"flick - Em " Perfection - size

[Keston]

On paper the size differences does not seem that great . However physically the Size difference does appear significant .

[Wallys-Cast]

I love the 3 1/2" version, it's a really nice reel on smaller rods for stream fishing.
The retrieve is a lot slower of course but that's where the bigger brother 4 1/8" comes into play.

A lovely looking pair of reels by the way.

Wal.

[Keston]

I love the 3 1/2" version, it's a really nice reel on smaller rods for stream fishing.
The retrieve is a lot slower of course but that's where the bigger brother 4 1/8" comes into play.

A lovely looking pair of reels by the way.

Wal.

Thanks Wal
You are pretty much confirming what I was hoping for with the smaller reel for smaller rods on the local streams and small rivers . The streams are often limited in terms of long trotting possibilities so hopefully the retrieve wont hurt .

I think this smaller one is 3 3/4 inch so I was not expecting it to look so different to the 4 1/8 reels .

best wishes
John

[Wallys-Cast]

Yes John, you are right, they are 3 3/4" dia. For some reason mine was always known as the 3 1/2".

With inside spokes, I always think of these reels an an inside out Aerial. They are just about the perfect trotting reel.

Wal.

[Keston]

Thats Wal
I would agree with you that these Flick Em Perfections are just about the perfect trotting reel . The ratchet knob positioning really suits me too , it seems just right anyway , but with the smaller reel it falls even closer to finger tips .

best wishes
John

[Banksy]

It is astonishing just what a difference half an inch can make, isn’t it?
I have a 3 1/2” Eureka and a 4” Eureka, and they really are totally different animals.
I didn’t know that there was a smaller version of the Flick-Em Perfection. I thought my reel wish list was closed, but now …

[Lea Dweller]

I do believe that I read somewhere that these early Flickem perfections were NOT so forgiving of light lines?

[Duckett]

I do believe that I read somewhere that these early Flickem perfections were NOT so forgiving of light lines?

Interesting Ted. The cage elements do seem a lot more prone to grooves wearing in them than say a Rapidex. I have one of each size and had to file down some of the grooves on one of them. Thankfully, the smaller one was clearly used right hand wind, so the grooves are on the back for me! I’d post pictures but they are both in pre-move storage on The Wirral. It would make me cautious of using light modern line on a grooved one and opted for 6lb line on the filed one and 3.2lb for the RHW.

The reason surely has to be softer alloy than we usually see in ‘pins?

Phil

[Keston]

I do believe that I read somewhere that these early Flickem perfections were NOT so forgiving of light lines?

Maybe not " Perfections" then Ted

[Lea Dweller]

I do believe that I read somewhere that these early Flickem perfections were NOT so forgiving of light lines?

Interesting Ted. The cage elements do seem a lot more prone to grooves wearing in them than say a Rapidex. I have one of each size and had to file down some of the grooves on one of them. Thankfully, the smaller one was clearly used right hand wind, so the grooves are on the back for me! I’d post pictures but they are both in pre-move storage on The Wirral. It would make me cautious of using light modern line on a grooved one and opted for 6lb line on the filed one and 3.2lb for the RHW.

The reason surely has to be softer alloy than we usually see in ‘pins?

Phil

Thanks Phil, I was told that because anglers used heavier lines when the first flickem perfections were produced, they were not 'machined' to the fine tolerances that were used on later models. This resulted in the early models having problems with very fine lines?