What exactly is traditional tying?
Would the old Irish chieftains have regarded Kingsmill Moore's bumbles as traditional? Would a 17th century north west highland clan chief fishing the Laxford have regarded a Jock Scott as new fangled and vulgar and stuck to his old favourite dull patterns coloured with vegetable dyes?
In 200 years from now will a dog knobbler be spoken of in hushed reverence and considered an icon of halcyon days past?
There is little doubt that some modern patterns (for example buzzers), tying styles (for example the Klinkhammer idea) and fishing techniques have changed fishing for ever.
For better or worse is largely in the eye of the beholder.
So what IS traditional tying?
Traditional salmon flies:
Here is an extract from Seton Gordon's book The Highlands of Scotland. He writes of a friend fishing the Laxford in low, gin-clear water in 1940. The pools are full of fresh salmon that had come in on the last spate a few days before but now would look at nothing
"I wonder if he would have had more success with the natural dyed salmon flies of the old Highland Chiefs; they were rather large in size, and, according to an old fisherman who had long ago seen one of the Duke of Gordon's flies, were dyed crotal, which is a rich brown and yellow"
Clearly, the flies his friend was using would be regarded by us, today, as traditional. To the Duke of Gordon they would have seemed gaudy and futuristic.
The lochs don't have all the traditional patterns. The Clyde and Tummel were both examples of styles of tying sparse flies and spawned many locally well known patterns like the hen blackie, corncrake and others ...
Alex
I think we can get too hung up on traditional materials. By and large, I am quite sure, a tier designs with what he has available. Back in the days when it was OK to shoot tawny owls tiers used tawny owl. This does not mean these materials are any better, in fact I would bet some of the modern materials are proably better or at least as good. If Kingsmill Moore had superglue available he may well have used it.
I don?t think you realise it Fred but you have actually asked two questions there.
You start with ?what is traditional tying? which to me implies the methods and materials used. I think that?s a fairly easy one to answer. Traditional tying, to me anyway, is tying using natural materials such as Rabbit, Hair and wool and tied using traditional methods, such as dubbed and wrapped bodies, feather slip wings and tails and wound hackles.
You then move on to traditional patterns, which I think is a whole other ball game. I think that the list of traditional patterns is growing all the time. At one time almost all ?traditional? flies were wets and spiders from the likes of Stewart, pritt, Todd and many others. Then along came Halford, Marryat and others and Dry flies. Then we had the likes of Skues and Sawyer and their nymphs. Then we had the introduction of lures. Not forgetting the hairwing and wet flies from America from the likes of Bergman, Leisenring and Hiddy, and of course the classic streamers of Carrie Stevens.
Traditional flies can also be regional. Clyde style, North Country, traditional Scottish, Tay and Tummel styles, etc.
In salmon flies the normal definition of traditional is normally associated with feather wing or built wing flies. Yet we often hear of traditional hair wings and I expect it won?t be long before we are talking about traditional pbp?s.
So I think traditional is a huge mixture incorporating many styles, patterns and variations, including regional variations and grows over time with extended use and developments. Todays modern is tomorrows traditional.
Also one mans ?traditional? is another mans variation, which is why I would be interested in breac uaig?s definition of traditional after he wrote these in the competition thread.
Quote from: breac uaig on January 14, 2008, 05:23:01 PM
my pattern for the stimulator says red silk , My Klinkhammer pattern has CDC as the post, as I tie from a number of different sources are we now saying that Scotfly is the Oracle, as he does say that this is the way he does it ,
Quote from: breac uaig on January 14, 2008, 06:36:35 PM
if the patterns are by scotfly rather than the standard patterns, I will send you flies for the auction but not for the comp, there are plenty of standard pattern books at reasonable prices, for the price of a cape say. Who would tie a bumble with out referring to Kingsmill Moore? :? breac uaig
I found some of what he has written, with respect, contradictory and ill informed.
He quotes me as saying ?this is the way he does it? I do, but that is merely a get out clause for me. In most cases the patterns and methods are true to the original, or if not the finished article is. (well supposed to be) but if I were to say ?this is the original pattern? and ?this is how you do it? You can bet your bottom dollar that someone will ?correct? me. So to save irrelevant or pedantic discussions I use my get out clause.
Taking the patterns one at a time.
The Ace of spades.
As far as I am aware the dressing given is the ?traditional? dressing. The only difference is the choice of thread, but I do make mention of the ?correct? thread which is black.
The DHE.
I stated that I tie it slightly differently to Bob Wyatt. I do, but though I take a different route the end result is the same. Were I to tie one exactly per Bobs instruction and one my way I guarantee you would not be able to tell which is which.
The Klinkhamer Special.
This is the one pattern where I have strayed quite a bit away from HvK?s method of tying it, though I have now gone back to the original method. But the materials and final appearance are fairly true to the original. This is one where you have contradicted yourself. You mention ?standard? patterns then say ?My? Klinkhamer has a CDC post. The original Klinkhamer as devised by HvK has a poly yarn post.
See here for the full story? http://www.danica.com/flytier/hklinken/klinkhamer_special.htm
The Pheasant Tail.
The only difference from the way Frank Sawer tied the pheasant tail is I use Super Glue.
See here ? http://www.salisburydistrictac.co.uk/gallery_4.htm
The Stimulator.
The dressing given is one of the many ?standard? dressings, the only difference being the use of fire orange thread. The Stimulator as originally tied by Randalph Kaufmann has gone from the first ?standard? or ?original? to what it is now a style of fly rather than one ?standard? dressing. Although the materials may change the method of dressing I have given is the ?standard? method.
The Invicta
The style of dressing and the pattern is true to the accepted ?standard ? True, Courtney Williams (a dictionary of trout flies, p212) states the shoulder hackle is ? Red cock with a few turns of blue jay hackle? but the illustration on plate x appears to be a beard hackled version. John Veniard (Fly Dressers Guide p125) says ?Head hackle. Blue Jay? Yet like Williams his illustration shows it as a beard hackle ( Though in fairness, Veniard?s illustrations are drawings and show all the winged wets with a beard hackle) Also the Alex Martin 1950 catalogue Page 19, shows the Invicta with a beard hackle.
I think the above are classic examples of one mans standard and one mans variations, though I do think breac uaig has fallen into the trap of thinking that what he has read is gospel, or should that be me! I?m not the oracle; I?m a very naughty boy. :lol: :lol:
One final thought, Sandfly wrote this and I?m sure we all feel the same to a greater or lesser degree.
Quote from: Sandfly on January 15, 2008, 10:03:31 AM
Still a question I cannot answer is What is Traditional.
But, consider this. If was to say I caught some fish today. 1 was on a traditional style parachute, 1 was on a traditional style wet, 1 was on a traditional style dry and 1 was on a traditional style American hair wing dry.
How many would be thinking of Parachute Adams, Blae and black, Greenwell?s glory and a Humpy? ( or flies along those lines)
Still sure you don?t know what a ?traditional? is?
Must admit I use far fewer ?traditional patterns? these days and catch many more fish. Now it might be I am getting better at catching or it might be that the newer patterns are better. Either way it can only mean that in my experience traditional patterns are at best no better than newer designs and in fact it may be they are not as good. I can?t remember the last time I fished a bumble ? I am far more likely to tie on a sedgehog / hedgehog if I want a big wake fly in a wave.
Surely fly tying and fly design is an evolutionary process; was the man who put a silver body on the Invicta a visionary or a heretic? Is the Silver Invicta a traditional fly? If so what about the version of it with a pearly body? And so it goes on.
I believe that most ordinary tiers use what they have. Starling instead of hen blackbird, dyed goose and not scarlet ibis. The end result might look slightly different ? perhaps even odd. But that may be more to do with what you are used to seeing than better or worse.
It?s a bit your favorite song. You are used to hearing it played one way and may be outraged at some ?inferior? cover version. Perhaps if you had heard the cover version first you might think the same on hearing the original.
QuoteIt?s a bit your favorite song. You are used to hearing it played one way and may be outraged at some ?inferior? cover version. Perhaps if you had heard the cover version first you might think the same on hearing the original.
A good analogy. I'm not a flydresser.....just a busker. Every fly is different from the last one I tied :lol:
As I've posted before, I no longer tie traditional loch flies. I just tie something black, something brown, something bushy, something slim...etc. I catch just as many fish as I ever did.
Alex
Quote from: haresear on January 15, 2008, 02:28:11 PM
As I've posted before, I no longer tie traditional loch flies. I just tie something black, something brown, something bushy, something slim...etc. I catch just as many fish as I ever did.
Pretty much my view. I never bother about things like thread colour for example, usually use grey and colour the head with a felt pen but usually don't even bother doing that. Some of the modern materials such as ice dubbing can give flies great translucency. Flexi floss makes terrific bodies that look better to my eye than quill and are much harder wearing. That's what's great about the step by step section, it opens your eyes to materials and techniques you might not have even known existed. I certainly didn't know about a lot of it and I now tie far better flies as a result. I still have a box of point in time traditional loch flies, but as I said I hardly ever use them now. You never know though, some day I might go back to them – I think the best fly fishers I know are flexible in their approach. If you take John's Bandy Catcher for example, a far from traditional design, on it's day it will account for a load of fish but not every day. That parachute olive with the sparkling arse you came up with is another good design incorporating old and new materials. I'll have a few of those in my box this year! As I will Liddle's bibio emerger – simple, effective and using modern translucent dubbing for the body.
Derek, my last post was actually in answer to Harsear. I don’t believe most of us are really too concerned what materials and flies others use to be honest. To each his own. It is however interesting to read all views, learn what works for individuals and hopefully pass on our own experiences for the benefit of others.
Quote from: haresear on January 15, 2008, 02:28:11 PM
I just tie something black, something brown, something bushy, something slim...etc. I catch just as many fish as I ever did.
Alex
Alex
Almost the same as me. My loch box has a few staples: Hopper, CDC buzzer, Muddler, Hares Ear, Snipe and Purple etc. At least half my box is made up of bastards. I have a few traditionals in there too but they've mostly been there for years unused. A very few: Peter Ross, butcher, bibio might get a swim but it's nearly all dry fly on the Northern lochs from late May until September.
Malcolm
'Traditional Tying' What is it you ask? Take a hook between your thumb and index finger, take thread and materials and tie your fly. That was how 'traditional' flies were busked. Then came the vice to hold the fly. The 'traditional' tyers thought this was all wrong and shouldn't be used, now most of us use them. It was something that made the tying of flies easier.
Now to tying 'traditional' flies. What are they? I think they would be better called Classic flies as in classic salmon flies. Then we would have classic dry flies, wet flies, nymphs and lures. Lures you cry. They are modern abominations. Are they though? Some of the classic wet flies for lochs were based on salmon flies and in the nineteenth century wet flies for lochs were tyed on size 6, 8 and 10's, big flies by modern standards.
Lets look at a classic fly the Black Spider
Black fibres for tail, black thread and black hackle, either cock or hen. Pretty simple to tie.
Lets add a silver rib. Now we have a Williams Favourite another classic fly.
Lets change the tail to red and put on a grey wing. Now we have a Blae and Black another classic fly.
Lets make the body all silver, we don't have any grey wing feather. Lets use Mallard Blue instead. We now have a Butcher. A Classic fly?
And so it goes on. Each generation has it's own 'classic' flies made from the tyings of previous ones. Some tyers branch out and tie something completely different and, if successful, they become classic flies.
Now, what happens if we stop tying the classic flies to the original tying, or as close as we can with modern materials? We lose them. Unless we have books to give us the tyings we will no longer be able to see the history of our modern flies. If nobody ties to the classic design new tyers will not know what the classic fly should look like. We shouldn't lose these flies they are the heritage of our flyfishing.
Derek saw the fly competition as a threat to the way he ties, it wasn't. If I enter a competition and it states the way the organisers want me to participate I would have to follow those rules. If it is a painting competition and they state water colour I wouldn't enter an oil painting if that was all I painted in, I would have to compromise or not enter. We all have a set of rules we follow in life, some are seen as wrong by others, we still carry on through life though and we all get there in the end.
Traditional, Classic, they are just words to describe the way it used to be. It is all just heritage and history in the end. :)
Have a look here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-xwwfgCu-U
all the women who tied flies for the famous Rogans of Donnegal used only their fingers even after vices became common.the reason being it was traditional.
cheers Garry
That is the firm I was thinking about and couldn't find them on line :) This guy ties fully dressed salmon flies without a vice.
http://www.classicflies.net/
Found this about Rogan of Donnegal. There are Rogans on my mothers side, wonder if they are realations :)
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/features/worldwide/europe/part7.html
I seldom change a pattern of any fly, old or modern. Once it is changed it isn't the same fly, it is a different fly, as I outlined in the black spider to butcher tyings.
Quote from: wee bri on January 16, 2008, 12:05:51 AM
Whether it's out of necessity or personal preference we all do it.
We as humans apply that to everything we do, not just fly tying. If we didn't we would still be fishing with a willow branch and horsehair lines
Quote from: wee bri on January 16, 2008, 12:05:51 AM
Exactly Sandy.
It therefore follows that you occasionally do.
Whether it's out of necessity or personal preference we all do it.
wee bri............
But it is no longer the original fly and I don't call it by it's original name. Put a rib on a Black Spider and it becomes a Williams Favourite; change the tail to golden pheasant tippets and it is a Black Pennel. These were all changes made by someone at sometime but they didn't call them by their traditional name, they changed it so that they separated their tying from the original.
Quote from: breac uaig on January 16, 2008, 12:00:05 AM
lets call it at that before it gets out of hand
Can?t agree with that Derek. This is an interesting and friendly discussion ? can?t see any reason why it should get out of hand. I for one am very interested in how others do things and the reasons why. There are no rights or wrongs, just differences.
I didn't look the tying up when I wrote that, I was going from memory. It also has a topping over the tail. It is still just a variation of the Black Spider and because it was different it was called a different name. It wasn't called a Black Spider with silver rib and topping and tippet tail variant. Because it was successful as a loch fly it became a traditional fly in it's own right.
The point about maintaining original dressings and calling them by their traditional names is so that new patterns get the recognition if they deserve it. If someone asks a hundred years from now, how do I tie a Gold Ribbed Hares Ear, he will have the correct tying instead of a few hundred tyings that will bear little resemblance to the original.
That?s? interesting I may have been tying traditional Black Pennels for years without even knowing it and least in part. Sometimes my ribbing technique is not up to scratch and the first few wraps start before the body proper creating an involuntary silver butt.... :D
Quote from: fishtales on January 16, 2008, 10:29:48 AM
The point about maintaining original dressings and calling them by their traditional names is so that new patterns get the recognition if they deserve it. If someone asks a hundred years from now, how do I tie a Gold Ribbed Hares Ear, he will have the correct tying instead of a few hundred tyings that will bear little resemblance to the original.
What is the original dressing and what is your reference?
Looking at Sandy?s post re. the black pennel. I often wonder if some of these traditional flies were thoughtfully designed or just tied to please the eye. The tippet / crest tail for example ? a shuck or just pretty? What?s the blue jay throat hackle on the Invicta all about anyway? Looks pretty for sure but does it serve any purpose?
Fully dressed salmon flies are the best of all. The late Hugh Falkus claimed they scared more salmon than they caught and the only reason they caught at all is they were used in the days when our rivers were stiff with fish and the chances of encountering a particularly stupid salmon were far higher. They are very nice to look at though.
Quote from: scotfly on January 16, 2008, 11:25:26 AM
What is the original dressing and what is your reference?
Your point being, Denis? If your book is older than mine and it is a different tying then I am wrong? If a GRHE is tyed with synthetic dubbing it is no longer a GRHE, if it has a silver rib it isn't one either. These are the changes that I mean, not the fact that mine has three turns of rib and yours says four, that is just preference and style.
Quote from: wee bri on January 16, 2008, 11:36:54 AM
Sandy, I accept completely that you and possibly some others wish to maintain as best you can, the integrity of the original dressings of flies.
For myself though, fish are the arbiters of flies, not men.
wee bri.............
The point of the discussion isn't whether the flies catch fish or not, it is whether we should try and maintain the integrity of the traditional/classic/standard patterns or should we just ignore them and call every fly the same name. If someone handed you a fly with a yellow tail, black chenille silver ribbed body and lead dumbbell eyes and when you asked him what it was he said, Black Pennel, would you agree with him or correct him with the traditional/classic/standard tying? What if you didn't know the tying for the Black Pennel? You would go off and give the next guy the fly and so on and before long the Black Pennel becomes the black dognobbler called the Black Pennel and nobody remembers what the real Black Pennel looked like.
Quote from: Allan Liddle on January 16, 2008, 02:56:45 PM
Sandy does that mean you have to prove without doubt that a particular tying is the absolute first in order to claim a true traditional pattern?
What difference does it really make??
Allan
Of course not. That would be practically imposible to prove. There are a lot of traditional patterns that have been proven, and the dressings handed down, over the years. There are also some that have been changed, but renamed, that have become looked on as traditional. There are a lot of variations of all the flies out there but some have managed to hold on to their classic tyings and are still tyed the same way today. It would be a shame to lose them now because we can't be bothered.
I agree with what Sandy is saying, however, where do we draw the line? Is a golden olive bumble still a golden olive bumble if we use dyed guinea fowl instead of blue jay? I don?t believe it changes the fly sufficiently to rename it just as using thread of a different colour really makes no difference at all since you can?t see the thread. OK, others may disagree with that but we have to be careful we don?t focus on the minutiae too much
Quote from: scotfly on January 15, 2008, 11:58:20 AM
................... 1 was on a traditional style parachute, 1 was on a traditional style wet, 1 was on a traditional style dry and 1 was on a traditional style American hair wing dry.
How many would be thinking of Parachute Adams, Blae and black, Greenwell?s glory and a Humpy? ( or flies along those lines)
Still sure you don?t know what a ?traditional? is?
Hmmm..........
The section of your post cited above seems to imply it's a synonym for "conventional". Unless you can define the difference between a "traditional" and modern parachute hackled fly.
To my mind it's a pretty ambiguous expression used to describe a certain style of fly fished in a certain way. Usually wet flies it would seem: hackled wets on rivers (and some winged "regional" styles), but otherwise on lochs. I couldn't really define it, but I'd have a general impression of what someone was talking of when referring to traditional loch wet flies . And I don't think material choice really covers it: there are plenty of "traditional" wet flies with synthetic yarn tails. Pattern integrity: yawn............. :lol:
The phrase is seldom applied otherwise (to my mind); people tend to refer to "standard" dry flies when discussing those with a conventional collar hackle. I've never read any talk of "traditional" nymphs.
"Classic" (as mentioned) nymphs, dry flies, streamers etc...
That rings more of a bell!
.D.
Quote from: admin on January 15, 2008, 11:05:20 AM
I think we can get too hung up on traditional materials. By and large, I am quite sure, a tier designs with what he has available. Back in the days when it was OK to shoot tawny owls tiers used tawny owl. ...........
Dark Watchett
Hook: 16
Hackle: from a
Merlin's back
Head: orange
Body: twisted orange and purple thread, with a little mole fur
That's Sylvester Lister's 1898 prescription for a Dark Watchet. Jackdaw scalp seems to be the usual choice these days.
What if I use Jackdaw rump (as I typically do) or a small feather taken from a Rook's wing? Or Magpie?
I don't use silk either: does the use of polyester or nylon threads render my Dark Watchets "variants" too?
I reckon not.
.D.
Quote from: Sandfly on January 16, 2008, 08:00:46 PM
Makes them completely diferent flies if you are using different hackles.
Take for example a Partridge and Orange or a Woodcock and Orange spider pattern.
All that is changed is the hackle but they are totaly different flies.
Davy.
One webby dark grey hackle looks much like another. I'd challenge you to tell me which was which if I posted images of Dark Watchets tied with a range of dark grey hackles, if you could confidently predict you would be able to differentiate between them. It's not quite the same as a pattern in which the name of the fly is intimately linked to the (distinctive) material used to hackle it!
Are you suggesting you have to employ Merlin feathers to tie a Dark Watchet, just because Lister did?
I doubt if many of his peers did :wink:.
.D.
Quote from: fishtales on January 16, 2008, 02:54:07 PM
Your point being, Denis? If your book is older than mine and it is a different tying then I am wrong?
My point is that with older patterns, such as the GRHE, it is at best difficult to be certain of the original. Even with newer patterns it is not always easy to be sure.
Quote from: .D. on January 16, 2008, 06:56:01 PMThe section of your post cited above seems to imply it's a synonym for "conventional". Unless you can define the difference between a "traditional" and modern parachute hackled fly.
True, perhaps not the best analogy I could have cited.
Of course it could be argued that traditional and conventional could well be synonyms (in the context of this discussion at least)
Quote from: breac uaig on January 16, 2008, 09:17:08 PM
when did you last see a merlin
Now, I know a wee side glen in the eastern Cairngorms where there is usually a pair of Merlin most summers. Trouble is the bastards move so fast it may well be difficult to draw a bead on them, so I'll probably have to stick with .D. 's substitutes for my dark watchetts! :D
What about a Greenwell's Glory then. As trad as it gets.
OK, we'll assume it's OK to substitute Starling (or a similar grey feather) for Blackbird.
Now, I'd use light olive Danvilles Flymaster for the body.
The original dressing asked for yellow silk waxed to an olive shade with (crucially :roll:) cobbler's wax.
They didn't have Danvilles Flymaster in that particular shade way back when: but it looks much the same.
So, i've substituted a synthetic for the natural material used in the original dressing.
Is it no longer a traditional wet fly?
Is it no longer a Greenwells Glory, but a Greenwells variant?
I think it is still a Greenwells Glory.
Any offers?
.D.
Quote from: Sandfly on January 16, 2008, 11:22:29 PM
If you go back even further to 1886 Pritt gives the dressing using a feather from a Jackdaws neck as you stated or the outside of a Coots wing. Therefor I would not need to use feathers from a Merlin :shock: .
No matter what the pattern was I could not justify using feathers from rare species just for the sake of a fly :wink:
Davy.
Yes, and he also used Water Vole rather than Mole in his Little Dark Watchet to which you refer. The point being that they used what was available and suitable for the job. I'm equally sure other eminent anglers from the same era would each have had their own favoured feathers: for the same fly.
.D.
Quote from: .D. on January 16, 2008, 11:33:36 PM
I think it is still a Greenwells Glory.
Yup, I agree, it most certainly is.
If I paint my Ford Mondeo Estate with BMW paint, unfortunately it remains a Ford. :D
Quote from: .D. on January 16, 2008, 11:33:36 PM
The original dressing asked for yellow silk waxed to an olive shade with (crucially :roll:) cobbler's wax.
Actually that was one of the first variations of the original :D
Careful where you step boys we're in a minefield!! :lol:
Couldn't find it, but I have now.
This is the reference I used.
http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/greenwells_glory.htm
Quote from: scotfly on January 16, 2008, 11:41:32 PM
Actually that was one of the first variations of the original :D
Careful where you step boys we're in a minefield!! :lol:
Yes, I notice that you are sidestepping the more pertinent point: that silk (probably waxed duller: they usually waxed their thread in those days didn't they?) is used in the original. If you use synthetic thread are you still tying a Greenwells Glory?
.D.
Stuff that for a carry on. To me, grey feathers are just grey feathers (although starling is admittedly, nice on wee flies). Olive hair/fur is just.........
Several spools of Pearsall's Gossamer available cheaply from me :lol:
I suppose you could say I'm not a traditionalist :lol:
Alex
Quote from: .D. on January 16, 2008, 11:51:35 PM
Yes, I notice that you are sidestepping the more pertinent point: that silk (probably waxed duller: they usually waxed their thread in those days didn't they?) is used in the original. If you use synthetic thread are you still tying a Greenwells Glory?
.D.
I didn't sidestep the issue, I was just getting ready for work and didn't have time to deal with your shamefull admittance :lol:
To answer you, for me it is a Greenwell's Glory variation. But, being honest to say a fly is not traditional because we've used a modern thread or even a different colour of thread is being extremely pedantic and reading some of the replies to Fred's post leads me to the conclusion that this forum is littered with pedants, even some extremist pedants :wall2
A thought occurred to me this morning :shock: What if we classify as follows....
For the
"broad minded"...
Traditional style patterns - Tied using whatever material with whatever thread to look vaguely like something traditional.
For the
"pedants"...
Traditional tying - Tied using traditional methods and materials
Traditional patterns - Tied as close copies of patterns or style of traditional flies
For the
"extremist pedants!"...
Authentic traditionally tied traditional patterns - Tied as exact copies of the originals using only authentic materials, hooks, tools and methods as stipulated by the originator of the fly.
don't beat about the bush Dennis, just come right out and say what you think! :biglaugh;
folk who just spin don't have 1/2 this much fun..........................:biglaugh;
Quote from: scotfly on January 17, 2008, 08:59:47 AM
To answer you, for me it is a Greenwell's Glory variation. But, being honest to say a fly is not traditional because we've used a modern thread or even a different colour of thread is being extremely pedantic and reading some of the replies to Fred's post leads me to the conclusion that this forum is littered with pedants, even some extremist pedants :wall2
Updating a fly to modern materials isn't changing it, that includes using a substitute for a material that cannot be sourced anymore. Unless the pattern is changed, then it is a different fly. I see this is going the modern way. If you don't like the way the discussion is going, or you can't understand it, then attack with insults. Fine I'll leave you all to it. When a Greenwell becomes a Butcher and a Black Pennel becomes a Dog Nobbler I'm sure you will all be much happier. I will probably be dead and buried by then so it wont bother me. Anyway of the half dozen flies I use over the season only two are traditional, the Iron Blue Dun and Pheasant Tail Nymph, the other four are my own tyings. I've tried changing the patterns of them but they stop catching fish, so I go back to the original tying. That is about twenty years I have been using them so I think they have proved themselves. The old traditional patterns have been around a lot longer.
Lighten up guys, is it not all in fun? Certainly that's how I'm reading it anyway! :D
For me the changing the materials does not necessarily change the fly and so does not change the name. In fact I could tie to the same pattern using the same materials and make the fly look vastly different than if I had used substitutes. Would it be the same fly?
For me it?s the design and overall appearance that determines the fly, not sticking to specified materials
Quote from: fishtales on January 17, 2008, 10:04:45 AM
If you don't like the way the discussion is going, or you can't understand it, then attack with insults.
It isn't an insult, it's some observational humour. The broad minded outer me was merely observing, humorously, the pedantic fondness many of us are displaying towards traditional patterns and styles.
I think it's pretty obvious from my contributions across various forums that I have a strong allegiance to traditional fly tying and patterns and do what little I can to promote and preserve them.
I seldom tie / traditional / classic / auld fashioned / boring / granda?s / great uncle Wupert?s flies (delete as per preference). Not because I don?t use them ? that I do on occasion ? I just buy them and concentrate my tying on stuff I can?t buy.
OK, the silver invictas I buy never have a crest tail, it?s usually a dyed substitute. Looks OK to my eye though.
I still call it a silver invicta and it catches as many or as few fish as its grander golden crested brother.
So am I right or wrong?
Quote from: scotfly on January 17, 2008, 08:59:47 AM
I didn't sidestep the issue, I was just getting ready for work and didn't have time to deal with your shamefull admittance :lol:
To answer you, for me it is a Greenwell's Glory variation. But, being honest to say a fly is not traditional because we've used a modern thread or even a different colour of thread is being extremely pedantic and reading some of the replies to Fred's post leads me to the conclusion that this forum is littered with pedants, even some extremist pedants .............................
You'll next be telling me that a "traditional" pattern tied with a silver mylar body, instead of one tied with metal silver tinsel ( as stipulated in the original pattern) is a variation too.
Pull the other one! :biglaugh;
Quote from: scotfly on March 02, 2007, 08:29:37 AM
...............
With most of my traditional flys that call for a blae wing, I usually use whatever wing comes to hand first. I've yet to find a trout that knows the difference between a Jay, mallard, teal or whatever other blae wing I have handy.
:roll: :wink:
.D.
Quote from: .D. on January 17, 2008, 06:33:57 PMYou'll next be telling me that a "traditional" pattern tied with a silver mylar body, instead of one tied with metal silver tinsel ( as stipulated in the original pattern) is a variation too.
If you're asking scotfly the broad minded pedant I'd say technically no! I don't recall any pattern which stipulates "metal silver tinsel" only "flat silver tinsel"
If you're asking scotfly the broad minded pedant with extremist tendencies I'd say an unequivocal yes! :devil;
Taking this subject a step further.
I wonder what the "greats" of the past would have made of the bewildering array of materials and their quality available to us today?
I think, with only one exception, that they would have embraced them whole heartedly.
Our "treasured" traditionals would most likely bear names like the "Hare's ear and lite-brite," "Partridge and luminous orange," "Black flexi-floss pennel" and "Iron blue poly dun"
Quote from: scotfly on January 17, 2008, 09:24:40 PM
they would have embraced them whole heartedly.
I agree. Just like us they tied flies to catch fish, not to be museum pieces of the future. But then I'm just an old blasphemer. :D
Quote from: scotfly on January 17, 2008, 09:24:40 PM
I don't recall any pattern which stipulates "metal silver tinsel" .................
I'm not surprised.
The distinction between metal and modern mylar/ lurex type tinsels is unimportant.Though you may prefer one or the other.
But they wouldn't have had these "durnfangled" plastic tinsels in days of yore. In much the same way as they didn't use nylon and polyester threads.
I think you'll find rather a lot of "traditional" flies employing flat tinsel bodies these days are tied with mylar/ lurex. It's no different from using modern threads. Or any old grey feather for matched slip wings :wink:
.D.
If I tie a copper wire nymph using that new fangled plastic coated, non tarnishing wire is it right and proper to call it a copper wire nymph? The best Kite could lay his hands on was probably good old fashioned, aesthetically pleasing shellac coated wire. :D
much better to call it the nfpcnwn then :|
Davie
Like the NFI Fly, often the reply to the "what ya using" question.
Sandy B.O.
QuoteOr the NOYB fly, breac uaig
That's the one they use in competions. There is a variant..NOYFB :D
Alex