Suggestions

[fflutterffly]

Now that you've contributed to my knowledge on hooks I'd like to know if there is a book, in print, that is specific to flymphs. I seem to over dress my flies, but I like the way that looks. However, that isn't a flymph maybe. I've read the definitions and when I look at photo's of flies some don't look like the discription.

The important thing is I'm tying the fly and fishing them, exclusively this year... as a study.

Thanks for the 411
Ariel

[narcodog]

There are two: Wet flies by Hughs and Tying and Fishing Soft hackle Flies by Allan McGee

[letumgo]

Look for a book called "The art of tying the wet fly & fishing the flymph" by James E. Leisenring and Vernon S. “Pete” Hidy. Although the book is out of print, your should be able to find it on E-bay for between 45 to 75 US dollars. I found it listed for 55 dollars on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Tying-Wet-Fis ... 409&sr=1-1

Here is a link to Jim Slattery's discussion on flymph flies. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, he gives an extensive listing of standard wet fly literature.

http://www.flymph.com/html/articles.html

[letumgo]

Those both of the books which Bob (narcodog) lists are excellent.

Here is a link to Allen Mcgee's book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Tying-Fishing-Sof ... 130&sr=8-2

Here is a link to Dave Hughe's book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Wet-Flies-Fishing ... 30&sr=8-10

[Soft-hackle]

Hi Ariel,
The definitive book is Leisenring's and Hidy's, of course, but the others, mentioned, are also very good. Another book you might search out, which is out of print, but occasionally available is The Sports Illustrated Book of Wet Fly Fishing. This book was actually written by Vern Hidy. It goes into tying technique, very simply and is well illustrated. A book called Masters of the Nymph has a wonderful chapter written by Hidy, included. There's a lot of info in that chapter. Perhaps you might locate this second hand or at a local library. It was edited by Leonard Wright, Jr.

I just want to point out one thing. Dave Hughes knew Vern Hidy, well, and toward the end of his life, Hidy began tying his flymphs, at times, with the hackle wrapped through the thorax of the fly. Many people think this is the correct way to tie them. While I tie some patterns like this, the original flymphs as tied by Leisenring were not wrapped in this fashion, but with the hackle wrapped as a collar. I still tie many of my flymphs like this, as well. I depends upon what I'm attempting to imitate.

Mark

[fflutterffly]

Gentlemen and brothers of the flymph I thank you. I have my task set out before me and will pursue finding these suggested books.

[DOUGSDEN]

Mark,
I read with great interest the last paragraph of the above post. That is quite a bit of interesting history. Since I started tying flymphs (right after I aquired Dave Hughes book "Wet Flies"), I have always wound the hackle back through the dubbing about 1/3 of the way. I always assumed that was the correct way. Then, I tuned in to Flymph.com and took a great liking to Pete Hidy's flies. Obviously, they are not tied that way but in the more traditional vein of 1-2 turns of hackle right at the head of the fly. I look at all the great flies that are posted on Flymphforum.com and they are mostly tied in the traditional way.....1-2 turns at the head of the fly.
The statement that you made about Pete Hidy wrapping the hackle through the thorax (later on in his life and tying career) makes good sense. He was very much aware of what went on under the nymphs skin (hydrofuge) in the moments before hatching. The thorax hackling lends itself very well to this by the trapping of small air bubbles between the dubbing and the base (or nearly so) of the hackle fibers. Sometimes it's hard to get even a well soaked flymph tied in this way to go under the waters surface. And yes, air bubbles are trapped under the hackles of a fly tied with the 1-2 turns near the head of the fly method.
Which leads to the big question....is there a difference in appearance especially to our finny friends? Only experience begs to answer this question.
The thorax method is a little harder to get on to but once it's mastered, it's really quite easy and enjoyable. Dave Hughes book makes it very easy to understand. This is something you won't find in the original book by Leisenring and Hidy.
Every pattern in my "flymph box" is tied in the thorax fashion. Every pattern in my "wet flies" box is tied in the 1-2 turns way. Some patterns (not many but some) are duplicates of each other esp. black or tan colors. Have I noticed a difference? Have there ever been days when fish have rejected one type over another? Not that I can recall. Mark, your post has really got me thinking. Thanks for that!
Dougsden

[Soft-hackle]

Hi Doug,
I guess your observation is correct because I've not tested to see if there is a difference in fish response. When tying these flies, I'm thinking of profile and behavior. For example my Black Stone Flymph is tied with the hackle wrapped through the thorax. That said, I use this fly when the trout are taking those early black stone flies, which isn't all that often, BUT the fly can represent a nymph, emerger, and, to some extent, the adult quite easily and can easily be fished as such, but it's more a nymph/emerger. The fish have the opportunity to go after these flies more underwater, and as adults only when they lay eggs or get blown into the water. I very seldom see them getting taken from the surface, although it happens occasionally.

On other flies, wrapping at the collar makes more sense because I want the hackling to resemble both wing and legs, which is what Leisenring and his predecessors intended. These flies can represent adults more easily, in my opinion. So, while these two methods of tying are effective there's always a chance one might be better over the other to give the correct impression of the insect. It is very much in the same vain as changing hackle stiffness to fit the water speed one fishes.

As fly artists, it's up to us to determine which tying method best represents the impression of the insects/stage we are trying to imitate. I'm not saying one method is better than the other. What I am saying is, as Hans once said, we try to build into our flies as many triggers as we can to get the fish to take them. This small difference MIGHT make a difference in how our creations are perceived by the fish and used by us.

I hope this gives you something to think about. Perhaps some research is in order to give some definite answers to your question.

Mark

PS-- Human beings like to be able to categorize things. "A place for everything, and everything in it's place." Hidy was guilty of helping along the process of categorizing these flies as "emergers" with his coinage of the term flymph. My take on the term flymph is quite different (Perhaps it was Hidy's take as well). To me it means it could be a nymph; it could be a hatching fly (emerger); it could be an adult. In other words it denotes a versatility not so overtly obvious with other types of flies. So we categorize these flies as emergers. I, on the other hand, don't. If one MUST categorize, then "wingless wets" is a better name.

[kanutripr]

Ariel

I'm not much past the stage you are at with soft hackles and am still studying and trying to improve my fishing and tying techniques but here are some of my observations.

I tend to follow the same philosophy as Mark. Two kicks at the can, maybe? Confidence because this is the way I get the most fish, maybe? I like to use a long rod, cast the fly slightly upstream and lift as much line off the water as I can. I let it go deep and drift through as a nymph then at the end of the run let it swing gently, lift slowly and prepare for my next cast. It's usually at this stage where the fly (I hope) is imitating an emerger that I get the most hits but there is potential throughout the entire presentation for a fish. Before I started tying soft hackles I would watch my nymph drift down the river and wonder how the fish would pick it out from the bits of leaves and sticks it was drifting amongst. The fly needs to distinguish itself from any of the other debris floating down the river and still represent a nymph/emerger. I think in moving waters a little extra fuzziness or hackle wraps helps it to distinguish itself without putting the fish off but there can be a fine line where overdressing or too much flash can spook the fish or affect hookups. It just takes practice and being new when I tie up a bunch of flies they usually look a lot like nymphs (this makes sense to me) with soft hackles. I tie a few in the same size, some well-dressed and some more sparse. Spookier fish will often take the more sparse versions. Also it seems the sparser versions fish better in slower waters and often sink faster.

As I said I'm still a newb and enjoying the explorations of this subject so I appreciate any feedback from more knowledgeable people here but it looks like you and I will be doing the same thing this fishing season.

Luck to ya and tight lines.

Vicki

[fflutterffly]

Here is my problem. I can't really figure out the difference between the wet fly and a flymph!