Post
by Greenwell » Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:29 am
Substituting an easy to source material for a rare or hard to procure one is as as old as fly dressing itself. As far back as Aldam in 1875 fly dressers were substituting the inner covert feathers of the starling for the rare, even at that time, dotterel. I could find and cite many more examples from rare hackle colors to pink fox fur, etc. of exotic materials that have "magic" powers but most of you can surely do the same.
That being said, what has made the Tups Indispensable an icon among trout fly patterns for well over a century was due in great part to the material used in the body and the fact that that material was kept a secret for many years. Whether "real" tups dubbing has the almost mystical fish attracting powers that has been attributed to it is a matter for debate but it does lend an aura of mystery to the pattern and finding the "true" material can be a large part of the fun of tying the pattern. As many of you know I'm something of a materials fanatic and find a great deal of satisfaction in finding rare and obscure materials but I look at that as almost a hobby in itself.
How a fly pattern becomes popular and endures over time can be attributed to how well it catches fish (or fisherman) and to begin to modify that pattern simply to suit either the materials at hand or one's whims sometimes draws us away from the original concept of the fly. We all modify flies as a matter of course, at least if we are tying them to use on the water. I doubt there is a fly dresser who hasn't changed something about some standard pattern in an effort to make the pattern more effective, at least in their mind. Those of you who have looked in my fly boxes have seen few standard pattern flies, almost every fly I carry on the river is very different from what most anglers are familiar with. But nearly every one of these flies is the result of many years of development and I can give you detailed reasons as to just how and why it looks and fishes the way it does. We're talking about fishing flies here and not the attempt to duplicate historical patterns as accurately as possible, which is a very different subject.
I don't want to offend anyone but there is so much random modification today that in all honesty it becomes a little tedious. At least to me. Social media is rife with made up patterns that garner comments like "that should be a killer," "looks great," pretty fly," ad infinitum. (Ad nauseum?) I'm making no judgement on the quality of the dressing or the skill of the dresser but when someone shows me a modified fly pattern I want to know why they felt the modification was needed. Perhaps it was because a hard to get material wasn't available, a very legitimate and understandable reason. Or perhaps the modification was made to suit regional or seasonal conditions, again legitimate and understandable. But simply throwing feathers and fur at a hook in the hopes that the pattern will look nice doesn't really do it for me: I want to know the thought process that was behind the ideas that led to the final product, and if that thought process was simply to make up a pretty fly or something that might work, well you lost me.
A similar thing has been happening in the world of bamboo rods. In the last couple of decades many amateur rod builders have come on the scene and many of them make modifications of established rod tapers in an effort to "improve" them. One constantly hears of something like: "a Payne 197 built by Joe Smoe" or "a modified Paul Young Perfectionist taper." Well, unless it was built by Payne it isn't a Payne and why the hell would you mess with one of the finest of all Young rod tapers? I guess these things shouldn't drive me crazy but they do and that's because such modification causes confusion and in some cases disappointment. More than once I've seen unhappy purchasers getting something very different from what they expected. Just like the finest rod builders, past or present, worked on developing their own tapers and designs, so too did and do the best fly dressers work at creating the most effective flies for the waters they fish. And when I say "best" I don't just mean those who dress the prettiest flies but those who have a deep understanding of how fly design works and how to apply that knowledge to a particular fishing situation. Think of the genius of Frank Sawyer's classic Pheasant Tail Nymph for example. You'll see a thousand modifications of the pattern but the original is still the best of the lot.
Most of you on this Forum probably think of me as someone who primarily ties and fishes historically accurate flies, but nothing could be further from the truth. As much as I love all things associated with fly dressing history I am first and foremost an angler and the vast majority of flies I dress are for fishing purposes and my fishing flies use simple, inexpensive, and easy to find materials of the highest quality I can find. In the end, the trout is the final arbiter of what constitutes a good fly pattern and a fly that continues to produce fish, in the situation(s) it was intended to be used in, over many seasons of use, is in the end the one that really impresses me.
