Waterhen and Purple

[William Anderson]

Bob, 1950 is as good a delineation as I could imagine, given the nonlinear nature or these flies. I realize this is a topic in itself and should be raised in another thread, but sometimes the seeds of a thread begin just as this has and once it moves to a stand alone thread, we've had some time to consider the issues.

Chris, if it's not about the fishing of the patterns, the history holds a lot less interest for me. How would it not be both?

A couple of members have raised the question of providing two fly dressing forums. One for classics (be my guest at defining these) and another for contemporary flies. Or is it published patterns vs. yet to be published? Personally I believe we may lose the authentic nature of discussing and sharing these flies if we create arbitrary divisions. A pattern from Pritt's list on an eyed hook, or any published fly using a substitute - all must be considered a variant. A new forum for variants? If you're a history buff (the number among us who are not is a significant minority, we all seem to love this stuff) then you will quickly recognize a pattern by its name. If it appeals to you, please click on it and enjoy the pattern, contribute to the discussion and appreciate the offering. If you see a pattern listed with a name that you don't recognize, this is probably not of interest to you. Please do not open this thread, you will likely be disappointed at seeing a soft-hackle that isn't historic. If you are only interested in historic flies and see a post listed as Partridge and Amber 1250...and it's mine, you won't like it, you are not required to view it and no one is expected to comment on it. But how many of us have tied flies with materials that we have at hand, or tried standard flies using a modified technique, as all tiers before us have done. The lines are blurred (thankfully) between spiders, soft-hackles and flymphs. The definitions can be ambiguous. Ruard's flies, Bill's flies, Tim's flies, are as valid and interesting as any of the historic patterns, and likely more relevant to unique, localized water conditions and presentations. Why would anyone want to fragment this continuum of fly design or exploration, or split the history and the practicality of these flies? I am open to lengthy discussions about the merits of two forums for fly dressings, disagreements and all, but if it hinders the flow and simplicity of this place, I don't see the advantage. Yes, this certainly should have been placed in another thread. Sorry. Please add further comments on the Classic Fly Forum here. http://www.flymphforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5195

Bill, thanks so much for putting up the perfect example of a classic fly, perfectly within the interest of everyone and falling between the cracks of codification.

[redietz]

Uh, if I'm "new" how come I feel old?

Substitute your own birth year, then.