FLYMPH FORUM

Howdy ALL;

Well except for one I tied when I was 8 (53 years ago).



Hook; Mustad R 50-94840 size 14
Body; Ultra-Thread 70 Light Olive
Well waxed with Cobbler’s wax (Thanks Ray)
Hackle; Hungarian Partridge (Thanks Ray), from where… a bag full of loose feathers

I apologize about the quality of the photo. Macro doesn’t live in my camera. So, I improvised,
I shot hand-held through the magnifying lens on my light . Maybe Santa will gift me with a short tripod. Haven’t spoken to her yet.
Any suggestions or criticisms are welcome, that includes the snarky one’s (Dub-ya).
I believe that if you ‘click’ on the photo it should enlarge.
Thank You ALL for your patience and indulgence with me.
hank

edit to correct hook size.

Mike, Howdy;
Thanks, only put 2 wraps of hackle on it.
How much should I leave off?
hank

Mike, Thanks;

Your comments are most welcome and respected.
Thanks,
hank

i think it's nice hank.....it'll definately catch fish.

Hank,
I agree with Mike regarding the hackles, however, Hans once pointed out to me that English and European tiers often put less hackles on their flies than do American tiers. It could have something to do with our American wet fly heritage, I don't know. A bit sparser, in my opinion, would be better. I think you did a fine tying job. Keep it up.

Mark

I'm so happy to see your posting flies Hank! I like your fly a lot, and so will the fish.

Way to go Hank!

Maybe you should ask Santa for a camera for Christmas. The one I'm using lately has 9.1 mp 5x zoom, macro, image stabilization plus a ----load of other things and cost just under $70. The only thing is it's not waterproof but that's what ziplock bags are for.


Vicki

Soft-hackle wrote:Hank,
Hans once pointed out to me that English and European tiers often put less hackles on their flies than do American tiers. It could have something to do with our American wet fly heritage, I don't know.

Mark,

There is likely no single reason, but here are two probable factors which played and are still playing a role:

1. When spiders crossed the big pond and were re-born as 'softhackles', they tended to be fished on a downstream swing. In order to have at least a bit of 'body', it is likely that heavier hackling kicked in. The sparse spiders were never meant to be fished in such a manner

2. It requires a leap of faith to have confidence in fishing these skinny patterns. If a few barbs are good, surely more barbs are better...

Cheers,
Hans W

Thanks, Hans,
For your input. This is what I was thinking as well. You said it much better. The approach to fishing wet flies, here, is a bit different, although more fly fishers are coming to realize the importance of knowing how to fish these flies, upstream as well. It is interesting because Leisenring, even using these flies with his "lift", did not use many turns of hackle. Instead, hackle stiffness played more of a part in his tying approach.

Mark

Very interesting discussion, gentlemen--I'm curious how you see Stewart spiders relating to the sparcely hackled spiders that Mike mentions. In other words, does winding the hackle down the length of the thorax make for a more natural presentation since the fibers are more spread out than they would be if you'd simlpy wrapped a "heavy" collar? Or were "Stewarts" designed simply to ride higher in the water column..."flymphs" avant la lettre?