Traditional Tying

[Wildfisher]

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?

[Wildfisher]

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.

[haresear]

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

[Wildfisher]

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.

[scotfly]

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.

   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 ,

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.

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?

[Wildfisher]

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.

[haresear]

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.

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

[Wildfisher]

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.

[Wildfisher]

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.

[Malcolm]

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