction, and the argument that micros cast farther than bigger guides is based on the reduction of the size of the loops going through the air. (Last week I had a line to leader loop fail on the cast of 1/8 oz maribou jig and I immediately noticed that the cast was about 2 times the distance of what I had been getting. Then I found that the lure only had about 4 feet of leader on it-no line to the reel.) But the biggest influence of all on minimizing guide/line friction/air resistance is the line. Use light braid and almost any configuration will cast the proverbial mile. It has been found that the height of the reduction train, where most of the controlling of the line on a spinner takes place, is more important than the size of the ring. Which is why Microwave and Fuji KLH systems utilize higher than normal reduction guides. The ones near the tip load the rod properly. The way builders find out if the configuration is costing distance is to tape the guides on and test it, then start reducing the number of them, placing them per the static test, then retesting them. But most don't waste their time on it going instead with the number of guides equal to the length of the rod + 1 or 2 as mentioned above. (or more with casting rods with micro guides wrapped on top).

The guides on a rod have two functions. First they control the line for optimum flow and second they load the rod properly. The first function is accomplished in the first couple guides on a casting rod and the first three or four on a spin. There are many ways to do this, and many different opinions by builders on which is best. To place them properly to load the rod is the job of the staic test. Reduction guide sizes are determined by proper placement, height, ring diameter, and the line specs you plan to use. To put it simply, the limper the line the smaller the diameter you can get away with. With light braid the design of the reduction system can be just about anything and it will still work pretty well. For the running guides, since the lighter the guide train is the more sensitive the rod will be, the optimum guides will be the smallest that will pass any knots you plan to use. This is an issue only with the guides that are popularly called "micros." Ring ID's less than about 5 mm. Keep asking your questions; there are a lot of very good, helpful, builders on this forum. But keep in mind that there often are different ways of accomplishing the same thing and many opinions on which is best. Often the best is what works the best for you. There are a number of good books that will help you with the principals involved in building and many videos on line as well. The Mud Hole site has some, Getbitoutdoors.com also, and the series by Flex Coat are very good.

https://anglersresource.net/static-load-tutorial/ This tutorial is a good one for the two line static test for running guides. It says for running guides since the software for spin rods for their guides locates the reduction guides. Many think that because the method uses two lines that it is harder to do, but it's actually easier since the line that loads the rods doesn't go through the guides and doesn't stress the guides. Therefore you can move guides without unloading the rod and their attachment to the blank doesn't have to be a strong as with the single line method. This method is basically the same method that Ghoti details above.

I generally build with 1 more guide than traditional recommendation, which is the number of guides should be one plus the length of the rod. Meaning that a seven foot spin rod would have 8 guides plus the tiptop. I use 9. Never have felt that it cost me anything exc the cost of the guide. The stress test looks better. On spiral cast, same number. On traditional "on top" cast builds with micros, maybe 2 or 3 plus from traditional. Never have seen an issue with doing it this way. The argument for fewer guides is that the less weight you will have in the tip section, the more sensitive the rod will be. So the logic would tell you to use the fewest guides, as Ghoti recommends. But what is the "fewest guides" is not easily determined. Regardless, it is not world peace, and the differences in performance are very small and ultimately not really measurable. Go with what you like based on your interpretation of a good, well executed, stress test.

I don't see any crack in the photo. That slit down the middle of the guide is the way the guide was built, if that's what you meant. If the epoxy has a little crack then a little Sally Hensen's hard clear nail covering will protect it. But you said the guide was cracked. Are you sure? I quite frankly have never seen a cracked guide. They usually bend without cracking.