FLYMPH FORUM

I haven't tied flies for a few months but after getting those hen hackles from the kids for Christmas I tried a few out.

I don't remember all the details of the ingredients now but here they are anyway. Some look like they have returned home after a tough night on spirits but that could be my lack of tying skill, although they been in a crowded fly box for a few months.











This next one is a CDC emerger has proved to be a very good fly and in #18 and seems to imitate small mayfly emergers really well.

I wont say what my favorite is of the bunch, Wouldn't do the others justice. I will say this. Every one of those patterns would catch many a trout in my neck of the woods. They would also catch quite a few fishermen. Very well done sir!

Wayne

Thanks Wayne, but do tell which is your favourite.

I like the redish one to look at best of all.

Very nice work, but you have no right locking them away in a flybox for months........ why did they not get wet in Tassie?

Is the first one a "Partridge & Power fibre" ?
All look to be desirable flies to trout menu's and I for one would not be too ashamed for some to be gracing my own fly boxes.

If only I could live by a river & stop this employment, family, rod building, eating, sleeping... madness I'd be wetting them no problem.

Anyway, I'm happy they'd be welcome your fly box, they mustn't be too bad.

I couldn't work out where the powerfibres came from but I've got it now - the penny has finally dropped!

Very fishy-looking assortment. Well done!

They will all catch fish under various circumstances, there is no doubt at all about that. How they look to you or anybody else is really immaterial, it is how they behave and look to the fish that matters. This insistence on the purported importance of "how things look" and various "hook shapes" is really beginning to bother me, and it misleads very many people. How they work is important, not what they look like to humans. At least it is if you want to catch fish.

With experience some people can look at a fly and declare it " a good fly", but that is not actually a relevant criteria. What makes it a good fly is how many fish you catch on it. It wouldn't make any difference if people said it was a bad fly, all that matters is how many fish it catches and that you know when, where, and how to use it. The problem with many "general"or "fantasy" dressings is knowing when and how to use them. What many people, ( especially, but not only, beginners),end up with is a box full of flies which others have told them are "good flies", or "look good" or "have the right proportions". It's basically all irrelevant bullshit. What they need to know is how and when to use their flies, and why they are dressed in a particular way. Reaching technical perfection ( according to arbitrary human criteria) in fly-dressing is not essential and it wont catch you any fish unless you know why you are doing things in a particular way. Unfortunate if this upsets anybody, but somebody has to inject some common sense and reality into all this.

If you want to make miniature artworks that everybody can praise to the high heavens without knowing why you are doing it then you will waste a lot of time and effort and you wont catch as many fish.

No trout is going to take a fly because somebody said they liked it.

Boris,

I would fish any one of them with confidence, including the CDC emerger. Nicely dressed.

Ron Eagle Elk wrote:Boris,

I would fish any one of them with confidence, including the CDC emerger. Nicely dressed.

When, where, and how? Confidence is all very well but how do you achieve it? How do you give it to a beginner? I'm sorry, but this needs to be said. You are confusing a lot of people with some of this stuff and more than a few people are reluctant to say much for fear of upsetting somebody. That too is all very well but not at the price of swallowing unnecessary bullshit.

By the way Boris, this has nothing at all to do with you personally, it was just another example of a widespread problem, not just here either.

Boris wrote:Thanks Wayne, but do tell which is your favourite.

I like the redish one to look at best of all.

I would pick the Gray and Partridge. I have a fondness for Muskrat, or any material the color of Muskrat. Also, the shape of the hook is familiar to me, where the others are not.

The redish one is a second choice, just because of its color. An old timer once said something to me along the lines of, "if it's an eighth of an inch to an inch long, and Brown, trout will eat it.". There's some truth to that I suppose.

On all your patterns you have tails. I am partial to tying most of my patterns with tails. I mentioned in another post that once I am on the river, it's easier to remove a tail than add one.

The Black patterns you show would fit the bill nicely for imitating the Little Winter Stones where I fish. The Little Stones are still making an appearance in the Freestone rivers I am frequenting as of late. Once the Stones are done, Black Soft Hackles do not work well for me the rest of the year. That moves your Black patterns down on my list of favorites.

I enjoy seeing the actual patterns that others use on the rivers I fish, the rivers in other parts of my State (Colorado), my country, and other parts of the globe. It's fun for me to look at the differences, and the similarities of your patterns, compared to mine. When multiple patterns are posted at the same time, I can not help myself but to formulate an opinion of which I like best. In the end, the trout will have the final say. In the mean time, I will still fantasize that one day I will be fishing one of yours, or Jeff's rivers. I will be using a fly of my making, but similar to those of yours. On the end of my line will be one of those fabled Brown Trouts you folks are so famous for. Thanks for letting me have a glimpse of your world.