FLYMPH FORUM

Here is a traditional flymph by Pete Hidy, probably tied in the 1970s or earlier.
The thread tag looks like it was painted white—but can't be. Can it?

Classic, thanks for sharing!

That is a SUPREME looking fly. Thanks for posting it. It could be painted white, but I doubt it too. I love the dubbing, proportions, color...everything...the tail. The tail is something I struggle with. 3 strands of fibers looks realistic. But when I try to tie 3 on, two of them invariable stick together...and it is hard to get them to stand apart. So I usually do two fibers instead. (not that I have a track record with tying these, I sure don't...I'm still a newby on these)

Such a beauty! That is exactly as I envisioned his flymphs would look like.
Hare, hare....the white tag might be the Krishna part.

dd

Hidy's Hot Spot Hare's Ear Flmph.

I love seeing these. Cool to see all the different hook types and shapes he preferred. Maybe a nod (a loose and suggestive nod) to the match the hatch scene?

w

Thank you for sharing. Could he have changed tying thread for the thorax en the head?

Greeting

Thankx for sharing the very special fly Gingerdun. i think William is very nearly came up with the right answer. There has to be a hatch matching element to the design. Just what my 6th sense tells me.....either that, or it's a pure Attractor pattern.
Kelly, be sure to bring a small tyin' kit with you to Sowbug.....vise, tools, hooks and limited materials. The committee has decided to keep my tyin' spot open for me at all times over the three days, just in case i'm able to occupy it at any given time and care to do so. i'm thinkin' maybe given it a try on Fri. at some point if i feel able. Maybe you'd like to tye first session or all day Sat., after having "watched" for a couple days.....i'm sure i can arrange that.
i always tye all sessions all 3 days.....so i guess they're just tryin' to be nice and keep that tradition upheld.....i told them it wasn't nessessary, but they're doin' it anyway. So let's see what happens. Be a kinna cool way for you to et introduced to Pat (tyin' chairwomen) and nsure you an invite for next year.

Thanks for the thoughts Mark. But I just want to watch this year. I am trying to learn as much as I can!

Maybe a nod (a loose and suggestive nod) to the match the hatch scene?

William,
I cannot say for sure.

He never, ever, used Latin names, preferring to be more loose about matching specific insects than Leisenring had been. Leisenring didn't like Latin names either. Pete generally stuck with the glassy, light, dun, grizzly, and speckled hen or bird feathers for hackles, because they most closely resembled the translucent wings. For bodies he used mostly natural furs from the hare's mask, mole, etc. In his later period he started using more dyed wool and mohair from the knitting shop.

There is evidence that he was paying close attention to the general colors, proportions, and sizes of the insects, but by some standards, his flies would not pass muster for matching the hatch. They were in the middle ground between match the hatch and attractors. He wanted a fly that was generic enough to stand, sometimes, equally well for either the nymph or the fly. That ambiguity is one of the reasons the flymphs like this one are so effective.

Here is one of the more obvious match-the-hatch examples from Pete's hand—a Golden Stonefly—One of the few winged flies that he continued to tie in his later years.

Thankx again for posting such a fine example Gingerdun. ( i wish people would adhere to your request for anonimity at your threads).....anyway.
For me, one the very main things that make flymphs is exactly what you just metioned.....that little spot between being attrators and emerger specific.
i've been a predominately attractor angler for significantly over half my fly fishing life.....and flymphs "Fit" right in. Just buggy enough.....just pretty enough.
Fish 'em right, and they always work. The ultimate fishin' fly..... That Stonefly KILLS!