Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

On Dec 6, 3:53 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
Mike wrote in news:19e577a7-cb14-4f37-8f19-
:

No idea, but if you want an easy way to dress the Griffithïs Gnat;

A newbie should learn how to deal with peacock herl the correct way.
Nothing like the basics. There's a very good description in The Benchside
Reference, that makes use of the fact that there's a long side and a short
side to the herl, and you tie it on such that the long side protrudes.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Thanks Scott. I have that book and will reference it when I tie the
Gnat.

Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

On Dec 6, 4:20 pm, "fly.flinger"
wrote:
"mdk77" wrote in message

...

I'm beginning the process of tying my flies for next season, which
will be my 2nd season of fly fishing. One place I'm planning on
fishing for Rainbow & Brown trout next season has two flies on the
"recommended list" that look kind of similar to my newbie eyes:

Cracklebacks:
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flyt...80502fotw.html

Griffith's Gnats: http://hipwader.com/2004/tying-griffiths-gnat-pattern

Are these different enough to make it worth my while to tie both? My
gut feeling is that this is probably a real stupid question, but hey,
how do you learn if you don't ask...

the biggest difference, IMO, is size; the basic form being similar.

cracklebacks are larger
griffins gnats are typcially smaller

I thought about that after I posted the OP. My original plan was to
tie the Crackleback in size 12 and 14, and the Gnat in 18 and 20.
Like Ken said, I have two different animals here, both dogs but
different breeds.

Thanks.

Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

On 6 Dec, 22:53, Scott Seidman wrote:
Mike wrote in news:19e577a7-cb14-4f37-8f19-
:

No idea, but if you want an easy way to dress the Griffithïs Gnat;

A newbie should learn how to deal with peacock herl the correct way.
Nothing like the basics. There's a very good description in The Benchside
Reference, that makes use of the fact that there's a long side and a short
side to the herl, and you tie it on such that the long side protrudes.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Yeah sure, only use the line number printed on your rod, only use
peacock herl like the "experts" tell you, don´t fart in church........

If you don´t conform you are more or less beyond the pale.

TL
MC

Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:32:46 -0800 (PST), Mike
wrote:

Yeah sure, only use the line number printed on your rod, only use
peacock herl like the "experts" tell you, don´t fart in church........

If you don´t conform you are more or less beyond the pale.

Different strokes for different folks. You think that if we do not
conform to YOUR advice we are a bunch of lost souls. Not true. The
Benchside Ref Manual is THE authority for just about anything to do
with tying. You should buy one. There IS a right and a wrong way of
tying in herl. The newbie should learn the correct way. If he wants
to experiment, fine, but he should learn the basics, the orthadox
methods first.

Dave

Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

On 7 Dec, 00:31, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:32:46 -0800 (PST), Mike

wrote:
Yeah sure, only use the line number printed on your rod, only use
peacock herl like the "experts" tell you, don´t fart in church........

If you don´t conform you are more or less beyond the pale.

Different strokes for different folks. You think that if we do not
conform to YOUR advice we are a bunch of lost souls. Not true. The
Benchside Ref Manual is THE authority for just about anything to do
with tying. You should buy one. There IS a right and a wrong way of
tying in herl. The newbie should learn the correct way. If he wants
to experiment, fine, but he should learn the basics, the orthadox
methods first.

Dave

I don´t think anything of the sort, but my saying so will not affect
your perception of anything, and even the attempt would be futile.

Quite sad really, for a very long time I respected a lot of people
here, and was indeed anxious to learn from you. In point of fact I
learned quite a lot, but not what I expected or hoped.

Regardless of what you might think, I bear you no malice. I am getting
old, and coming ever more to the realisation that many things are
quite pointless. It is not your fault that you are a fool, it is just
how it is. Doubtless you will see that as an insult. It really does
not matter.

Whatever you do, try to enjoy yourself, your fishing, your life, your
family.

I wish you well Mr.LaCourse, mainly because I have no sensible grounds
for wishing you otherwise.

TL
MC

Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:53:20 -0800 (PST), Mike
wrote:

I wish you well Mr.LaCourse, mainly because I have no sensible grounds
for wishing you otherwise.

Well, thank you, Mr. Connor. And likewise to you, I am sure.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot. You're a liar.

Dave

Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:

Oh, yeah, almost forgot. You're a liar.

You just can't help yourself.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:24:15 -0800, rw
wrote:

You just can't help yourself.

Nor can you.

d:o)

Crackleback vs. Griffith's Gnat (another newbie question)
 

On 8 Dec, 21:46, "jeffc" wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

...

I don´t think anything of the sort, but my saying so will not affect
your perception of anything, and even the attempt would be futile.
Quite sad really, for a very long time I respected a lot of people

here

Yet you keep posting here, over and over and over. And over. And over.

and was indeed anxious to learn from you.

That was good for a chuckle.

This is an international public newsgroup, and anybody who has access
can post here. If you don´t like it, you know what to do.

MC