Pete Hidy flymph

[Old Hat]

There are other items but often on the flymphs it seems the tails are hackle fibers. They are quite noticeable underwater (especially when glassy) and Kelly they often open up once submerged. For the tails try rolling the fibers around between two fingers before tying them in. Tie them in with tight wraps and put one or two wraps under them to perk them up a bit. The trick is sparse but the fish can't count so don't worry too much.

[Kelly L.]

Thank you. The tail fibers I am in particular thinking about were Golden Pheasant tail fibers. I remember using a bodkin to separate the feathers, tie them in, and invariably one would decide it wanted to pair up, either to the left, or right. That made on of the fibers look wider than the other, and I found that unacceptable. Although I wanted 3 fibers, I went with 2. I will try what you said, and see if that helps me, thanks. (oh and I did separate them, and realign them, before tying in...didn't help much...but I didn't try rolling them)

[fflutterffly]

I'm thinking these flies are Hidy Ho!

[JohnP]

Great flies! I really appreciate your sharing these with us. Each is a treasure. One thing I have noticed is how prominent the heads are on these flies. Interesting, to say the least.

[letumgo]

Aren't you done with that book yet? Come on, I can't wait to buy the first edition.

I love seeing these flies. Thanks for sharing these with us.

[gingerdun]

Aren't you done with that book yet? Come on, I can't wait to buy the first edition.

Ray, The Book! I'm more impatient than anybody, but finding time to work on it is hard while I'm earning a living on less fun things. But, progress is being made in dribs and drabs.
Once school is over in May, then I'll have more time. The forum has been useful for understanding better how others see the subject.
And thanks to everyone else for your comments on this string. I learn a lot from all of you. And I will continue to post more historic flies from time to time when I can.

[daringduffer]

The "Controlled Chaos Flymph" is my Hidy favourite so far. Guess it's because I'm a sucker for scruffy hare...

dd

[Roadkill]

Old Hat
I agree with all your discussion points and analysis about fur, feathers, and fishing the flymph, but think there is more to the complex puzzle of triggering trout to bite than a focus on the glassy hackle appearance. During that emerging clear wing stage I also love to use flies like cripples, Klinkhammers and sparkle duns that don't exhibit translucent wings but nevertheless trigger that feeding response due to other factors in the sparkle, dubbing, movement, profile, etc... reality continuum. We can discuss this more at the expo.

gingerdun

Reading this thread and seeing these wonderful flies I am struck by two things.

First Pete and Big Jim were Master anglers as well as creative fly tyers. They knew the fish, the waters, and the bugs as well as what they needed to do to try and imitate life stages in their tying or how to present their flies for the best effect. They had keen eyes for the subtle effects of color blending as well as hackle choices for different water conditions. Matching a clear hackle for some adult stonefly or mayfly wings would be just as logical as matching a more opaque feather for a "hairy winged" caddis imitation. A mayfly flymph with a more subtle hackle may mimic the mayfly whose wings haven't begun to emerge yet on the way to the surface. They also used a variety of tinsel wraps to provide that sparkle of life in a variety of water and light conditions. It is rare here to see someone post a new fly dressed with the wide tinsel ribs that they used for certain conditions.

Secondly most modern tyers don't understand how highly prized quality hackles of any kind were decades ago. We live in the Golden Age of hackles. Pete and Jim would have been amazed at the variety and quality of today's genetic hackles and all the selected breeding catering to modern tyers. If a tyer had a prized neck back in the good old days he might find enough feathers (30-40) on that neck to tie 10 or so tiny dry flies getting 1-2 wraps of each hackle in the size zone he wanted. Now you just need a single Whiting 100 hackle to tie those same flies with the first almost the exact same fly as the last.

[gingerdun]

Roadkill, Great to hear from you!
Your comments are interesting, especially about the knowledge that savvy fishermen like Big Jim and Pete had about the natural insects, and about creative fly-tying. You are also right about the difference in hackle availability in 1940 compared to today.

I would add another difference between then and now: high-resolution color macrophotography of flies on the web and in books. Clearly Jim and Pete were not tying with the camera in mind—only the trout. Even here on the forum, most of us who are posting our own work are self-conscious about imperfections that Leisenring or Hidy would have thought unimportant. The kind of messy, haphazard effects in the old flies have been replaced by the more cultivated tying that we admire today. Someone else used the word impressionistic to describe Pete's tying, and I think that nails it.

Here, for example, is another Pete Hidy fly—a joyful mess. The eye contains a bit of tippet and a knot.

[Hans Weilenmann]

I would add another difference between then and now: high-resolution color macrophotography of flies on the web and in books. Clearly Jim and Pete were not tying with the camera in mind—only the trout. Even here on the forum, most of us who are posting our own work are self-conscious about imperfections that Leisenring or Hidy would have thought unimportant. The kind of messy, haphazard effects in the old flies have been replaced by the more cultivated tying that we admire today. Someone else used the word impressionistic to describe Pete's tying, and I think that nails it.

Lance,

Jim and Pete never saw the flies this up close as we have become accustomed to. A fly may, and often does, look pretty good to the naked eye shows up all sorts of interesting, eh, digressions when blown up to many many times its actual size. The camera does not lie. If you cannot see where you "messed up" it is more than likely it will never get addressed

Here, though, is where my line of thinking may diverge a little from yours.

I do my tying for the trout, first and foremost. Some of the flies may never see water, but that is not the point. I tie them for the trout, first and foremost. My flies will be scruffy (in my parlance Controlled Chaos, or Organized Anarchy) where I want them to be scruffy, and sleek where I want them to be sleek.

Scruffy does not equate bad tying, provided the scruffiness is with intent, measured and controlled.

Sloppy tying almost invariably results in scruffy fly, sure, but it is a scruffy fly which is less likely to fish well, and certainly will come apart sooner.

The flies you have displayed fall squarely in the first group, for all their age and to our computer image educated eyes. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

Cheers,
Hans W