March Brown design drafts

Moderators: William Anderson, letumgo

User avatar
Otter
Posts: 899
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:24 am
Location: The Inside Riffle

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by Otter » Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:57 am

I do not have any strong opinions on the bubble theory other than there is little or no evidence to back it up - seems to me to be simply another instance of over exuberance in the quest for the ultimate fly design, finding a tying style that works well and then reaching for a theory to explain its effectiveness. Really good anglers pay attention to the minutae of their flys , in fact attention to the minutae of everything and a quite often have a need to explain and understand everything, particularly if they are in the public limelight. Occasionally those with such an approach will reach at straws for explanation when in fact the success of their particular fly designs is intrincically linked to their overall skills as an angler and that is so easily over looked.

There is no doubting the effectiveness of subsurface flies constructed of well mixed, sparesly tied dubbed bodies where good harmony is achieved between silk and dubbing and equally in certain cirmunstances a simple silk body is just as if not more effective. In my view one should not nail ones cross to any one code based on an abstract unproveable theory for our quarry and the food we imitate varies, as do the waters we fish, as does the ambient light and a host of other small but often important factors. By all means fish your preferred methods and fly styles etc... but don't rely on magic theories such as bubbles or UV light etc for they are invariably proved a nonsense :D
User avatar
gingerdun
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:00 pm
Location: Merrimac, Massachusetts

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by gingerdun » Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:02 am

Hans and Otter, Thank you both for putting your views in here. They carry a lot of weight with me.
This string has been an invaluable learning experience, which will serve me well as I proceed on my research and writing over the months ahead.

It will be interesting to see whether Pete Hidy's reputation will be adversely affected in some circles by the skepticism over "mimicry." He believed in it and tied flies with this in mind long before LaFontaine's book appeared. Gunnar Johnson also promoted tying flymphs with hydrofuge materials, and illustrated it in FLYMFER. Both of them, however, adhered to natural materials, avoiding synthetics. I doubt I will ever find any documentation about how Pete came to this belief in mimicry (the bubbles) that he published in 1973. One thing is certain, both Pete and Gunnar were exceedingly fastidious about the "minutiae," which, as you say Otter, is what really matters in the long run. Personally, I have a long way to go to achieve anything close to that.
User avatar
Otter
Posts: 899
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:24 am
Location: The Inside Riffle

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by Otter » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:04 am

Ginger, in my view mimicry is what any imitative fly is about, though at times it is hard to get a handle on why certain patterns work in particular hatches. This is where one is forced to leave one's thought processes to one side and accept that the pattern works or choose not to fish it cause we cannot explain why it works :) In the design and in the fishing of a fly we hope to mimic the natural and the better we do that the more success we will have.
User avatar
Roadkill
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:09 am
Location: Oregon

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by Roadkill » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:15 pm

I am a believer in the mimicry idea but in the scope of my reading of Hidy I prefer to apply the plain meaning rule and Occam's razor. I think Pete may have been referring to "bubbles"- the plain old kind, not some sub-exoskeleton gas at the point of emergence. I agree that flyshops and subsequent writers may have made more out of LaFontaine's "bubble" (especially the idea of an internal gas bubble) of the emerging caddis than can be clearly supported by current photographic or scientific proof. Pete in his "Letter" photographed his Flymph fly with this underwater bubble effect due to the hydrofuge. I am sure nobody disputes the shimmer of the bubble many of us mimic on water boatmen, backswimmers and any other bugs that take bubbles under the surface with them. IMO it may be entirely likely that air bubbles might attach readily at the surface to any "flymphs" struggling free of the shuck to become a fly or possibly to those emergers who make multiple trips to the surface before they overcome the surface tension and break free into the air. And if you want photographic examples of these plain old bubbles attached to underwater mayfly and other nymphs you need only look at a copy of BugWater with the great photography of Arlen Thomason. . I think plain old bubbles can be a trigger in that their moving sparkle in the water attracts attention to what otherwise is a natural insect camouflaged for the underwater world. Tinsel can be a tool to mimic bubbles or that glistening new exoskeleton of that fleeting emerger just as the real bubbles can attach to a hydrofuge of dubbing or that natural.

I think we can lose sight of how gas or oxygen bubbles are part of the underwater world. I can distinctly recall years ago just after I got my Optio W-20 and tried to use it to take some underwater fish photos on Fall River, OR. It is a crystal clear spring creek (not unlike the Metolius that Pete also fished) where you had better check the depth of the water before you step off the bank. It may look shallow but many a novice angler to this stream has taken a dunking when they found the depth exceeded their inseam with the other foot still on the bank. :o I had hooked a nice 17" Brown and wanted to take an underwater photo before setting it free. I took multiple shots in this gin clear water but no fish showed up due to bubbles. I could clearly see the fish and my streamer as well as every pebble on the bottom but my camera freezing time to the shutter speed in bright sun and clear water could only record a myriad of glistening bubbles. ;)
User avatar
Otter
Posts: 899
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:24 am
Location: The Inside Riffle

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by Otter » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:51 pm

Roadkill wrote:. I think plain old bubbles can be a trigger in that their moving sparkle in the water attracts attention to what otherwise is a natural insect camouflaged for the underwater world.
You may find that many would agree on that possibility but I would hazard a guess that a trout does not miss much that is passing.

The difficulty with bubbles, were they to exist in the quantity that you suggest then it would not pay for a trout to go chasing them , unless of course whilst on their holidays :)
User avatar
Roadkill
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:09 am
Location: Oregon

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by Roadkill » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:00 pm

Otter wrote:he difficulty with bubbles, were they to exist in the quantity that you suggest then it would not pay for a trout to go chasing them , unless of course whilst on their holidays
I don't suggest that trout regularly chase empty bubbles although they might at times just like a foam strike indicator. ;)

Underwater videos of feeding trout can show a lot of food or objects that many pass the trout's lie in almost the blink of an eye. I suggest that a flash off a bubble attached to a nymph may attract attention easier to that nymph in moving water than another similar nymph without one. I merely suggest that our brains and a trout might see and interpret mutiple moving images to form a "perception" of what we see rather than just a single snapshot. A single picture doesn't reveal movement although we know it is there while watching a moving object. Trout can still pick out food in a multitude of bubbles as anyone fishing below a waterfall can experience. :)
User avatar
Roadkill
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:09 am
Location: Oregon

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by Roadkill » Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:58 am

In fairness to Gary LaFontaine's legacy, I think we need to consider that all of Gary's thoughts about selective trout triggers, flashes of light, and bubbles didn't revolve around just bubbles under the skin. As I recall his flies like the Airhead and Halo emergers were predicated on what he saw while looking at flies or the bugs they represented on the surface such as struggling emergers or how the wing of a natural looked from below in his scuba gear. He used simple closed cell packing foam to mimic those effects.

After all one of the latest and greatest touted materials in flytying today is CDC. Flyfishing writing is full of verbiage, both scientific and homespun, about the bubbles captured, their look from underwater, and how fish can't resist them. :) I think that we shouldn't give any less validity to those flies tied with modern synthetics, beads, or even the time honored use of fur dubbings such as Leisenring and Hidy advocated.
daringduffer
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:11 am

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by daringduffer » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:26 am

daringduffer wrote:
CreationBear wrote:That is a great looking fly...any thoughts on the hook? That looks to be a two or even three XL--exactly the kind of turned-up eye hook I've been looking for. :)
CB,

One of the hooks proposed by Hidy was sold by E. Veniard - a whole-saler, not a maker. I have reasons to believe that the old stock of hooks from the old professional fly tier Margrethe Thomsen, which is now owned by a small swedish company (one man band), comes from the same source. I think most of her stuff came from Veniard. This is where I found my complete set of gossamer wooden spools, for instance. Stendalen has aquired a lot of old stuff from there too. I just received materials from him that I will pass on to a forum member on your side of the pond. As luck would have it, he gets it with a discount of 30%.
(I have said it before; I have no connections with this company. I am only a customer, paying full price).

Image
forged flat, IX long shank, up eye. sz 6-8-10-12-14-16-18. (Wet fly)

Image
Wide Gape, Reversed Bend, Medium shank, up eye sz 6-8-10-12-13-14-15-16-17. (Wet fly)

Image
Engelsk Mayfly Snecky Limerick Hook 2x long shank sz 6-8-10-12-14-16 (Dry fly)

There are of course down eyed hooks too. http://www.flyhookfiller.se/krok-1/orin ... etfly.html

A package contains 10 hooks and cost 10.00 SEK = 1.47415 USD minus 30% discount. If anybody wants assistance of some kind, feel free to PM me.

dd
I ordered a few samples of these hooks to test how easy it was to crimp the barbs. Initially it wasn't. It wasn't easy to file the barbs either. The hooks have a hard temper and are somewhat brittle. Then I baked them in the oven at 100 degrees centigrade for fifteen minutes. After that it was easy to crimp the barbs. I gave them a tough test in the vice afterwards which they withstood without problem.

Opinions on my procedure?

Image

This one was a pleasant surprise. It's not a far cry from Kamasan B525/ Daiichi 1480 but a stouter wire and odd sizes as well. I will order some of these. Size 15 was straight but size 17 was kirbed, or reversed (offset point). Makes sense. Sizes available are 1-2-4-6-8-10-12-13-14-15-16-17 and description is Limerick Bend, Medium shank, down eye.

dd
User avatar
Kelly L.
Posts: 2902
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:09 pm
Location: Texas

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by Kelly L. » Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:43 pm

Man, I sure like those hooks. But, I must resist for now. They are beautiful. I have spent too much lately on my fly tying, and I am gonna have to cut way back. Those sure would be awesome to have. Maybe in the future they will have some left that I can purchase. I love old hooks!! :D
JohnP
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 1:23 pm

Re: March Brown design drafts

Post by JohnP » Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:40 pm

I have been trying to order some hooks from Mats-Ola for about two weeks, but for some reason I have not heard back from him. I have already received an order of Pearsall's gossamer silk on the wooden spools from him, so I don't know what the problem is. If you are in contact with him, could you ask him to send me a message either here or on my regular email? Many thanks. :)
The dogs will bark, but the caravan marches on.
Post Reply