Besides, as Stewart wrote "The spider is made rather more bushy than is advisable at first, as the trout's teeth would otherwise tear it away too fast. After capturing a dozen trout it will be spare enough."Hans Weilenmann wrote:CB,CreationBear wrote:Very interesting discussion, gentlemen--I'm curious how you see Stewart spiders relating to the sparcely hackled spiders that Mike mentions. In other words, does winding the hackle down the length of the thorax make for a more natural presentation since the fibers are more spread out than they would be if you'd simlpy wrapped a "heavy" collar? Or were "Stewarts" designed simply to ride higher in the water column..."flymphs" avant la lettre?
A Stewart's Black Spider is not that much more heavily hackled...
Cheers,
Hans W
A bit earlier in the book, he also writes "The only objection to spiders is, that the feathers are so soft that the trout's teeth break them off, and after catching a dozen or two of trout, little is left of them but the bare dressing, rendering it necessary for the angler the change them, and if the trout are taking readily, this has to be repeated two or three times a day."
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd object. That the fly would catch a couple dozen trout more than makes up for the need to change it afterwards, in my view.