Tying style.

[daringduffer]

We have touched upon this before, but anyway. I found this Woolley fly the other day http://www.flyforums.co.uk/fly-tying-fo ... -blue.html and wanted to share it with you. It might have appeared here before, but we have plenty of room for this stuff. What I wanted to say is that nowadays we probably strive for a neatness in our flies that did not exist in the old days. We discussed it when Johnno showed us some flies probably tied by Walbran - was it not? There are flies for display and there are fishing flies. I just wonder which of these are the most killing ones?

What are your opinions?

[Ron Eagle Elk]

When I tie a fly I tie it for fishing, even if I'm tying at a fly fishing and tying expo or for posting on the web. Neatness, I think, counts when your trying to catch fishermen, not fish.

REE

[tie2fish]

The boxes in my vest are full of flies that I wouldn't dream of posting, but the fish don't seem to mind .

[Jerry G]

Once our skills are honed neatness certainly does seem to play a part at least for me in fishing a fly with confidence. Sort of foolish perhaps as usually that representative looks nothing like its former self once a few fish have chewed on it. With that how often have we heard of fish continuing to take a fly that was barely more than thread on a hook. So most killing you ask. I prefer to let the fish be the judge and try to teach them a little character with a pretty fly to start.

Regards, Jerry

[GlassJet]

I suspect the advent of (relatively) cheap close-up photography and the internet has made us focus more closely on neatness. DD says that in the 'old days' (when were they again? ) the tying was not so neat. But it didn't need to be because nobody would have been able to see it if it had been! But now, with macro functions on our camera, we can see every single barb of the hackle, every strand of dubbing, in the minutest detail.

Is it important, this quest for neatness? From a fishing point of view, I'd say yes and no. If you mean on a fly like the Partridge & Orange for instance, does it matter if the silk is not perfectly touching in neat turns and extends to a point precisely opposite the barb of the hook - probably not. If anything, I suspect the rougher body in this case might if anything fish better, as it better suggests segmentation.

But I think neatness can make for a better fishing fly, if you will allow me to broaden the definition of 'neatness' to include 'pleasing to the eye'. I like 'buggy' flies (you may have noticed!) and i've found that since I have started to put them under the glare of the macro lens, my attempts to make them more 'pleasing to the eye' have actually made me really think about space within the fly, and dubbing blends. I think this actually makes them move better in the water, better suggest life, and ultimately catch more fish. Oh the fly tyer's ego when he gently taps the fisher on the shoulder, clears his throat, and claims his share of the prize...

But this too is a utilitarian versus the aesthete debate. After all, DD, all you need to park your rear end on is an orange box. But wouldn't you rather sit on a beautifully crafted piece of furniture, the product of the skills of a craftsman, themselves years in the making?
Andrew

edited, because for some bizarre reason I thought Donald had opened this thread, and had replied to him"! lol Oh well... time to walk the dogs...

[DOUGSDEN]

Dear D.D., (that happens to be my initials.. DD),
I looked at Roger Woolleys Iron Blue and it seems a bit....Woolley or Wooley. But, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be just as killing as one with shorter hackles. It's almost like a miniature Spey pattern and I want to confess that I know very little about Spey patterns or their histories. It does seem that, like a spider pattern, the action is all in the hackles. Perhaps Mr. W. meant it to be this way. I would want to ask if the orig. pattern called for longer hackles such as was pictured? Our friend Skues, from my book that I have of his ways, seemed to prefer the hackles on his version of this great pattern "rather short". That's the way I have always tied them. It would be very interesting to experiment with both and see what gives! I'll put that on my big list of things to experiment with this fall pertaining to pattern effectiveness.
Your Pal,
Dougsden

I really like your post of this great pattern. Keep them coming! It's great to learn new things all the time.

[Old Hat]

Personally, I don't think neatness makes much difference on the size of flies we are tying mostly #12 -#18. As the fly gets bigger it might it might make a bigger difference either way. Although, when I was in college years ago, my most killing flies came out of the vice after about the 3rd beer. (read as "not neat and out of proportion")

[DNicolson]

This a very interesting subject.
After a good few years of poking around in old books,
I have come to the conclusion that most of the writers of
these books were more interested in catching trout than
a rigid adherence to the minutae of pattern. Also they did
not seem bothered by the 'quality' of their own fly
dressing, within reasonable limits.
That is the crux of the matter, what were those limits
sixty or seventy years ago.
With the introduction of reasonably cheap digital
photography, everything is scrutinised by the
anally retentive critics.
Anyway, enough of my ranting, here are examples of
W. H. Lawries illustrations from his book The Rough
Stream Nymph. I believe they were photo'd in B/W,
and then coloured.





If you want some other views try -
http://donaldnicolson.webplus.net/page308.html

[BobSmith]

Get yourself this book, it has a chapter dedicated to Roger Woolley.
http://www.ffcl.com/product.php/334/ang ... 40c8144e6a

[daringduffer]

Get yourself this book, it has a chapter dedicated to Roger Woolley.
http://www.ffcl.com/product.php/334/ang ... 40c8144e6a

This is a book that has tempted me for years. I have bought five new books lately, but not yet come around to this one. Can you offer a bit more on the value of the content..?

Regarding tying style, much could be said about it. In some cases it is quite obvius that it differs. If you look at John Goddards tying you usually see clumsy and ugly flies. At least to my eye. I do not doubt that he catches a lot of fish on them, though. But he would do that on sparse, elegant flies too, I'm sure. I do think that mostly it is the fisherman - not the fly - that catch the fish. And how many flies of that ugly sort have you seen from the vise of, for instance, Hans Weilenmann? Or Dave Wiltshire, a brit with a very slim, sparse style. They catch fish too, probably. On the other hand, it could be that J.G. catch more fish due to his ugly flies - what do I know..?

I'm not speaking of right or wrong here, just differences. Since we are quite a few who don't fish enough we have to find pleasure and fulfilment in other ways, one being developing skills at the vise. I've said it before - I tie to please myself and the fish has to accept what is on offer (although I love to catch at least a few fish).

And yes - the internet and macro photography has probably had a major impact on how flies are tied today, and on the selection of wich flies that are shown. I remember when I read a wonderful book of Gunnar Johnson, former editor of the Scandinavian fly fishing magazine "Flugfiske i Norden" for many years and the author of a book about flymphs (including Leisenring's 'Colors and Material Book'), where he told of a productive flie of his that he in his early days did not show to anyone. It was his own creation and he was afraid people would laugh at him. It is a sparse wingless wet - body from the white-tipped turkey feather and a black hen hackle. It is called "Knekestorparen" (the butt of the fly being white and the rest of the body dark brown as you already understood) and is the fly that caught me my most memorable fish - my first grayling; a short, plump and healthy fish of about 12''. Nothing I did ever catch has meant so much to me and the joy was even greater when "his" fly was involved. His attitude to fishing and life has been of significant importance to me.

dd