FLYMPH FORUM

Greenwell wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:29 am

I don't want to offend anyone but there is so much random modification today that in all honesty it becomes a little tedious. At least to me. Social media is rife with made up patterns that garner comments like "that should be a killer," "looks great," pretty fly," ad infinitum. (Ad nauseum?) I'm making no judgement on the quality of the dressing or the skill of the dresser but when someone shows me a modified fly pattern I want to know why they felt the modification was needed. Perhaps it was because a hard to get material wasn't available, a very legitimate and understandable reason. Or perhaps the modification was made to suit regional or seasonal conditions, again legitimate and understandable. But simply throwing feathers and fur at a hook in the hopes that the pattern will look nice doesn't really do it for me: I want to know the thought process that was behind the ideas that led to the final product, and if that thought process was simply to make up a pretty fly or something that might work, well you lost me.

No offense taken here. I too get tired of the accolades bestowed on "new" patterns. Especially when the tyer only ties one. I always tie multiple copies, as the flies will be fished.

I am over run with material, and quite frankly I do not want to run out and but more material just to tie a few up of a certain pattern. This applies to silk as well. I never felt the need or had the desire to invest in more material just to use silk. Since I do not use silk, I am in no position to make a judgement as to its effectiveness compared to more modern materials. I have an opinion on the matter, but no personal data. People do not believe me, but if a material is not used in a years time by me, I throw it away. Hooks, beads, and feathers excluded. Dubbings, pelts, yarns, and chenille will be tossed just so I can refrain from looking like a hoarder. Extreme I know, but it is how i do things.

For years I have tried to replace Partridge in my tying. Especially as a collar. The material is a fish magnet in my opinion. That being said, it is very delicate and does not stand up to the rigors of being bitten very well. I have used hen, duck, pheasant and other game birds as a replacement. They last longer for me, but day in and day out, do not produce fish as well as the Partridge. Again, in my opinion.

Another material I try to eliminate is Pheasant Tail as tailing material. No argument from me that it catches fish. My issue is it is delicate and gets broken off easily. Sometimes it does not matter. Other times in my experience, it does. Now I use Coq De Leon.

I love substituting material. I may never own a quality Honey Dun hen cape, or have the "original" tups dubbing in my possession, but I will always have some Tups in my fly box. Who knows, I may stop calling them "variants" as well.

Interesting comments, Dubbn.. I too look at my tying space and have to figure out why that item is taking up room. I've not tied nearly as long as many of the folks on the forum, but in the early stages, I bought materials to learn a fly, a technique, or because I thought it might become useful. It wasn't until I came across this forum that I started narrowing down my focus to flies that catch fish for me.
I have boxes of flies tied early on that I now deconstruct to salvage the hooks. I haven't reached the stage of throwing out stuff that has sat unused for a year, but its a good idea... Maybe I can donate it to some other newbie in the game and he can hoard it for a while.
As to creating a "new fly",.... I may be guilty of modifying a pattern to suit my eye, or to substitute a material that I don't have, but these flies soon find the water. If they catch fish.. I go back and tie more, if not, I move on to the next adventure.

Fly tying is a great pastime, or in my case a necessity to fish with. For those who don’t know, in the U.K. there are fly tying clubs. I belonged to a couple and surprisingly enough many of the members don’t fish. It’s a art form, so tying new patterns is often very pleasing to the eye, but don’t convince me they “will” catch fish and please don’t publish them as doing so. I happen to know a pretty famous fly “designer”, once when fishing with him he admitted that several of his patterns he had never fished with, but being attractive to the eye he made a good income from fly shop sales I’ve often said that flies in a fly shop are there to catch anglers, not fish.
But what’s wrong with patridge as a hackle! Tied in Davie MacPhail style they last forever and are cheap, a whole skin will tie hundreds of flies!
So please do keep you “art” flies coming, who knows you might find tha magic one, but I’ll leave it to others to waste their time testing them!
Barry

Ps, I’m blending a batch of Tups dubbing using the original recipe, if someone what’s a little contact me, I’m happy to share with a few!
Barry

narcodog wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:39 am Recently I was on the hunt for a particular pin tail dick feather for tying a Joe's smelt.

I just had to open my fly and check but found no feather on my either, just some dubbing surrounding it. Sorry, I can be of no help to you.

dd

daringduffer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:07 pm

narcodog wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:39 am Recently I was on the hunt for a particular pin tail dick feather for tying a Joe's smelt.

I just had to open my fly and check but found no feather on my either, just some dubbing surrounding it. Sorry, I can be of no help to you.

dd

Ha!!! You “beat” me to it!!

You guys crack me up.

Has anyone have any genuine Tups dubbing. By that I don’t mean recent blends but dubbing that’s been verified as being from the early 1900’s? I’m looking for the impossible? Certainly, but no harm in asking. I would like to borrow some and then return it. I would only need a tiny sample to put under the microscope and attempt to establish what the ingredients where!
Please let me know if you know of any.
Thanks
Barry