one moment please

[fflutterffly]

This morning I opened up soft hackles.com, which is a habit of mine. Going to the Gallery I clicked Flymphs, looked them over, checking out the build and materials and how lovely they were tied. Next I clicked on Soft Hackle. Again I admired the detail and beauty of these flies. I opened up the pages side by side, reduced them and check them out. And what I think I see is that flymphs are more 'beefy,' 'hearty' will you, with more material and soft hackles are slim, usually cleaner lined and always built with soft hackles. Am I off base?

[hankaye]

fflutterffly, Howdy;

Attempted to follow your path, went to find this "soft hackle.com"
you mentioned ..... no such in the google empire ?????
Am I been unusually thick this morning (??? ), or is it your pet name
for where we are at present???

Could the "beefiness" be due to the use of the spun dubbing bodies
that have been discussed on the board here?

hank

[fflutterffly]

OH gads! My mistake: http://www.williamsfavorite.com/soft-hackle-tying.html

Spun bodies. Yes. There is a difference I completely missed at the early AM when I was looking. Spun bodies!!!! I feel like my mind is clearing. I'll look for the old post. Thanks.

[William Anderson]

This morning I opened up soft hackles.com, which is a habit of mine. Going to the Gallery I clicked Flymphs, looked them over, checking out the build and materials and how lovely they were tied. Next I clicked on Soft Hackle. Again I admired the detail and beauty of these flies. I opened up the pages side by side, reduced them and check them out. And what I think I see is that flymphs are more 'beefy,' 'hearty' will you, with more material and soft hackles are slim, usually cleaner lined and always built with soft hackles. Am I off base?

Ariel, I hope you get some other responses. I'd like to try to shed some light on why I made the definitions chosen for my site. It's really kind of pragmatic, and contradictory, which I'm comfortable with. Trying to define what a soft-hackle fly is, or how they compare to Flymphs isn't confusing, but it's not a straight answer either. I'll have to get back to this in a little while.

Thanks for looking at the site and the kind words. When you said you were looking at softhackle.com everyday, I got very excited thinking there was a new site to explore.

I hope others will offer some input regarding the terms and broader definitions. I'll do my best when I get back.

w

[Roadkill]

flutterffly

This is more of a yin yang continuum than an either or proposition. Some soft hackles are flymphs and some flymphs are soft hackles. I think you are better off considering what you are trying to imitate with your fly. If it is a fat bodied caddis then go with a beefier tie. If it is a slender bodied mayfly or midge then "less is more" for your fly.

More more understanding of the "flymph" nuances read the post A fly from the master in the Fishing Cabin. http://www.flymphforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... definition

[CreationBear]

It's really kind of pragmatic, and contradictory, which I'm comfortable with.

Scott Fitzgerald would call you a genius, then. ("The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.")

Let me throw this out there, then: rather than focusing on body construction (since spiders, "soft-hackles," and flymphs can all have varying degrees of silk+dubbing) why not reserve the term "flymph" to only those flies that have hen hackle palmered through the thorax? That criterion would let you emphasize both form (i.e. flymph's got "shoulders"
) and function (the flymph as emerger/spent adult that rides relatively higher in the water column.)

[chase creek]

Thanks for that link back to the series of posts on the definition of "Flymph". Really interesting stuff. I had assumed a "true" flymph had the hackle walked back thru the thorax, or the wraps spread out a bit (aka Hughs), and was generally beefier, whereas a Soft Hackle had the hackle as a collar just at the eye, and with a more "Twiggy-like"(is she still around?) body.
I guess what it amounts to is that you can form your own definition and call it what you like, within reason. I personally lean toward Dave Hugh's beefier, more heavily hackled definition of a flymph. But that's me, your mileage may vary.

[redietz]

Let me throw this out there, then: rather than focusing on body construction (since spiders, "soft-hackles," and flymphs can all have varying degrees of silk+dubbing) why not reserve the term "flymph" to only those flies that have hen hackle palmered through the thorax? That criterion would let you emphasize both form (i.e. flymph's got "shoulders"
) and function (the flymph as emerger/spent adult that rides relatively higher in the water column.)

Well, this is how "flymph" is defined in The Art of Tying the Wet Fly & Fishing the Flymph :

A WINGLESS ARTIFICIAL FLY with a soft, translucent body of fur or wool which blends with the undercolor of the tying thread when wet, utilizing soft hackle fibers easily activated by the currents to give the effect of an insect alive in the water, and strategically cast diagonally upstream or across for the trout to take just below or within a few inches of the surface film.

Nothing about a thorax at all (although nothing to preclude it, either), nothing about palmering, and many of the examples in the book use other than hen hackle. So, I would think that a better definition to distinguish flymphs from other soft hackles would simply be the presence of a "soft, translucent body of fur or wool which blends with the undercolor of the tying thread when wet."

[CreationBear]

Ha, this is a classic "lumpers vs. splitters" argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters) though you do rather seem to have Holy Writ on your side. I would point out, though, that the Leisenring/Hidy definition would also require us to consider, say, flies like the Dark Watchet, Hare's Lug and Plover, etc. to be "flymphs."

[Roadkill]

I would point out, though, that the Leisenring/Hidy definition would also require us to consider, say, flies like the Dark Watchet, Hare's Lug and Plover, etc. to be "flymphs."

I do and many other classics as well like the Iron Blue Wingless (my first Hidy flymph)... when fished as emergers!