Recommended spider hooks?

[taylor16]

Just placed an order online for Daiichi 1530 heavy wet hooks. Size 12 and 14... What do you all like/recommend for spiders?

[Old Hat]

Just about whatever suites you. You'll get all kid of ideas with this question. Really it is determined on how you are planning to present the fly. For example I might tie the same pattern on a heavy wet fly hook as well on a light wire dry. the insect I am mimicking will likely determine the shape and length of the hook. The Daiichi 1530's are great choice for a general wet fly hook and will serve you well for a lot uses. You could use them for many different styles of wingless wets.

Now if you are strictly speaking traditionally styled "spider" patterns meaning very sparsely tied patterns like the partridge and orange, snipe and purple with maybe a little dubbed thorax or touch dubbed body, then these are often tied on a short shank, wide gap hook. These are most effective fished upstream but more importantly for your question near the surface. I often use a light or standard wire hook for these as well.

There really are no hard and fast rules to this other than use the hook purposefully to accomplish what you need to do to get the fly to the fish. Secondly, part of the fun is being creative with all the hook styles and seeing what you can come up with.

With all that said, I do have a few hooks that I lean to:

For traditional spiders
Tiemco 111, Daiichi 1510 and 1130, Mustad C49S, Gamakatsu C13U, Partridge L3A/S, Umpqua 260BL and my new favorite the Gaelic Supreme Dave Brandt's Catskill Spider Hook.

For the bulk my tying I lean on Mustad and heavily on the Mustad R50 and R50U and a heavy 2x long hook for stonefly patterns.

[chase creek]

The 1530's should be fine for most uses. Take a look at William's site -http://www.williamsfavorite.com/soft-ha ... hooks.html - lots of good info on hooks (and lots of other stuff) there.
I tend to just choose a hook that I like and think looks good for the pattern, not necessarily along traditional lines. I like using scud hooks, and some swimmy hooks (Diiachi 1870). 2X long seems to be a pretty versatile length with straight shank hooks. I also like the looks of the Tiemco 200R, which is a 3X long, semi-dropped point hook. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not married to one style or type of hook.
Your mileage may vary.

[Ron Eagle Elk]

" You'll get all kid of ideas with this question." is an understatement. Hook makers, styles and shapes are largely a matter of personal preference for the tyer. My personal choice for spiders is the Daiichi 1640 (2 X-short), the Drennan Super Specialist Barbless (the same hook style as the Daiichi 1640), and the TMC 206 BL.

The Daiichi 1530 in a nice hook that will serve you well. There is no reason a spider couldn't be tied on them.

[Mataura mayfly]

Absolutely any hook I can get my hands on! Sorry, but I do. I tie spider patterns on everything from #20 Kamasan sub surface to #1/0 Salmon Irons........ but you get "odd" folk in all walks of life.
A lot depends on the style you are aiming for, if fishing upstream in the film or swinging down and across with a bit of depth required.
If your aim is for bigger/stronger fish then perhaps heavy wire or forged hooks might suit you better, the added strength insuring less chance of the hook straightening.
Above all, what ever you choose- make sure the point is sharp!
As I rule I would suggest you avoid "budget" priced hooks, but some of them (and I stress some of them) can be just as good as major suppliers hooks, or are "seconds" from the exact same manufactures with very little wrong with them, but as a rule you get what you pay for.
In saying that I got some very nice barbless black hooks from Lawrence Finney at less than $10 per 100 (over here I pay $10 for 25 packs of the major makers hooks) and they have been very good strength wise- they just have a very small eye and can be stressful to tie on a 4X tippet in a hurry.
You can buy cheap hooks to practice on, but may run into a problem with them bending or breaking due to metal fatigue from thread tension as you form wraps on the shank (the shank moves outside the jaws and the stress is applied where the hook does not move and is trapped by the jaws of the vice). I suggest tying on "good" hooks and if not happy with the results you can slice the tie off the hook and reuse it.

So really, use any you want- as long as they are sharp, will hold your target fish and have a well formed eye that is easily threaded with the tippet of your choosing- the rest is personal choice.

[William Anderson]

Taylor, it's great to see these questions arise and offer some basic information. Like Carl said, it's all based on how you want to present the fly, which includes imitating a particular natural if that is something you're aiming to do. I love the 1530's and 1550's for lots of softhackles and spiders. Daiichi 1180 or similar dry fly hooks for flies meant to remain in the surface film. I have had great experience with daiichi 1270 especially for stoneflies. The 1250 is definitely a favorite as a lighter wire and wide gape. It fits a lot of requirements for my box.

I will say this, when I first started tying spiders someone mentioned it would help to focus on my technique and proportions if I picked a couple hooks and stayed with them for a bit rather than trying every hook on the market. Working out hackle lengths, body lengths, thread placement, thorax length, etc. it's easier to find consistency if the proportions of the hook are not always shifting.

Please let us know which hooks you find work best for you.

w

[Mike Connor]

As others have said it depends on what you are trying to achieve. You can add weight easily to light hooks if desired, but you can't easily make heavy hooks lighter. You may also want stronger hooks for some things. Also depends on how you fight fish, what fish you are likely to catch, and what gear you use. I have used these for many years, for practically all my freshwater "small" flies;



These are actually identical to the daichi multi-use dry fly hook ( probably made in the same factory on the same machines but I can not swear to that);

[Mike Connor]

With regard to proportions as such, I only take this into account as far as it applies to the insects I am trying to imitate. For many this is a question of "style". I have posted this before I think, but it may be of interest;



Problems often arise with many older fly patterns, because the materials are sometimes very difficult to obtain, or people don´t really know what they need to get! The original feathers of even rare and protected birds are given in some cases, many of these birds are now endangered and protected, and no attempt should be made to obtain such feathers, even possession of such material in some places is illegal. You may be lucky and find a bird dead on the road somewhere which you can use, otherwise you should use the substitutes.

Hen hackles are not usually very good substitutes for game bird and similar feathers, although they may be used in a pinch. They are often very wispy and thin, much thinner in the barbs than other feathers, less mobile, and several turns of hackle are often advised to obtain the required effect, whereas one will usually do with the original feathers. I don´t personally agree with using more turns of hackle, but many authors have recommended this over the years.

When using hen hackles try to find coarse webby feathers, (if you buy them, these are usually the cheapest by the way!), and if you can find them, with broken colouring, like mottling or barring, these are far more useful and effective than single colour feathers. Avoid dyed colours as much as you can. This does make a difference. If you do want to use dyed feathers, then you might like to have a look at this first. If you just want half a dozen feathers of a particular colour, then use permanent markers to colour them, this is a great deal easier and cheaper than dyeing in the conventional manner.

Genetic hen feathers are not very good for most of these flies, the feather quality is far too good! Much of this hackle is almost web free and very fine and springy, which reduces the intrinsic mobility considerably, and this in turn reduces the flies effectiveness for many purposes. Coarser feathers imitate insect legs better usually. There are some new materials on the market now, notably Brahma hen feathers, ( from Whiting farms) which may be well suited to a number of spider type flies. Hans Weilenmann has a few very nice looking patterns for these on his site. I have used hen back feathers for some things, but up to now I did not really need to use many substitutes, as I have a good stock of materials, and I don´t dress many flies which use extremely rare or protected birds and animals.

Many old time dressers, (including Skues in fairly modern times, who did a great deal of research into north country patterns,) were of the opinion that feathers with a good amount of natural grease or oil in them were better for fly-dressing than any other type.

This may seem paradoxical for wet flies, but it is nevertheless a fact that many of the feathers used and recommended for these patterns do contain a lot of natural grease or oil, and are more effective for many flies. Washing the feathers gently and carefully in warm soapy water made with pure soap, to get them reasonably clean, does not detract from this property, however hot dyeing them certainly will, as most of the natural oil is boiled out, some modern detergents should also be avoided for this reason. This is probably the main reason for some dyed feathers being less effective for dressing purposes.

Many bird feathers, notably Pigeon and Dove feathers among others, would seem at first glance to be ideal for fly dressing, coming as they do in a wide range of attractive colours and sizes, even metallic glints are common, excellent for imitating some insects. Strangely enough most old time dressers gave these feathers a wide berth, maintaining that they were "dry" lifeless and dull.

There are hardly any patterns using these feathers, even though they were widely available and easy to obtain at the time, quite the reverse of some of the feathers actually used. It is highly unlikely that this was done without good reason, when one considers the trouble many went to in choosing feathers for dressing their flies. This is probably another reason why hen hackles are not as good either. The same is true of most of the furs used, water rat, shrew and several other animals were used because the fur is naturally waterproof when untreated. This bears thinking about when substituting materials. While we may not always know exactly why some materials are better than others, we may rest assured that these flies are sometimes the result of years of experimentation and research, and it would be foolish to take this lightly

Pure waxed silk was almost always used for many of these flies, the type of wax used varied quite considerably, as it was often made up mainly of resin. ( Purified pine resin was often used). For the majority of flies nowadays, ordinary beeswax suffices to wax the silk if this is required. It is possible to use modern tying thread, and just form the bodies of waxed or unwaxed floss silk or thread, this results in a somewhat thicker body, and should not be overdone, but it does work.

Small thin bodies are more effective on spiders usually. Some modern threads may also be used waxed to obtain the effects required as well. One way of obtaining very good translucence is to wind a flat body of gold or silver tinsel, and overwind this with one layer of fine waxed silk. This looks very good, the tinsel shines through when wet, imitating natural translucence very well indeed.

Try to avoid handling the flies too much with your fingers after dressing them, as this transfers natural oils from your fingers to the feathers, and makes the flies very difficult to sink. Your hands and fingers should be scrupulously clean when dressing flies anyway, especially silk bodied ones, as every speck of dirt or grease shows up plainly on the body, and makes the flies look rather tatty, it is doubtful whether the fish really mind about the tattiness, indeed, the very tatty ones tend to catch more fish! But the oil from your fingers can be a problem.

I have seen one or two flies dressed with bodies of "larva lace", which is basically fine soft plastic tubing, and similar synthetics, and the translucence and colour thus obtained is excellent, in many cases better than the original pattern with silk, to human eyes at any rate. I mostly still use silk though! I have tied up a range of patterns with larva lace, but somehow never get around to trying them out properly! The originals are hard to beat as fish catchers! Also, some experiments I did with this material left me rather unconvinced as to its effectiveness.

Judging by the number of e-mails and other correspondence I have been receiving lately on the subject, and also at the time this article was originally written, Yorkshire flies or "Soft Hackles" as they are also known, are becoming very popular once again, although for a while they seemed to have fallen into disuse, or been neglected in favour of more exotic or complicated patterns.

These were the first flies I used as a boy, and they were very successful indeed, in fact most of the people I met or knew at that time in Yorkshire fished these flies almost exclusively. Dry fly fishermen were very rare in the North in those days, although there were some.

Many of the old standby patterns such as Partridge and Orange, Snipe and Purple etc, will still be found in almost every Yorkshire flyfisher's box, and even some of the less well known patterns are still popular in many parts of England. Several first class books about north country wet flies were published, and even today still enjoy wide acclaim.

There were basically three methods of fishing these flies, the old traditional method of down and across using a fairly long soft actioned rod and a team of two or three flies, , perhaps working the flies, and also allowing them to swing across the current on a tight line, the “new” method ( although it was already an old method !) popularised largely by Stewart in his book "The practical angler", whereby the flies were mainly fished upstream dead drift, much like dry fly fishing, or more modern nymphing techniques whereby the angler moved upstream casting ahead using a long ( Stewart used a comaparatively “short” ten foot rod), stiffish rod and a short line, and the downstream method, whereby the flies are cast across and slightly up from the anglers standpoint, and fished dead drift to below him, then the angler moves down a yard or two and casts again. In some places nine or ten or even more flies were used on the leader ( still mostly referred to as a “cast” in the UK ).

The only really successful method of those described above, is the upstream dead drift method, where the angler moves carefully upstream, casting often at every likely spot, or of course at rises or marked fish. The other methods will take fish, especially in coloured water, or fast broken riffles, but not as many and usually of smaller size, whereby many fish are also lost due to just being "pricked" or "turned over."

Time and practice is required to master the really successful upstream working method, and a longish rod (rods of between ten and fourteen feet were used for this method) is a necessity, as with shorter rods it is just about impossible to gain the perfect control required. I use a number of modern match rods for this purpose, as fly rods of this length with the required action and delicacy are hard to acquire nowadays.Nine feet is about the shortest length with which this method is really practicable, and is difficult even then. Stealth and delicacy of presentation are prerequisites of this method. I have just acquired a thirteen foot telescopic rod, which I am in the process of testing. It is a little cumbersome on small streams, but does give marvelous line control.

Attempting this method with the relatively short rods now popular is more or less a waste of time, as line recovery, casting etc are just too difficult and tiring. In fast flowing streams the flies will be back at your feet before you even have time to see where they landed. The trick is to use a line not much longer than the rod and to raise the rod to maintain loose contact with the flies, casting long lines makes this just about impossible, as one is then obliged to retrieve line per hand.

The casting line should be kept short, preferably not much longer than the rod, not including the leader ( cast), and one must cast very often indeed, the drift sometimes being very short before drag sets in. Some old experts “worked” the flies, by vibrating the rod, and using other techniques. This technique is however very difficult to master, and requires considerable practice. Some people are apparently much better at this than others, as they “vibrate”better. Sounds a bit silly, but it is true.

Dragging flies may often tempt usually small fish to grab at them, but most decent trout will ignore them, as they are perfectly aware that a natural insect does not behave in this manner. This should be borne in mind when fishing upstream wet flies, or indeed any other flies! There is a difference between “working” and “Dragging” !

Although these flies are often referred to as "Yorkshire wet flies" or "North country flies" in actual fact many of them may be traced to areas of Derbyshire, Lancashire, the Lake District and many other places in England Scotland and Wales. Their main characteristics are their small size and almost austere sparseness and delicacy of dressing. The style of fly also varies considerably from area to area, although ostensibly the same pattern.

The popular name "North country flies" is probably due to the title of the second edition of the book by T.E-Pritt, (the first edition was called "Yorkshire Flies,") this book was first published in 1885, the second edition in 1886, and is now very rare and valuable indeed as a collectors item. This book was more or less the bible of north country patterns, became an instant classic, and was also remarkable for the eleven high quality hand coloured plates in the book. I have a facsimile reprint of the second edition, but this was also limited to five hundred copies.

Nowadays in many places, one fly only on the leader is the rule, but the basic methods are still effective if one can manage them. Some methods wont work well or even at all with only one fly! These flies are quite good imitations of many insects, are relatively simple and cheap to tie, and one may catch prodigious numbers of fish with them. Larger soft hackles are now fairly common, but years ago the small delicate flies in sizes 16 to 12 were by far the most popular and effective lures. In point of fact one was generally advised to fish flies a size smaller than the natural if possible, as this was invariably more successful. Only changing to larger flies in “big “ water ( heavier flows).

The larger soft hackled flies will catch fish, but it is uncertain what some of them are supposed to represent. Probably the semblance of life and mobility engendered by the soft hackles tempts fish to grab them anyway, even though they are far larger than their natural counterparts. There is no such thing as a size 8 dark spanish needle, or a size 10 iron blue dun. Patterns tied in these sizes do catch fish, but rarely quite as well as the smaller more accurately imitative patterns.

I know and have also heard of quite a few people who fish very large soft hackles with considerable success, but mostly as general or attractor patterns, and making little or no attempt to match the hatch. This was not the case years ago in the Yorkshire Dales and other places where many of these patterns originated. Great pains were taken to match the natural flies in size and colour, and many different feathers were tried until the best imitation of the natural insect was discovered. Many of the feathers used at that time are no longer available, and some of the substitutes leave much to be desired, it is nevertheless still possible to tie a range of soft hackle patterns to suit almost any eventuality on the water.

Many North country and other spider flies were dressed with a "kick", for upstream fishing. When "worked", these flies have a particularly lively action. The hackles literally "pulse" when manipulated properly. Which is presumably the same reason the Italians dress them in this fashion. After use, such flies must be carefully dried and fluffed up, as otherwise the hackles may take a bend in the wrong direction, and this makes them much less effective.

Practically all the spider type flies were also dressed with a kick for upstream work. There is some info on this in various literature. This however usually works best with slightly stiffer hackles, which give more movement when worked. Although I have also seen partridge hackles dressed in this fashion. Many modern dressers incorporate a very small "thorax" of fur, to help force the hackles forward, and keep them there. One may of course simply use thread, as in the majority of Italian flies.

The origins may be different from the Italian flies, which are identical in form and function, although who knows? Maybe some Roman soldier, perhaps even originally from the Po valley area, brought some flies with him when he invaded Britain? This may even be the origin of a whole host of flies and techniques. The Romans were certainly active in those parts of Britain where such flies and techniques were used, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that they may even have introduced them. They had very great influence on a whole host of things. Wherever they originated, the design and function are identical.

False casting with modern rods will dry these flies very effectively indeed. However, using the long rods, no false casting is done at all, there is no call for it, and the flies do not get a chance to dry out. The reason for drying the flies after use, and before storing them again, is that otherwise the hackles may mat together, and dry into a different curve. As long as the flies are in use, this does not occur.

There are also various tricks for "bending and setting" hackles. One common method in Yorkshire, which also gives some very typical appearances to the flies thus treated, is to pull the hackles over the edge of the thumbnail after the legs and wings have been "set". "Setting" here, refers to the fact that the hackle is split more or less equally above and below the hook shank, to represent wings and legs separately, and also the angle at which the hackle is set on the hook. In some flies a few extra fibres were added as wings, and the hackle itself, was below the shank.



This is a North-country-style spider with the hackle set above and below the hook, and "bent" to shape by curving the fibres over the thumbnail. This style is a fairly good upstream fly, but will lose its shape immediately when used downstream or worked. It is purely for dead drift work. The hackles are “set” above and below the hook to represent the wings of a spent or otherwise drowned fly. This technique was very popular with some dressers in Yorkshire. Many dressers being of the opinion that it was a much better imitation of the naturals when dressed in this way. Of course, there was a lot of controversy on this too!
Contd ->

[Mike Connor]

Generations of fly-dressers have struggled with the interpretation of “hackle turns”! Authors and others, often remonstrated that flies should be kept sparse. However, if you want very sparse flies, then simply count the number of barbs on the feather you wish to apply! If you want a fly with eight barbs, then strip off all the other fibres before you wind it! Of course there are other techniques for applying hackle, apart from simply winding feathers.

The vast majority of wet flies and spiders were dressed in the sizes 14 or 16, with quite a few in size 18 if the feathers were obtainable in this size. If in doubt, go one size smaller. Many of the older experts were of the opinion that the small flies were much more effective, but also complained constantly that feathers in these sizes were often difficult or impossible to obtain.

Variations in the dressing of these types of flies are legion. Many authors and dressers over the years have evolved various methods of hackling, dubbing etc, for various purposes. Some of these methods, or styles, as opposed to the specific patterns, have become more or less standardised in some places, often for the wrong reasons, and this is rather unfortunate. Some of these flies must be dressed in certain ways with certain materials if they are to be effective as they were originally designed to be, but this does not mean that all such flies should be dressed in this manner, quite the contrary.

Dogmatic assertions that a soft hackled fly should have a hackle one and a half times the body length for instance is fairly nonsensical. The insects one is attempting to imitate are all different, and there is no “Standard” size for wings and legs on the creatures.

One of the reasons for some North country flies having long hackles is the simple fact that these hackles are not available in smaller sizes! There are other reasons as well of course. Many of these flies have been in use for hundreds of years because they work extremely well, and although appearing very simple, are in fact pinnacles of achievement and development,which may hardly be bettered as imitations, when tied with the correct materials, and in the correct way.

"Umbrella" hackled flies, where the hackle is tied in to spread it evenly and concentrically around the hook, which are fairly popular nowadays, are often quoted as being the perfect way of hackling soft hackles. This is simply not so. This method is excellent for many wet flies, and is known to work well, but for many upstream wet flies it is far better to give the hackle ( and the wings) the correct "set" meaning to fix the hackles in such a way that the fibres are more or less evenly distributed above and below the hook in anything from almost flat to the body up to an almost vertical plane, thus more efficiently suggesting wings and legs, and making the fly more stable and a better imitation for dead drift operation, either up or downstream.

There are no natural flies whose legs and wings radiate from the body concentrically over 360°, unless you take hairy caterpillars into account!, and flies tied in such a way can not possibly be good imitations of naturals usually, unless other criteria are taken into account, such as mobility, special technique of use, semblance of life, trigger behaviour, etc. Dry flies are tied like this to help them float, not to make them better imitations. There is no sensible reason to do this on wet flies usually, unless specific actions or movements are required, as in woolly buggers and similar flies.

Quite a few authors and dressers advocate the use of herl, fur, or wool thoraces, on many upstream flies, although actually only a few of the original patterns had these additions, maintaining that they then fish better, as the hackle is held upright and away from the hook shank, and gives a greater semblance of life to the imitation, or a better profile, or because it just "looks better." Some others maintain that a small drop of varnish (head cement) on the finishing knot should be allowed to seep into the hackle roots, thus stiffening the hackle somewhat, and helping to maintain it in the desired position. Some avoid the whip finish because they say it makes the head too big, especially on flies with herl, or wool,or fur heads, some use a single half hitch with varnish, some use no varnish, and so on.

None of these ideas are carved in stone! The whole point is, before dressing a fly, you should know what you want to imitate with it and under what conditions, and these considerations should be reflected in the dressing. Upstream wet fly fishing with the correct imitations and techniques is by no means "chuck and chance it" as is often implied, quite the contrary. When practised correctly it is a deadly and precise method of catching large numbers of fish in a very satisfying and pleasurable way.

Vehement assertions that hackles "must" be tied in by the tip, or one side of the hackle "must" be stripped, are also rather ridiculous. These flies are deceptively simple, deceptively because the possible variations in dressing styles and designs, and combinations of them are more or less infinite, and all were originally invented for specific purposes.

Some hackles have to be tied in by the tip because it is more or less impossible to tie them in by the stalk, and still achieve the required effect, this is dictated by the material in this case, other hackles may be better tied in by the stalk or other variations used, depending on the material used and the effect or property which one is seeking to obtain. Many feathers have well defined tapers, meaning the fibres at the tip are usually shorter than the fibres at the butt, it is usually more natural looking to tie such feathers in by the tip and wind in such a way that the shorter fibres are at the rear of the hackle towards the hook bend, but you do not have to do this, if you want to try it the other way go ahead!

Natural insects which fall into the water, or live in it all the time, all behave and appear differently, depending on the insects themselves, their size, colouration, degree of robustness, delicacy, swimming ability or the lack of it, etc. These flies were designed and tied to imitate a multitude of such creatures in all manner of forms and circumstances.

Really good wet flies have to be good imitations, because the fish see them directly and closely. There is no one "perfect" soft hackle form or set of dimensions for all situations, and it is arrant nonsense to even suggest such a thing. Many patterns may be used "universally" as they imitate so many creatures, that they will be taken for something or other at practically any time on any water. In fact many people only use two or three flies in total. Stewart of "The Practical Angler" fame, only used three general spider type patterns usually and had three winged patterns in reserve, should his spiders fail him, or be required for certain types of water, which apparently hardly ever occurred, according to his writings.

Some styles of dressing are shown below, with comments on the situations and conditions for which they were originally designed. A point I have made before on various occasions, but which is still worthy of repetition here, is the fact that years ago "style" meant the variations in fly patterns making them suitable for different conditions, and the way in which they were dressed in order to achieve this.

"Style" has now come to mean the little idiosyncrasies which many dressers build into their flies to make them stand out from others. This is not the same thing at all. The first reason is an eminently sensible and practical consideration for making the flies more accurate imitations, and thus more attractive to the fish, which is the object of the whole exercise, and the second is to make the flies more attractive to people and boost ones own ego with a "personal stamp" on ones work, which, while it may be profitable or fun or interesting, has nothing whatever to do with the behaviour or appearance of insects, or the predilections of trout.

People often ask me why I do not use the "traditional" down-eyed hooks for my north-country-style wet flies. In fact I have been told on occasion by one or two experts that my flies "don't look right " or are "tied on the wrong hooks," or "you will never win a prize with flies like that" and similar encouraging remarks. Well the reasons are as follows. For hundreds of years these flies were tied on hooks without any eyes at all, directly to horsehair or gut, eyed hooks being a relatively recent invention, so there is no “tradition” of up or down eyed hooks as such. I prefer straight eyed hooks for several positive and specific reasons as well, the head of the fly may be finished very small and very close to the eye, much closer than with up or down eyed hooks, and this allows very fine small finishing knots important on flies with herl or fur heads. Silk thread is also thicker than many synthetic threads used today, and one has larger heads anyway on silk thread flies as a result of this.

The appearance of bulk engendered by up or down eyed hooks is avoided, the tendency of the offset hook eye to pull the fly out of line on the cast (leader) is obviated, and the flies thus fish more naturally. This reduces hinging and breaks at the knot as well. The appearance of the finished fly more closely resembles the real thing in my opinion, when tied on these hooks, but this is purely my personal opinion. When being "worked," or in heavy water, the offset eye can cause the fly to generate too much turbulence, and can actually act as a sort of miniature diving plane, causing the fly to hang and behave in a very unnatural manner. With straight eyed hooks this simply does not occur.

Drennan Carbon Specimen hooks with straight eyes, which I mentioned in a previous article are the best hooks I have found for this purpose to date, and I have tried lots, even making some myself. I also use them for dry flies as they are fine wire and extremely good quality. They are also cheaper than most purpose made trout hooks, as they are made for coarse fishing! It is an unfortunate fact nowadays that if something is made specifically for "fly" fishing it invariably costs more than a similar product just as good or better, but originally made for some other purpose.

So, on to styles. The Greenwells Glory has been chosen as the pattern, the same materials have been used in all the flies shown in the style section below, apart from the addition of a small fur thorax on some to obtain special effects, the only other differences are in style.

Traditionally, and in many modern books, the materials for patterns are often given in the order in which they are tied in, this means that the materials list should be adjusted to reflect the style of fly being dressed! If the Wings are tied in first then they should be first in the list, if the wings are tied in last, then they should be last on the list and so on. A pattern recipe written properly should tell you something about the style and dressing operations, and not just be a list of materials. I have simply given a list of materials for all the flies here listed, as the dressing and style is discussed specifically in the text anyway. A pattern from a hand dresser may have a different material dressing order than a pattern from somebody who uses a vice. Also, the method of finishing affects the dressing order. It is as well to remember this when looking at older fly-dressings.

Greenwells Glory

The materials are:

HOOK. - This fly may be used to represent nearly all the olives, and a host of other creatures as well, and may be tied in practically any suitable size. For upstream olive imitations I would suggest 16, 14 and 12. I prefer relatively short shanked straight eyed hooks without exception for these flies, for the reasons already outlined above. Small neat sparse flies are more effective than large or bushy examples.

WINGS. - Hen Blackbird or dyed Starling. Light or dark undyed Starling may also be used if desired. This fly is also often winged with grey Duck primary or secondary quill slips, especially commercial ties, but these are rather coarse for this purpose in my opinion.

BODY. - Well waxed primrose yellow silk, which should turn a translucent green olive colour when waxed, there are a number of suitable waxes available, pure Beeswax works, although it is a little difficult to use on silk, Gehrkes Fly dressing wax is also very good, and dubbing is easier with this than with pure Beeswax, if one desires to use wax. "Cobblers" wax is often mentioned in old dressings, but as this comes in all shades and colours from white to black it is sometimes difficult to know what is meant by this. For most of my waxed silk flies, I wax the silk with beeswax, and use a glue stick for “touch” dubbing

It is fairly obvious that very dark or highly coloured wax would change the body colour too much, and there would be little point to this. Some flies are made like this though, using very dark cobblers wax to darken the thread. The ideal wax should usually darken the body somewhat, change the silk colour to the required shade, ( in this case olive), and give the translucence mentioned, or at least the appearance of it.

The body of this fly is ribbed with four turns of fine gold wire or tinsel. (wire is better, lasts longer!) I do not suppose that trout count the turns of ribbing, and it is presumably immaterial whether one uses four or five turns, however the turns should be even and correctly spaced to represent the segmentation on the body of the naturals, and to give a conservative amount of "flash" to the body, which also aids in faking the insects natural translucence.

LEGS. - Dark Furnace hen hackle. Greenwell for lighter flies. In many patterns of this fly Cochybonddu Hen hackle is specified, this is more or less impossible to obtain, in fact many authors and dressers maintain that this colour does not exist as hen hackle. This is not true, I have some natural Cochybonddu Hen hackle, but it is extremely rare. For some patterns "Henny cock" is specified.This is cock hackle with a lot of web and very soft in texture, and is more or less useless for normal dry flies, but may be used on lots of wet flies. The original Greenwells Glory, ( If it was an original! There were similar flies extant at the time) almost certainly used furnace hackle.

THORAX. ( where appropriate ) - Mixed dark Hares Ear fur. Or somewhat lighter when a light coloured wing is used. This may be varied of course to suit the insects on your water. It is essential to blend the fur properly to gain the maximum effectiveness, using single colour substitutes, whether natural or artificial makes a poor fly.

At least three shades should be blended together to obtain the end shade desired, the more the better. In this case a fairly dark shade is obtained by putting more dark fur in the mix. The actual colour which results, is not nearly as critical as the fact that it is made up of different colours. Other furs may be blended in if desired to obtain specific results.

Many old time dressers had "secret" dubbing mixtures which were handed down for generations. Most of these were simple blends of various furs, usually two or three, sometimes more. The "Rythmical Table" describes some of these blends if you would like to try them.

Avoid dyed furs if you can, they are simply not as good as natural blends of fur. For some blends you have no choice, when for instance crimson or bright green or purple is called for, but if possible stick to natural colours as much as you can. Small amounts of synthetics such as antron etc mixed in to give a bit of sparkle, or imitate air covered wing cases, etc seem OK, but don't overdo it, and try the originals first before you start modifying!

HEAD. - Either the waxed yellow silk, or a black or dark brown varnished head. I like black or brown varnished heads on some of these flies. Many of the naturals have very dark shiny heads.

There are countless other variations which alter the appearance, properties, or imitation value of these flies, but these are the main ones. I will try to add some of the various other styles in the near future.

Bunched and rolled wings may also be used either single and paired or split, or even completely different or artificial materials like Antron etc. An extremely interesting new idea for soft hackles is the use of CDC as wings, thoraces etc. I am experimenting actively with this technique, and it looks very promising indeed.

Combinations and variations of each method are also legion, depending on what the inventor wishes to achieve. Hackle and wing angles, body lengths, etc. may all be varied at will. Bear in mind, we have only discussed one fly, using the same materials for the different styles, and the possible variations of wet imitations for various purposes and conditions!

Substituting materials extends the possibilities even further into the realm of unknown infinity. Before you substitute materials or modify patterns you should be clear what you wish to achieve by so doing. Adding or modifying things just to make them look different in the box is usually a complete waste of time as far as practical fishing is concerned and even fairly minor changes may render a successful fly useless. You may of course get lucky and find a variation which is even more killing than the original, but this is rare.

Many flies, including the Greenwells Glory discussed above,may be used to imitate quite large numbers of various insects and other creatures under variable conditions, although this fly was of course originally dressed to imitate olives. Other patterns, as is mainly the case with many of the North country soft hackles, were originally designed to imitate a specific insect under certain conditions, when dressed and used in a particular way, at a certain time of year when such insects were extant. They are often not particularly successful when one deviates from this plan, although they will still often catch fish, the results are nowhere near as good as when the flies are dressed and used correctly at the right time.

Nearly all the various lists in the older books, have lots of fly patterns which are very similar indeed to one another. They use the same hackle, merely varying the body, sometimes only very slightly. There is not really much point in carrying all such variations, even if it were possible! Best to choose a core of patterns suitable for your own waters, which reflect the insects to be found there, and stick to these.

Contd ->

[Mike Connor]

More and more dressers nowadays tie from books, and quite a few are not even aware of the actual appearance of the insect they are trying to imitate. Try to collect or at least look at a few of the insects on your local stream or lake, and copy them yourself with the material and skills at hand. This is much more satisfying, and usually a lot more successful than slavishly following recipes from books, at least it guarantees that you are trying to imitate something that is actually in your water, and not something originally designed to imitate lesser spotted black backed dung beetles for perch fishing on the Nile!

Also it is as well to remember that some patterns are tied to mimic insect behaviour when fished as designed, and may not look much at all like the insect itself out of water, this important point is unfortunately often neglected in books of pattern descriptions. Do not be afraid to modify standard patterns to suit your local waters if necessary, nothing in fly dressing or fishing is carved in stone!


Presumably all fly fishing started as a result of attempts to imitate creatures which the fish were seen to be taking, and mainly because of the difficulties of using the creatures themselves as bait.

The first known references to this by Aelian;
http://www.flyfishinghistory.com/aelian.htm

Quite obviously give a description of dry fly fishing.

This alone indicates that "dry fly" fishing was probably the first method invented. There is also considerable evidence for this, notwithstanding some writers who maintain it developed later. Their arguments are however illogical, and contradictory. Little more than speculation based on supposition.

Many traditional methods were a cross between dry fly fishing, and fishing minimally subsurface

The size and sparseness of the dressings was to more accurately imitate the insects, and not to "get them down", as is often maintained. The widespread practice of dressing small patterns on larger hooks was a result of often poor hook quality, and the better holding power thus obtained. Fish were not "played" in the same manner as today. When fishing nine flies on a gut leader, it is quite impossible to "get them down" at all, and they all fish merely inches below the surface. The drift duration using traditional gear on running water also does not allow flies to sink any distance, before being lifted off and cast again. Even downstream fishing will not allow this, as the flies begin to "skate" quickly, even in relatively slow water. One can not even cast such a leader with modern gear, much less have any sort of control over it. Many authors have written that the best chance of a fish was when the flies alighted on the water, and before they sank. Although the flies still caught fish when slightly sunk.

While we are on this subject, do not be afraid to substitute materials if necessary, it is unlikely that the fish will notice, this is not always the case, some patterns must be tied with the materials used by their originators if they are to be successful, but there are not as many of these as one might imagine. In general if the properties colour and texture of the substitute material are similar to the original then use it!

However, if you sell or publish patterns originated by someone else you should either do it correctly, or not at all. If you alter someone elses pattern then you should make it quite clear that you have done so, what you have altered and why. It is a very sore point with me that many people publish or tie other peoples patterns and do it wrongly! Some of the commercial ties of successful patterns are abominations, and have little or no resemblance to the originals which were the result of much careful work and thought on the part of their inventors. This is one reason why many do not then work very well.

Modern manufacture of flies by trained commercial fly dressers has resulted in considerable standardisation of types. Many wet or dry flies are dressed identically just with different materials. This is especially prevalent with winged wet and dry flies and nymphs. If you dyed them all black you would not be able to see any difference between them!

This is a major fault! Most of these flies were originally tied to represent specific insects, and the set of the wings and hackle or wing cases etc and the general proportions were designed to do just that. Tying a cinnamon sedge as a double split up wing dry fly may be an interesting tying exercise but the result however beautiful or interesting can not by any stretch of the imagination be fished as a cinnamon sedge and it is a fair bit of cheek even calling it by the same name as the original.

Ignore people who tell you either verbally or in books that flies have to look just so, or that proportions have to be just so. This is completely false, look at a few insects, some have short legs, some have long legs, some have large wings some small, some have thin bodies some fat, some have antennae some do not etc, variation and diversity are the key notes, not standardisation.

It grieves me sorely when some experts go to great lengths especially in instruction books or in so called fly dressing competitions to propagate this nonsense. The judge of your work should be the trout and your own common sense, if your flies catch fish, as they will, then they are excellent, and do not let anybody tell you differently! If you tie flies for display or other demonstration purposes then you must perforce adhere to the rules of that particular persuasion, this has little or nothing to do with practical fishing however, which is what we are concerned with here.

If you "invent" flies by the way, (every tier does at some point!) try to avoid publishing the results until the fly has caught at least fifty fish under repeatable conditions. A glance through the angling press will show you that at least 500 flies per week are "invented" and praised as being the best thing since sliced bread. The very sight of some of these incredible and mostly useless often plastic concoctions obviously constructed with little or no thought, just because some bright flashy stuff was available, is enough to drive any self respecting fly angler back to worm fishing! I would be ashamed to have some of these monstrosities in my box, let alone fish with them.

I venture to suggest that most of them return to the oblivion from which they doubtless originated within a week, which is a good thing too! Most of them just add to the confusion and hype which has to be waded through before reaching that eminently desirable and exalted state of informed grace we are all continually striving for! Occasionally a useful pattern does emerge however.

If you invent a good pattern and wish to publish your results it is not a lot of use to other dressers when you inform them that the main material for your "John Smiths and his mother-in-laws absolutely infallible trout tickler and perch panacea" are only obtainable from the nether parts of a certain type of mountain goat which is the last member of its species, and lives on the slopes of a remote mountain chain in outer Mongolia, and which your mother in law brought home for you after her last mountain climbing expedition.

You might instead consider a name which says something about the fly or the materials used, or what it is supposed to imitate, no matter how insulted your mother-in-law may be at not being honourably mentioned.

Even if your fly is all you claim for it, not many are going to be able to tie it. And what is even worse, should the fly actually be successful, this is invariably bad public relations for conservation minded anglers, as some greedy fool will probably actually go there, kill the goat and proceed to sell the material at an outrageous price.

For similar reasons you should explain how the fly is fished and under what conditions, and if possible the area where it is most useful. You do not have to reveal your best fishing location, (honey hole is the charming American term I believe!) but you should at least be able to give some pointers to the type of water and fish to be caught with it.

Adding gold beads or tinsel or pre-formed plastic waggle tails and the like to well known standard patterns does not in my humble opinion constitute invention, it may increase the catching capability of some flies but in my experience the reverse is also often the case. Furthermore putting heavy gold beads or lead wire on upstream wet flies, or even dry flies which I have seen lately (God knows why!), renders them absolutely useless for their original purpose, they may or may not catch fish but this is not the point at all. The greatest satisfaction to be had is discovering what the fish are eating, mounting an imitation of this creature, and by artful and skilled presentation fooling the fish into taking it.

Dragging a lump of nondescript weighted plastic through a deep pool on the end of a high density sinking line is not really fly-fishing, however many fish may be caught by doing it. Catching a limit of mentally retarded fin damaged and hand tame rainbow trout in a put and take lake on a royal coachman during a hatch of medium olives is not fly-fishing either. If you enjoy it and want to do it and it is allowed on your water then go ahead, but do not fool yourself into thinking you are fly-fishing. You may catch a lot of fish but you have missed the point entirely and are not getting the satisfaction you ought to from this magnificent pastime.

http://www.archive.org/stream/wayoftrou ... 7/mode/2up

This is a plate from Skues' book where he also bemoaned some "standard" stuff.

You can download some of his books here for free;

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Skues

Style used to mean the way flies from certain areas were dressed for specific purposes, some well known styles were from the Tummel, Usk, Tweed and other Scottish and English rivers. Nowadays it has come to mean the little idiosyncrasies that well known tiers build into their flies making them instantly recognisable. This can be oversized round highly varnished heads, or over long thin rakish wings, or small sparse beard hackles , or "stroked" hackle, (this is a hackle where the fibres are pulled over the thumbnail after the fly is tied to give them a specific curve, the curve may be varied at will with practice), or other points of recognition, or combinations of such.

This is quite interesting, but basically a fault in my opinion, leading to standardisation of a kind as well. Something I constantly struggle to avoid. This sort of thing is not worth copying. The only sensible reason for a practical fly-dresser exaggerating or otherwise changing the appearance of a fly in this way is if it makes it more attractive to trout. Making flies more attractive to people may be an interesting and even profitable exercise, but it is highly unlikely to catch you any more fish! Which is the object of the whole thing as far as I am concerned.

One last point worth remembering, is that many patterns were tied for specific purposes on specific waters, under sometimes very specific conditions. (The English chalk streams for instance have generated much literature and many patterns.) It is highly probable that they will be absolutely useless on the water you fish, either because their natural counterparts do not exist there, or are not available in numbers large enough to get the trout interested, or because such conditions never prevail on your water.

->