Why no wire?

[Dwclapp]

I have been reading Wet Flies by Dave Hughes and in the section about flymphs he discusses the methodology for making silk dubbing brushes. I understand that when wet, one wants to slightly see the colouring of the silk. Are coloured wire dubbing brushes a no-no for Flymphs? I would think you would get the same effect being wire or silk. Is it due to the weight and lak of ability to keep a heavier fly near or in the surface film?

I am looking for education here so feel free to smack me back into my place as a young student of the flymph and soft hackles.

Rgds,
Darin

[Soft-hackle]

Darin,
I would not say it is "wrong" to use wire as a basis of a flymph dubbing brush. Wire, although having the ability to reflect light back through the dubbing, does not get transparent when wet like silk does. There is no reason I know of why wire can not be used. Wire ribbing or tinsel ribbing can also be used along with the silk based dubbing brush to add sparkle.

Mark

[Roadkill]

Lots of flies are tied here on the forum with wire, for example...
http://www.flymphforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... bing+brush
http://www.flymphforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... re+brushes

just use the search button.

[Mataura mayfly]

Yes, use wire.... it's fun!
I have some very fine wire I believe is lighter pre inch than some silks and definitely smaller in diameter, so weight may not be an issue if you use very fine wires. You just have to watch how much pressure you put on when you twist to form the brush as it can break easier than some silks.

[Soft-hackle]

I've been thinking more about your question, Darin. It could be a wire based dubbing brush might be a bit too heavy for certain "flymph" applications. Pete liked fishing the flymphs close to the surface, therefore, totally wire based brushes might have been a bit too heavy for this application-sinking deeper than desired.

Just my thoughts,
Mark

[Hans Weilenmann]

Darin,

I am in the (pragmatic) middle ground here. A change of hook model often shifts the overall weight of a wingless wet more than the addition or subtraction of a modest length of fine metal wire.

I use the materials, wire included, to achieve the look&feel&behavior I aim to achieve. I have very few dogmas in my tying

Cheers,
Hans W

[Old Hat]

I think a wire brush is fine. As Mark said, you will not get the same effect as silk however and the weight would change the action and purpose of the flymph. Nothing wrong with that as long as it matches your intentions.

[Jerry G]

As long as we are talking about a flymph perhaps being to heavy I am once again reminded of conversation on another web site some years back. I assume it was about the "Leisenring Lift" by which Jim would sight fish and drift his fly in front of the fish and by stopping the drift raise the fly in front of the fish. Apparently Jim had wrote about the fly ticking off the stones and there was debate about if he didn't weight his flies how he achieved that tick off the bottom of the stream. My question now is was Jim not using basically the same fly we now call a flymph?

Regards, Jerry

[William Anderson]

Darin, I share the sentiments here as well. Wire simply results in a different effect, and I believe that is desirable. Some flies you will want to be able to keep higher in the water or even on the surface. You could go as far as considering the insect behavior or the size of the water. You have to adjust your presentation for each type of water, and I have a difficult time finding a line between presentation and fly design. Or rather these are not easy to separate. A wire body flymph is a fantastic fly to add to your box. I also agree with Hans that your hook model could alter the weight of your fly considerably. And you have to consider that keeping a fly sparse will also facilitate it's sink rate, depending on your presentation.

Tie them up, test them and share your experiences, please.

Jerry, I swear I just read recently...somewhere, that Frank Sawyer was doing something very similar with his pheasant tail nymphs. I'll have to find that, because it struck me that Sawyer was working his fly as an emerger.

w

[gingerdun]

Darin,
I can say with some confidence that neither Jim Leisenring nor Pete Hidy spun bodies with wire. Jim spun them on his knee, where using wire would have been difficult, even if he had thought to try it, which I doubt.

Their tying thread would match the thread on the spun body, which made them seamless when adding the tapering at both ends of the hook—not so easy to do with wire. Pete loved wire and tinsel for ribbing, and used it more than Jim did, but I am absolutely certain that he never spun bodies on wire, which he could have done very easily on the Clark blocks he used.

Both Pete and Jim had a preference for lighter hooks, but Pete would use split shot for deeper nymphing.

That said, I think that the availability of fine, colored wires today is a great reason to experiment, substituting it for silk thread, etc. Why not?

Lance