Grouse

[scotfly]

So, to get it to lay flat, ....................I un-twist it.
Ok, I can do that.

Hank,
You won't get it to lay flat. Untwisting it will only leave you with three (or two, I can't remember exactly) round strands.
If you do try to untwist you'll have to untwist it clockwise, pearsal's is twisted the opposite way to most (or all) other threads.

[chase creek]

Very interesting flies and styles. That's what I like about
this site - good lookin' flies, and educational, too.
Thanks for posting.

[willowhead]

OK, so who's got the skinny on that Jasper stuff.............??????????????? What gives????????????? Tkx.

[hankaye]

willow-head, Howdy;

check the top entry on Pg. 2.

Dosen't say where but describes it.....
hank

[Otter]

Have these styles developed for definable fishing reasons or simply because for example . the originators of these styles had easier access to or preference for, a certain size of hook ?

Now theres a few puzzlers

They were developed for definable fishing reasons Norman.
The Clyde style were developed for the.... Clyde. In the days of old (when you were a boy) on a large fairly fast and deep river like the Clyde, before weighting, the solution to getting your fly to fish a little deeper, was to put less materials on a bigger hook.
On an even faster river like the Tummel, the solution was to use even less materials than the Clyde style.
That's my understanding of the basic premise of the design anyway.

Thanks Denis, at least that puts a perspective on it.

So the faster the water, the less likelyhood of the size of the hook putting the trout on guard. So the Tummel style may possibly be only at maximum effectiveness on similarily fast water. As always its worth considering these matters.

[hankaye]

Howdy all;

Have these styles developed for definable fishing reasons or simply because for example . the originators of these styles had easier access to or preference for, a certain size of hook ?

Now theres a few puzzlers

They were developed for definable fishing reasons Norman.
The Clyde style were developed for the.... Clyde. In the days of old (when you were a boy) on a large fairly fast and deep river like the Clyde, before weighting, the solution to getting your fly to fish a little deeper, was to put less materials on a bigger hook.
On an even faster river like the Tummel, the solution was to use even less materials than the Clyde style.
That's my understanding of the basic premise of the design anyway.

Thanks Denis, at least that puts a perspective on it.

So the faster the water, the less likelyhood of the size of the hook putting the trout on guard. So the Tummel style may possibly be only at maximum effectiveness on similarily fast water. As always its worth considering these matters.

So, ........... if I follow this correctly, the faster rate of travel (water flow), also means less time for reaction/judgment thereby inducing a take using the speed of the water (flow rate), to help influiance the reaction/judgement..........makes sense to me.

[CM_Stewart]

willow-head, Howdy;

check the top entry on Pg. 2.

Dosen't say where but describes it.....
hank

As to where - no better place than our sponsor:
http://www.jimsflyco.com/products/Pears ... 09-40.html

[scotfly]

So the faster the water, the less likelyhood of the size of the hook putting the trout on guard. So the Tummel style may possibly be only at maximum effectiveness on similarily fast water. As always its worth considering these matters.

No not necessarily so.
As you know, over here on stillwaters, buzzer patterns dressed short are quite popular, and there's the famous "Gerrof." Plenty of metal showing, but the fish aren't put off. I reckon Bob Wyatt is 100% right when he talks about trout and the "prey image" in Trout Hunting.

[Otter]

Maybe Bob is 100% right, but I ain't quite 100% convinced

I find it difficult to accept that a small pattern such as the tummel style tied on a large hook is as effective on less than fast flowing water than same pattern on a smaller hook - call me cautious when it comes to such matters.

[daringduffer]

Maybe Bob is 100% right, but I ain't quite 100% convinced

I find it difficult to accept that a small pattern such as the tummel style tied on a large hook is as effective on less than fast flowing water than same pattern on a smaller hook - call me cautious when it comes to such matters.

I'm 99% convinced that Wyatt is at least 95% right about that "prey image" - otherwise we all were catching far less fish. General impression, size and shape, movement - or lack thereof - and orientation (where in the water) plus, maybe, colour. What did I leave out?

dd