FLYMPH FORUM

Ruard wrote:Nice fly and well done.

I did search the fly you tied with the waterhen hackle and purple body but I could only find the Snipe and purple. If you could not find snipe then you could turn the hackle from the neck of a starling. This is the number 10 of the list of Pritt.

Greeting

I do have snipe, but I was not trying to duplicate anything; I just thought the materials looked good together and was curious as to whether or not it had been named previously.

tie2fish wrote:

Ruard wrote:Nice fly and well done.

I did search the fly you tied with the waterhen hackle and purple body but I could only find the Snipe and purple. If you could not find snipe then you could turn the hackle from the neck of a starling. This is the number 10 of the list of Pritt.

Greeting

I do have snipe, but I was not trying to duplicate anything; I just thought the materials looked good together and was curious as to whether or not it had been named previously.

Perhaps John S. knows about a book with the Waterhen and Purple as the fly you have tied.

Greeting

I have checked through a few older dressing volumes I have (mainly British) and can find no reference of a "Waterhen & Purple".

Hi Bill,

Finally I found it in the book of Roger Woolley: Modern trout fly dressing (1950):



But the fly is as fine as if you invented it!!


Greeting

I almost couldn't imagine there not being an historical fly with that combination. If you tie waterhen bloas and snipe & purples, it would seem an obvious experiment to tie a waterhen & purple. I also can't imagine it not catching fish. The only advantage to using snipe is that the feathers are smaller.

Nice find, Ruard. Bob, You're right, it had to be there somewhere. Unfortunately, unless Woolley can attribute it to a historic source (he may have), it will still have be considered a new fly (1950) and not worthy of historic status. We'll have to stick it in the contemporary flies forum. (that came out more snarky than I meant, but I'll be curious to hear who gets to determine a flies status.)

dub-ya, Howdy;

I too have a copy of Mr. Woolley's book, a first edition and it was printed in 1932.
The scan that Ruard posted of page 170 is identical to the same page in my copy.
At what year do we separate the 'Old' from the 'New' ?
Not to pick nits ... just curious.

hank

hankaye wrote: At what year do we separate the 'Old' from the 'New' ?

My personal cut off for old vs. new is the year I was born (1952). Although that actual year is of course accidental, some time around then makes sense because fly fishing technology wet through some rapid changes at that time: cane was giving way to fiberglass, gut leaders to nylon, and silk lines to plastic.

I propose that 1950 makes a good date, although any time before "nymphs" became a more popular term that "wet fly" would do.

redietz wrote: At what year do we separate the 'Old' from the 'New' ?

hankaye wrote: I propose that 1950 makes a good date,

Uh, if I'm "new" how come I feel old?

William, I propose that the fish decide a fly's status. When and where a pattern was published are of concern only if you propose to disregard the fish.

I am sure the fish will approve of that fly!

CM_Stewart, Howdy;

Not one to pick nits ...normally, It appears that you criss-crossed the quotes
in your post..... .

I asked the question and it was redietz that suggested the date.

hank