William's Favourite

[mvendon]

Hi GlassJet,

Very nice tie! I made a comment about this very pattern here a couple of weeks ago on how much it's changed. Here's what it was tied like 60 years ago. The authors father came up with this pattern, so I would think it's a very good representation of it as it was tied then. Like I stated in that earlier post, If I tied it like that and posted it here, I'm sure folks would say it was way too over hackled compared to what's considered correct by today's standards.

Regards,
Mark

[Soft-hackle]

To one of our newest members---Very nice.

Mark

[Johnno]

At the risk of a little hijack,

Hey Mark,

That "Explorer" in that pic of yours there. Whats the pattern? Looks kinda similar to a Coch Y Bondhu

[GlassJet]

I made a comment about this very pattern here a couple of weeks ago on how much it's changed. Here's what it was tied like 60 years ago. The authors father came up with this pattern, so I would think it's a very good representation of it as it was tied then. Like I stated in that earlier post, If I tied it like that and posted it here, I'm sure folks would say it was way too over hackled compared to what's considered correct by today's standards.

Regards,
Mark

Hi Mark,
Yes, I saw that post of yours while I was having a look around. In the text (Courtney Williams) he says that his Father tied it as a wet and a dry. I know what you mean about the flies looking over-hackled in that book (to our eye now) but I did wonder if it was the dry version?

Another thing I think needs taking into account regarding hackling, is that particularly for dries, we are rather spoiled with the feathers we have available today (genetics etc). When you tie with a lot of non genetic cock feathers, it isn't so easy to get the shorter barb lengths, plus you need to make more turns due to the reduced barb density. I guess this produces a 'bushier' looking fly?

GlassJet

[mvendon]

Hi Mark,
Yes, I saw that post of yours while I was having a look around. In the text (Courtney Williams) he says that his Father tied it as a wet and a dry. I know what you mean about the flies looking over-hackled in that book (to our eye now) but I did wonder if it was the dry version?

Another thing I think needs taking into account regarding hackling, is that particularly for dries, we are rather spoiled with the feathers we have available today (genetics etc). When you tie with a lot of non genetic cock feathers, it isn't so easy to get the shorter barb lengths, plus you need to make more turns due to the reduced barb density. I guess this produces a 'bushier' looking fly?

GlassJet

Hi GlassJet,

I just got home from work and re-read the small section on it. He liked to fish it as a dry on very small hooks with, or without the tail when the trout were taking black gnats. He also stated that he seldom fished wets because he just found dry fly fishing more pleasurable and interesting. I could be wrong, but I think the one in the plate can be fished both ways, since the only change he mentions is with or without the tail. He does note to use good stiff cock's hackle for the dry version.

Hey Johnno,

He states in the book that he doesn't know about the origin of this fly and came up with the name for it. He said it may suggest a beetle and can work well on mountain streams or towards dusk on rivers or lakes. Here's the dressing:

Body: Peacock herl ribbed with gold tinsel.
Hackle: Dun cock's hackle carried down the body.
Hook: 14 to 12.

Regards,
Mark

[GlassJet]

are those tied in hand or in vice?

Roy

Hi Roy,
Love to say hand, but, erm... vice.

But this one is


Actually I was quite pleased with that!

It is surprisingly 'do-able' I suspect, with practice - I found the hardest bit is tying off - but then I do anyway!

To think, all the money I wasted on that HMH...

[DOUGSDEN]

Andrew,
Would that be William as in William Lund the famous river keeper? Or am I missing something along the lines of the obvious say a more modern William?
Dougsen the curious

[GlassJet]

Andrew,
Would that be William as in William Lund the famous river keeper? Or am I missing something along the lines of the obvious say a more modern William?
Dougsen the curious

Hi Dougsden,
My carefully considered answer is.... I don't know.

It says in the dictionary that the fly was first tied - and so presumably named - by Courtney Williams own Father, so my best guess is, so overcome with vanity was he that he named it after himself!

Andrew (Currently at work on GlassJet's Glory... )

[mvendon]

It was definitely his father, when he fished the Dysynni. His father used it for more than sixty years, and fished it as a wet fly. He found it more successful than any other wet fly pattern that he used. The author's great grandfather was Polycarp Allcock, that set up his hook making shop about 150 years before this book came out. I don't own all that many books, but this one is just packed with all the classic and popular patterns that were around back then. The author was critical when it came to the proper dressing for each pattern. Since his family was involved in fly fishing for so many years, he had tons of contacts regarding many of the patterns that are in the book. This book is not expensive at all. I bought mine on eBay for something like $12.00 plus shipping. The paper dust jacket has a small piece that was ripped off, and no-one else even bid on it. It's not on there all the time, but it does come up quite often during the year.

Regards,
Mark

[GlassJet]

This book is not expensive at all. I bought mine on eBay for something like $12.00 plus shipping. The paper dust jacket has a small piece that was ripped off, and no-one else even bid on it. It's not on there all the time, but it does come up quite often during the year.

Regards,
Mark

A superb book, isn't it? Can't put it down!

I paid over the odds for my copy via amazon, I subsequently found out, but if you search on Abe, there is no problems getting hold of a copy for very little, given the comprehensive coverage it contains. It is the real thing...

Andrew