Invented flies?
 

How much of your tying time do you spend inventing flies, modifying flies
you invented vs. trying to make nice replicas of known patterns?

I like tying the standards, mostly because I feel like it removes one
variable from the game (like; will this actually catch fish?), but on the
other hand, its much more fun to just try things on my own. For example, the
other day I was making some Baetis Nymphs, and didn't have the right stuff
for the backs, so I used some brown chenille and trimmed it down with my
scissors. Eventually, I was doing all sorts of creative things, and SWMBO
looked over my shoulder and commented that they didn't look at all like the
pictures in the book...

--riverman

Invented flies?
 

"riverman" wrote in
:

How much of your tying time do you spend inventing flies, modifying
flies you invented vs. trying to make nice replicas of known patterns?

More and more tinkering ... probably 80% now ... though usually
fiddling with a "standard". The last few seasons caddis have drawn most
interest: colour variations to the standard range LaFontaine Emergent
Pupa (LaFEP) and CDC & Elk (try one with 2 strands of pearl crystal flash
for a short tail). The latest being a flurry of hectivity around the
LaFEP tied with a Snowshoe Rabbit foot wing. Started fiddling with them
late last season we could finally get the foot downunder. Field testing
is fun and the flys work.

Invention? Naaah ... just variations on a theme.


I like tying the standards, mostly because I feel like it removes one
variable from the game (like; will this actually catch fish?), but on
the other hand, its much more fun to just try things on my own.

Having fun'n cathin' is what it's all about and to start out the
standards are great because they fulfil their role in the catchin' part
admirably. Variety is the spice of life though!

For
example, the other day I was making some Baetis Nymphs, and didn't
have the right stuff for the backs, so I used some brown chenille and
trimmed it down with my scissors. Eventually, I was doing all sorts of
creative things, and SWMBO looked over my shoulder and commented that
they didn't look at all like the pictures in the book...


"I'm modifying them for local conditions, dearest".

(the conditions being the contents of your tying kit ...
but don't tell her that ... unless it will work in your favour ;-)

Often the pics in books (or on websites) are the tiers interpretation
anyway. For example, in scanning Australian Fly Patterns - Peter Coulson,
we find half a dozen pics and patterns for the Tom Jones by various
fishermen. These ties bear little resemblance to the original. The same
comment can be passed for some true classics listed in the book the
Alexandra being one.



Steve (yet to swim those streamers ...)

Invented flies?
 

"riverman" wrote in
:

How much of your tying time do you spend inventing flies, modifying
flies you invented vs. trying to make nice replicas of known patterns?

More and more tinkering ... probably 80% now ... though usually
fiddling with a "standard". The last few seasons caddis have drawn most
interest: colour variations to the standard range LaFontaine Emergent
Pupa (LaFEP) and CDC & Elk (try one with 2 strands of pearl crystal flash
for a short tail). The latest being a flurry of hectivity around the
LaFEP tied with a Snowshoe Rabbit foot wing. Started fiddling with them
late last season we could finally get the foot downunder. Field testing
is fun and the flys work.

Invention? Naaah ... just variations on a theme.


I like tying the standards, mostly because I feel like it removes one
variable from the game (like; will this actually catch fish?), but on
the other hand, its much more fun to just try things on my own.

Having fun'n cathin' is what it's all about and to start out the
standards are great because they fulfil their role in the catchin' part
admirably. Variety is the spice of life though!

For
example, the other day I was making some Baetis Nymphs, and didn't
have the right stuff for the backs, so I used some brown chenille and
trimmed it down with my scissors. Eventually, I was doing all sorts of
creative things, and SWMBO looked over my shoulder and commented that
they didn't look at all like the pictures in the book...


"I'm modifying them for local conditions, dearest".

(the conditions being the contents of your tying kit ...
but don't tell her that ... unless it will work in your favour ;-)

Often the pics in books (or on websites) are the tiers interpretation
anyway. For example, in scanning Australian Fly Patterns - Peter Coulson,
we find half a dozen pics and patterns for the Tom Jones by various
fishermen. These ties bear little resemblance to the original. The same
comment can be passed for some true classics listed in the book the
Alexandra being one.



Steve (yet to swim those streamers ...)

Invented flies?
 

"riverman" wrote in message ...
How much of your tying time do you spend inventing flies, modifying flies
you invented vs. trying to make nice replicas of known patterns?



....for me, essentially 100% of the time inventing.
I'm too old too busy too lazy and too affluent
to spend any more time tying WoollyBuggers Royal Wulffs or bead head
nymphs. I only tie what I can't buy at the local store. For me, buying
standards is a great luxury: it means I can spend *all* my fly tying time
having fun.

Invented flies?
 

"riverman" wrote in message ...
How much of your tying time do you spend inventing flies, modifying flies
you invented vs. trying to make nice replicas of known patterns?



....for me, essentially 100% of the time inventing.
I'm too old too busy too lazy and too affluent
to spend any more time tying WoollyBuggers Royal Wulffs or bead head
nymphs. I only tie what I can't buy at the local store. For me, buying
standards is a great luxury: it means I can spend *all* my fly tying time
having fun.

Invented flies?
 

Almost never tie standard patterns anymore. The inventing followed by
trial 'n' error, is half the fun. It's especially rewarding when an
invention turns into a dynamite pattern.

While my new website is still in its half finished state, a trip to
Flies - Weamers will show my most successful one so far (number of
fish & species vs. time used). The brown trout version has taken
brown trout, smallies, steelhead, 'bows, chinook, and pike. The
alewife version has so far taken pike and chinook. The Dirty Harry
(not shown) has a few steelies to it's credit.

In terms of sheer numbers, the Mini-brown holds the record with
probably a couple of hundred browns, brookies, and baby steelies to
its credit.

Peter

Invented flies?
 

Almost never tie standard patterns anymore. The inventing followed by
trial 'n' error, is half the fun. It's especially rewarding when an
invention turns into a dynamite pattern.

While my new website is still in its half finished state, a trip to
Flies - Weamers will show my most successful one so far (number of
fish & species vs. time used). The brown trout version has taken
brown trout, smallies, steelhead, 'bows, chinook, and pike. The
alewife version has so far taken pike and chinook. The Dirty Harry
(not shown) has a few steelies to it's credit.

In terms of sheer numbers, the Mini-brown holds the record with
probably a couple of hundred browns, brookies, and baby steelies to
its credit.

Peter

Invented flies?
 

On 19 Oct 2004 12:50:40 -0700, (Peter Charles)
wrote:

Almost never tie standard patterns anymore. The inventing followed by
trial 'n' error, is half the fun. It's especially rewarding when an
invention turns into a dynamite pattern.

While my new website is still in its half finished state, a trip to
Flies - Weamers will show my most successful one so far (number of
fish & species vs. time used). The brown trout version has taken
brown trout, smallies, steelhead, 'bows, chinook, and pike. The
alewife version has so far taken pike and chinook. The Dirty Harry
(not shown) has a few steelies to it's credit.

In terms of sheer numbers, the Mini-brown holds the record with
probably a couple of hundred browns, brookies, and baby steelies to
its credit.

Peter


DUH! would help if I put up the URL

http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...new/index.html



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Invented flies?
 

On 19 Oct 2004 12:50:40 -0700, (Peter Charles)
wrote:

Almost never tie standard patterns anymore. The inventing followed by
trial 'n' error, is half the fun. It's especially rewarding when an
invention turns into a dynamite pattern.

While my new website is still in its half finished state, a trip to
Flies - Weamers will show my most successful one so far (number of
fish & species vs. time used). The brown trout version has taken
brown trout, smallies, steelhead, 'bows, chinook, and pike. The
alewife version has so far taken pike and chinook. The Dirty Harry
(not shown) has a few steelies to it's credit.

In terms of sheer numbers, the Mini-brown holds the record with
probably a couple of hundred browns, brookies, and baby steelies to
its credit.

Peter


DUH! would help if I put up the URL

http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...new/index.html



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Invented flies?
 

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:04:28 +0100, "riverman"
wrote...:

How much of your tying time do you spend inventing flies, modifying flies
you invented vs. trying to make nice replicas of known patterns?

Too much... but I have a lot of superfluous materials I'm trying to
justify. :-)

I like tying the standards, mostly because I feel like it removes one
variable from the game (like; will this actually catch fish?), but on the
other hand, its much more fun to just try things on my own. For example, the
other day I was making some Baetis Nymphs, and didn't have the right stuff
for the backs, so I used some brown chenille and trimmed it down with my
scissors. Eventually, I was doing all sorts of creative things, and SWMBO
looked over my shoulder and commented that they didn't look at all like the
pictures in the book...

I have no idea who SWMBO is. However, they don't think or eat like a
fish, so...

You do your thing... I bet it works better than sticking the book on a
hook and dunking it! Anyway... how many books can come up with a
definitive pattern? What? did I hear those 3 little words? BWO?


John
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail."
-- Abraham Maslow