In the old catalogs, Penn gave line capacities as "so many yards of #9 line" or "so many yards of #12 line," etc. Is there a conversion chart or table that tells what the numbered lines are equivalent to or what they actually were? Just curious.
Yeah, don't know about a chart, there oughta be. #9 and #12 were I believe, the woven cotton lines(linen)used before the advent of monofilament and Dacron came on the scene.
OC-1, Steve, is one of our resident informed ones on this subject. Maybe he or someone else can clear it up better'n me.
#9 and #12 means there are 9 threads or 12 threads in the line. The old Cuttyhunk linen line is three equal parts. Each part is twisted separately to make them come together into a rope. A 9-thread line has three equal parts with each part being formed from three individual threads. 3 X 3 = 9. A 12-thread line has three equal parts with each part being formed from four individual threads. 3 X 4 = 12. All the linen line classes can be divided by three (9, 12, 15, 18, etc up to 54 thread).
The threads themselves are another subject. They are twisted together on a spinning weel. Linen fibers come from the flax plant. So, the maximum length of a single fiber can be no more than the height of the plant, which is several feet. Because the fiber extraction process is not precise, most fibers are shorter than the plant they came from. The plant stalks are basically beaten to separate the fibers so there is a lot of tow and waste. The longer the average processed fibers are in a lot the more expensive it is. The Cuttyhunk brand name used only the best and longest fiber.
Under ideal conditions a single flax/linen fiber can lift three pounds. You can't really test a single fiber, but a 9-thread line has a wet breaking strength of about 27 pounds. A twelve-thread line is about 36 pound test, a 54-thread line 162 pound test. Linen line is much stronger when it is wet because there is less internal friction and abrasion going on as the twisted fibers are stretched to their breaking point.
Cotton fibers are shorter, thinner and not as strong as flax/linen fibers so cotton fishing line is much inferior to Cuttyhunk linen. Silk fibers are very long, thinner than flax, but stronger relative to their diameter. It is also very expensive because of the labor to produce unwind all those cocoons. The cost difference between silk and linen is even more than the difference between linen and cotton. If you really want labor-intensive fishing line then get the hand-plaited horse tail hair line they used in the 16th and 17th century for cane-pole fishing.
All of these natural fibers are prone to decay. The material simply composts as it is attacked by microbes. To minimize decay, the line must be dried after each use. Hence, every fisherman had one of those line drying wheel gizmos.
Everything changed in the 1930's when Dupont introduced synthetic polymer fibers made from petroleum. Not only were synthetic fibers resistant to decay, they could be much much longer which allowed them to be braided rather than just twisted into a line. As the polymer extrusion technology advanced they were able to make monofilament line.
Thank you!! Very Informative and takes the mystery out of the "number" system.
It was a pleasure because I'm a milliner/hatter now and more interested in textiles and fibers than fishing gear.
If I might add a few words, you will see in old (and not so old) books that each thread was equivalent to 2lb dry and 3lb wet. Sort of roughly true but the actual strength depended on the quality of the line as well as its age and how well it had been looked after. As oc1 says, genuine Cuttyhunk brand was top quality but the word has become generic for any linen line. Also, those lines lost a lot of strength after being subject to heavy strain.
As an aside, I have an old book on UK tunny fishing where several lines were compared for thickness, thread count and actual as well as rated strength, new and used. All a bit of a guessing game is the best way to summarise it! I'm glad we don't have to use that stuff nowadays.
Roughly (again) #9 or 9-thread line was therefore at best 27lb in strength, but modern lines are much thinner strength-for-strength than these older types. As a ball-park guide, if the reel holds 300 yards of #9 it will certainly hold at least that much of a modern nylon or dacron of similar strength (27-30lb) and possibly as much as 30% more. If talking of modern HDPE braided lines, masses more will fit.
But you will need to experiment a bit (or do the maths based on the reel capacity being equal to the volume of a cylinder and the volume of line based on cross-sectional area times length - can be challenging!)
The reason I wanted to know was to find the manufacturer's particular recommendations for specific old reels. I assume that this would indicate the reel limitations by indicating a maximum line weight recommendation for a particular reel. Now, with the newer lines being thinner for equivalent strength, it is easy to string up a reel with higher weight capacity line, so setting the drag properly to avoid damage due to overload would seem to be very important. An example would be like putting 85 lbs. braided Power-pro line on a reel rated for 16 lbs. mono.
Seems like a roundabout way to get to your answer.
Lots of folks here have pushed old reels to the failure point. If I wanted to know how far you can safely go with a given reel, I'd just ask.
I think the line recommendations were to guide you to a reel that would have enough yardage.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on June 28, 2024, 11:07:34 AMSeems like a roundabout way to get to your answer.
Lots of folks here have pushed old reels to the failure point. If I wanted to know how far you can safely go with a given reel, I'd just ask.
Can't "ask" for vintage reels; I can only find line recommendations to get a clue as to the limitations of the reel.
Quote from: oc1 on June 28, 2024, 11:23:52 AMI think the line recommendations were to guide you to a reel that would have enough yardage.
Yardage is not a problem with the newer lines, even though that may have been their original motivation.
Quote from: GerryR on June 28, 2024, 11:31:10 AMQuote from: JasonGotaProblem on June 28, 2024, 11:07:34 AMSeems like a roundabout way to get to your answer.
Lots of folks here have pushed old reels to the failure point. If I wanted to know how far you can safely go with a given reel, I'd just ask.
Can't "ask" for vintage reels; I can only find line recommendations to get a clue as to the limitations of the reel.
you'd be surprised. Name an old Penn. I'd bet lunch that someone here has a story of pushing it just beyond it's limit.
Quote from: GerryR on June 28, 2024, 10:57:08 AMThe reason I wanted to know was to find the manufacturer's particular recommendations for specific old reels. I assume that this would indicate the reel limitations by indicating a maximum line weight recommendation for a particular reel. Now, with the newer lines being thinner for equivalent strength, it is easy to string up a reel with higher weight capacity line, so setting the drag properly to avoid damage due to overload would seem to be very important. An example would be like putting 85 lbs. braided Power-pro line on a reel rated for 16 lbs. mono.
The other part of the equation (and a very large part of what the AT Forum is about) is that much of the rest of the materials have improved as well. Those old leather, asbestos, metal, cork etc. drags were good for their day and what a lot of those capacity figures were based on, but many times are a shadow of what can be acheived with modern friction materials like CF. And then you quickly go down the rabbit hole of higher drag capacity, along with smaller, modern high strength lines, and other failure points begin to make themselves known (gears blowings out, handle sleeves rounding out, frame flex, etc.) As Jason said, it is a pretty good bet on this forum that SOMEONE has pushed any given reel to it's various failure points.
There are also many other threads on here that detail using any one of a widely available drag scale to determine a given reels actual drag capacity, and set the drag within reasonable limits, (a highly recommended practice). On the second day of the Royal Polaris 8 day I just returned from many anglers "In the Know" were leaving nothing to chance, and were gathered on the back deck using scales to physically set drags to approprate levels for the equipment and type of fishing we were planning on doing. - john
Quote from: Brewcrafter on June 28, 2024, 01:19:12 PM.... As Jason said, it is a pretty good bet on this forum that SOMEONE has pushed any given reel to it's various failure points.
.... - john
This is all well and good but I was looking for a place to start by making line recommendation comparisons, old vs. new. I reall don't think knowing what the various failure points of different reels is that useful (that's what I want to avoid!) because of the different ways people fish. There are many stories of people landing large fish on small tackle because of how they brought it in. In any case, oc1 ansewered my question. I'm not trying to stress my reels to their limits, just want to be in the useable range for which they were designed.
Thank you all for your insights.
Thanks oc1 for the explanation of the line numbering system. I always wondered but was too lazy to do the leg work myself.
How about this and it shouldn't matter if the reel is old or new as long as it's in good condition. Use whatever line you want to based on desired yardage you want available and actual fishing conditions. Set your drag at 20%-30% of your line rating. If you reach lock down before that then Murphy says something's gonna give and at the worst possible time. You need to back off. The problem is drag specs weren't really published back in the day as far as I can see and even if they were drag performance is always subject to the condition of the reel. But a fisherman could choose line for his reel based on it's guaranteed yardage capacity for those two numbers. Most of today's reel makers do publish drag numbers and they're nice to know but even if you set your drag before you fish once you monkey with it while you're fishing maybe all bets are off.
To me it seems line rating is a more important consideration. Fishing light line on a reel with high drag numbers and trying to set it light could give you an inconsistent drag. At the other extreme you may go beyond the line breaking point if you adjust while playing a fish. Setting drag is a kind of ambiguous thing with so many different recommended procedures, find a way that works for you.
I fear I may not have been clear in what I said, and I apologize if I annoyed you with my comment.
I'm gonna take one more shot, with a clearer example. It is fairly well known that a stock jigmaster's first failure point is the gear sleeve, which will begin to round off at 12# of drag. So 10# is the functional limit. So to me, that means anything over 30# mono would be wasted line capacity.
I wasn't suggesting you ask people how to break your reels. But others who have broken their reels can help you avoid breaking yours.
Spectra braided lines made old school Penn reels obsolete overnight. The Jigmaster 500 was designed for 275 yards of 30 pound mono. You would never in a million years need all 800 yards of the 30 pound Spectra that can be loaded onto a Jigmaster. Nor would you consider loading it with 275 yards of 150 pound Spectra braid.
On conventional and bait-casting reals I use a dacron backing to build up the spool and use 65 lbs. braided line to finish the spool; it doesn't matter to me whether the reel is big or small(ish). Then I set the drag so the reel and rod combo won't get destroyed (I hope). By knowing what the recommended line weights were/are for a particular reel, that lets me know where to start. I think OhReely has the right idea.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on June 28, 2024, 07:32:41 PMI fear I may not have been clear in what I said, and I apologize if I annoyed you with my comment.
I'm gonna take one more shot, with a clearer example. It is fairly well known that a stock jigmaster's first failure point is the gear sleeve, which will begin to round off at 12# of drag. So 10# is the functional limit. So to me, that means anything over 30# mono would be wasted line capacity.
I wasn't suggesting you ask people how to break your reels. But others who have broken their reels can help you avoid breaking yours.
Not annoyed in the least. I knew your intentions but just knowing the original line recommendations for a particular reel would get me where I wanted to go, a place to start so-to-speak. Thank you for your input!
Stock Penn jigmaster is as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. Just ask Randy Pauly and his good friend Bart Perlman ! Randy's jigmaster was loaded with 50# mono for this legendary catch !!
I wouldn't hesitate to load a jigmaster with 50# spectra, with a 30# mono top shot. Majority of the reeling would be pump and reel with drag never set beyond 75-80%
GerryR,
Sounds like you have a system that works for you. Keep on using it until it doesn't. As long as you don't have the drag locked down the reel shouldn't break if it's in good condition, stock configuration and used properly. The drag system is there to protect the reel and keep the line from breaking.
I've never used dacron so I know nothing about it. When it comes to using line of any type as backing I think it's important that it meet or exceed the strength of the main line if there's a possibility of being spooled. If they are not of equal strength then the drag should probably be set for the weaker of the two, just in case.