Grayling Witch

[GlassJet]

Back to the classics - and no, not just for your benefit, Otter!

I'm working through some patterns from Roger Woolley's 'Modern trout fly dressing'.

Grayling Witch by GlassJet, on Flickr

Hook: Kamasan B410 #14 thread: Olive uni. Tag: red silk floss. Rib: oval silver. Body: Green peackock herl. Hackle: mid dun genetic hen.

Andrew

[letumgo]

Nice! Do you have any information on how old this pattern is or its origins?

[GlassJet]

Nice! Do you have any information on how old this pattern is or its origins?

Hi Ray,
Courtney Williams 'A dictionary of trout flies' credits the pattern to Roger Woolley, and Roger Woolley's 'Modern trout fly dressing', which lists the pattern under 'Grayling flies' was first published in 1932. So not too long before that, I guess!

His other patterns in the Grayling flies section, the Witch's and bumbles, look like Derbyshire Bumbles to me (Woolley I think I am correct in saying was originally from Derbyshire) though he doesn't refer to them as such. These are palmered patterns, and very old - such palmered patterns being mentioned by Charles Cotton, fishing mate of old Isaak himself, again on the Derbyshire rivers in sixteen hundred and something. I do hope me being such a stickler for historical accuracy is not intimidating you... I never was very good with dates...

If anyone can shed more light on any of this, very interested to hear it.

I'll be tying up a few of these over the next few weeks, and I'll post pics. White Witch coming up in a minute.

[DNicolson]

Nice to see Roger Woolley patterns Andrew, and he was a Derbyshire man.

[Otter]

Back to the classics - and no, not just for your benefit, Otter!
Andrew

Nice to see these and I admire your bravery in translating from the written and presenting to the world. I recognise that in recreating these old patterns one must feel a certain sense of awe and a little fear that you may not do them justice . Nicely presented Andrew, well done.

A very interesting comment from my mate the detailist recently when I asked him his views on spiders/wets. He basically felt that at certain times for certain hatches that a well presented dry /emerger will take a quite a few fish but that a very precise wet imitation fished correctly will clean out the pool. He has experienced this on a number of occasions, and one in particular where he followed his brother up a pool during an Iron Blue hatch. His brother, a well experienced International angler took quite a few fish on his preferred Iron Blue dry. Seeing no point in following up with a similar offering he tied on a small spider that he had been given many years earlier that he reckoned might be a iron blue imitation.

To cut a long story short he took several dozen trout on it before it finally disintegrated - a massive feat given the quality of the angler that just fished that water in front of him. In his own words, there are flies that will take fish quite regularily and there are flies that the fish really want - this was such a fly for this hatch on that day. During my research over the last year on Iron Blues and their imitations I came accross some flies from a Welsh International that fishes my local a few times a year. He had two patterns that he used in an Iron Blue hatch, one a body of heron herl, the other mole - all other components the same. He had proven to himself beyond any doubt that on a given day that one will outperform the other by a considerable margin. He firmly believes that certain light conditions / or water colouration defines whether a trout will decide your fly is a cheat or the real McCoy and which you have attached to your leader will decide the number of trout you can fool.

I guess we all aim to have as many flys in our boxes that the trout REALLY want and just maybe the Grayling Witch is such a fly for particular conditions - the big big problem is that without the real history of such a fly and how and when it fishes best from the mouth of its inventor or one of his followers, ascertaining when to use it is a real big challenge and a near impossible task.

This is why I keep harping on about the need to supply more info on our experiences in fishing our creations or our experience in fishing the work of our internet buddies creations. If we all put a little effort into this then just maybe we could create a gem of a fly or give true value to an old classic.

Aside my habitual ranting on like a dog with a bone, recreating the old flies is great fun in itself, thanks for sharing Andrew

[GlassJet]

He firmly believes that certain light conditions / or water colouration defines whether a trout will decide your fly is a cheat or the real McCoy and which you have attached to your leader will decide the number of trout you can fool.

Hi Otter, good ranting as always...
I find this very interesting though, because I have just started to wonder along those lines myself. I do have intellectual difficulty with the idea that a fly can work well on one water and not on another.What are we saying here? That there are genetically distinct populations of fish in these different habitats (though there is some element of this, I know) and that they react differently to a given lure / pattern?

It is what I was sniffing around with my experience with the P&O. Now if it was just me I would probably just sigh and accept my limitations as a fisher, but I've spoken to a few who have not rated these spiders on this river. But then I thought, this river is rain fed, peat-stained, up and down very quickly and can go from highly coloured to crystal clear in a day, practically. It is also much overhung with trees.... all this must greatly affect how a given fly 'appears' to the trout in the water. Clearly not a good light for the P&O but rather better for the Greenwell's Spider...

I guess we will never know, but in my more insecure, in-need-of-rational-explanations-moments, I find this last rather more plausible than the genetic difference, on something so basic as prey-drive.

I guess we all aim to have as many flys in our boxes that the trout REALLY want and just maybe the Grayling Witch is such a fly for particular conditions - the big big problem is that without the real history of such a fly and how and when it fishes best from the mouth of its inventor or one of his followers, ascertaining when to use it is a real big challenge and a near impossible task.

That does of course pre-suppose that its inventor employed your methodical approach, rather than just tying stuff on a hook, flinging it in and seeing if anything got stuck on the end of it... And if it did, then he'd do it again etc.

This is why I keep harping on about the need to supply more info on our experiences in fishing our creations or our experience in fishing the work of our internet buddies creations. If we all put a little effort into this then just maybe we could create a gem of a fly or give true value to an old classic.

Yes, ordinarily I would agree with you, I do try to fish all the flies I tie. But the thing is Otter - I will confess to a rather base motive. I sell some of my flies through a Derbyshire fly fishing shop, and I am thinking of producing a series of Roger Woolley's grayling flies, with information sheet, and floggin' 'em. Perhaps you could provide fishing instructions?

I think I'd fish the Grayling Witch, it has that bit of red on it, so it is in with a shout already. Not sure about the White Whitch though. Having said that, I have had a lot of success with a very simple palmered pattern, both on grayling and trout. I will tell you about the fly I 'invented' some time, that I subsequently discovered to be about 300 years old!

Aside my habitual ranting on like a dog with a bone, recreating the old flies is great fun in itself, thanks for sharing Andrew

You rant away Otter, you always provide good value for money. I like to tie these old patterns, and fish them. I always say that doing so allows you to connect with something more than just the fish in the river.

Andrew.