FLYMPH FORUM

Congratulations Hank. From now on, your life will be richer and richer...

dd

CreationBear wrote:Very interesting discussion, gentlemen--I'm curious how you see Stewart spiders relating to the sparcely hackled spiders that Mike mentions. In other words, does winding the hackle down the length of the thorax make for a more natural presentation since the fibers are more spread out than they would be if you'd simlpy wrapped a "heavy" collar? Or were "Stewarts" designed simply to ride higher in the water column..."flymphs" avant la lettre?

CB,

A Stewart's Black Spider is not that much more heavily hackled...



Cheers,
Hans W

I recall just recently reading of comparisons between the Stewart style hackling and that of the fewer barbed softies. Seems to me the thought was that the Stewart style was fished on a more turbulent stream. Now whether that is indeed fact I have no idea but at least to me it would make some sense. More hackle barbs distributed over more area at least to me should equal more visible movement. Sort of a visual dinner bell saying; Hey!! Look at me.

Regards, Jerry

Howdy ALL;

Ya'll makin' me blush...
Seriously, thanks for the constructive criticism.

Hans, Thought you might be heading towards the “MORE has GOT to be Better” attitude that some of my fellow Countryfolk adopt.

Mike, Am I correct in presuming that a Flymph is more of a nymph (perhaps with a fuzzy body an maybe a wire rib?), with a soft hackle?

Again, Thanks ALL.
hank

edit to add;
PS. OK, I see, sorta, what you are saying Mike. Your post showed up while I was writing the part above...

Mike, Howdy;

Thanks for that.
hank

Great fly Hank, and I too am glad to see you posting a fly. Thanks for sharing and hope to see some more. I think the photo is actually very well done and impressive in the lengths you went to give us a view.

Carl

Carl, Howdy;

Thanks for your support... Always been a 'do with what ya got' kinda person.

Thanks again,
hanlk

I'd like to add something, here, which I've said before, but I think it is pertinent, again. I've had contact with Dave Hughes regarding the hackling of flymphs through the thorax. The reason I did this was to clarify why this method appears in Dave's book Wet Flies when it did not appear in the original book by Leisenring and Hidy. Even The Sports Illustrated Guide to Wet Fly Fishing nor Hidy's later contribution to Masters Of The Nymph mentioned this technique. Prior to the issuance of Hughes' book, flymphs were hackled as a collar.

Mt Hughes was good friends with Vern Hidy. He and Rick Hafele visited Hidy at his home in Boise, Idaho. He showed the technique to them both. This did not occur, however till later in his life. Dave also said Hidy also described to them, what Mr. Hughes calls, the Hidy Sub-surface swing technique of fishing the flymph.

Mr. Hughes also lamented the fact, as most of us do, that Leisenring and Hidy never completed an intended book on their fishing techniques.

So, while it is generally taken today that flymphs are hackled through the thorax, they were not originally. To me, a flymph is what Hidy defined in his section of the Leisenring, Hidy book that was reissued in 1971.

FLYMPH: " A Wingless Artificial Fly with a soft, translucent body of fur or wool which blends with the undercolor of the tying silk 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"

Mark

the Hidy Sub-surface swing technique of fishing the flymph.

I seem to remember this mentioned in an article in the FlyFisherman magazine eons ago. Could it possibly have been written by mr Hughes?

dd

Mike, Hans--killer flies, to be sure. Something to aspire to, since I seem to prefer wrapping though the thorax over the traditional collar.