Traditional Tying

[Fishtales]

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.

[Wildfisher]

Lighten up guys, is it not all in fun? Certainly that's how I'm reading  it anyway! 

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

[scotfly]

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.

[Wildfisher]

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?

[.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  .............................

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;

...............
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.

[scotfly]

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.

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"

[Wildfisher]

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.]

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.

[Wildfisher]

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. 

[The General]

much better to call it the nfpcnwn then  :|

Davie