Suitable Line Weights

"Padishar Creel" wrote in message
...
My grandfather, who introduced me to fly fishing, used silk lines but I
never recall him saying anything about line weights. Now I am wondering
how
silk lines were rated years ago. This is an interesting thread (no pun
intended). The other thing I remember, early on, was that he would have
his
flies pre-tied to some kind of leader material instead of tying the flies
on
the leader on the stream. Later on he stopped that practice, but now I am
again wondering what that was all about. Since I am reminiscing, he never
carried many flies and I have seen him tie them streamside by jamming the
hook into some stump or limb and tying them with up with sewing thread.
His
hopper pattern was crude but very effective. I wish I had paid better
attention, could he have used horse hair lines, lets see, back in 1958 or
thereabouts?
-------------
I did a little reseach and evidently horse hair went out of style in the
late 1800's so my grandfather would not have been using them. The silk fly
line is still made today to my surprise. Here is a bit I got of the web
about silk lines and a bit of history:

In the 17th century the line was horsehair, but the fly was dropped on the
water, not cast. Later fly lines were made of silk, and the sizes were
identified by letters on a scale from A (0.060 inch in diameter) to I,
decreasing in diameter by 0.005 inch with each step, so I was 0.020 inch in
diameter.
The old system wasn't capable of describing all the ways the nylon and
Dacron lines introduced after World War II differed. In particular, it
didn't indicate density: nylon is less dense than silk, and Dacron denser. A
new system was introduced in which letters indicated construction. "HCH",
for example, was a double taper line and "HCF" was a weight-forward line.
Descriptions were sometimes added to the designation, such as "HCH sinking
Dacron".

In 1961, the American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Assn. introduced a new
system based on describing by a series of numbers the weight of the first 30
feet of the line, exclusive of any untapered tip on a tapered line.

By the way, are any of you using silk lines today?

Chris

"Padishar Creel" wrote in message
...
My grandfather, who introduced me to fly fishing, used silk lines but I
never recall him saying anything about line weights. Now I am wondering
how
silk lines were rated years ago. This is an interesting thread (no pun
intended). The other thing I remember, early on, was that he would have
his
flies pre-tied to some kind of leader material instead of tying the flies
on
the leader on the stream. Later on he stopped that practice, but now I am
again wondering what that was all about. Since I am reminiscing, he never
carried many flies and I have seen him tie them streamside by jamming the
hook into some stump or limb and tying them with up with sewing thread.
His
hopper pattern was crude but very effective. I wish I had paid better
attention, could he have used horse hair lines, lets see, back in 1958 or
thereabouts?
-------------
I did a little reseach and evidently horse hair went out of style in the
late 1800's so my grandfather would not have been using them. The silk fly
line is still made today to my surprise. Here is a bit I got of the web
about silk lines and a bit of history:

In the 17th century the line was horsehair, but the fly was dropped on the
water, not cast. Later fly lines were made of silk, and the sizes were
identified by letters on a scale from A (0.060 inch in diameter) to I,
decreasing in diameter by 0.005 inch with each step, so I was 0.020 inch in
diameter.
The old system wasn't capable of describing all the ways the nylon and
Dacron lines introduced after World War II differed. In particular, it
didn't indicate density: nylon is less dense than silk, and Dacron denser. A
new system was introduced in which letters indicated construction. "HCH",
for example, was a double taper line and "HCF" was a weight-forward line.
Descriptions were sometimes added to the designation, such as "HCH sinking
Dacron".

In 1961, the American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Assn. introduced a new
system based on describing by a series of numbers the weight of the first 30
feet of the line, exclusive of any untapered tip on a tapered line.

By the way, are any of you using silk lines today?

Chris

Chris wrote:snipI wish I had paid better
attention, could he have used horse hair lines, lets see, back in 1958 or
thereabouts?

Chris


I kind of doubt it. I started fly fishing and was using plastic lines at that
time. I later used some silk lines because I wanted to try using some of the
old lines. I kind of enjoyed using them. they cast very smooth for me, and were
a bit of a hassle, but not too much. Ifound that when I did a good enough job
applying the mucelin (sp) they would float pretty good for about four hours for
me. I have never seen anyone using horse hair lines and have never seen one
for sale. Course I grew up in Texas and anyone using a fly rod was pretty rare
in those years. The first time I went into a fly shop in this state was the
first time I saw one which was in the early 80"s. By that time I had been using
a fly rod off and on for about 30 years.

Big Dale

Big Dale

Chris wrote:snipI wish I had paid better
attention, could he have used horse hair lines, lets see, back in 1958 or
thereabouts?

Chris


I kind of doubt it. I started fly fishing and was using plastic lines at that
time. I later used some silk lines because I wanted to try using some of the
old lines. I kind of enjoyed using them. they cast very smooth for me, and were
a bit of a hassle, but not too much. Ifound that when I did a good enough job
applying the mucelin (sp) they would float pretty good for about four hours for
me. I have never seen anyone using horse hair lines and have never seen one
for sale. Course I grew up in Texas and anyone using a fly rod was pretty rare
in those years. The first time I went into a fly shop in this state was the
first time I saw one which was in the early 80"s. By that time I had been using
a fly rod off and on for about 30 years.

Big Dale

Big Dale

On 10/16/04 1:07 PM, in article ,
"George Cleveland" wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:57:34 -0500, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? g.c.


That book is on my get list, how did you like it overall?

No, but the "modern" graphite rod and plastic lines make it much easier to
cast and play fish in the smaller weights. Having said that, I know a guy
(an old timer) who only fishes for trout with six and seven weights, and
that includes Wisconsin tricos.

It was an enjoyable read. The writing style was from an earlier
era,more akin to Bergman or LaBranche rather than Borger or Cardenas.
But it was a pleasant read. It was too short, which is always a good
sign when concerning someone's opinion of a book.

Books. Feh. Who needs 'em.

Wm

:-)

On 10/16/04 1:07 PM, in article ,
"George Cleveland" wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:57:34 -0500, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? g.c.


That book is on my get list, how did you like it overall?

No, but the "modern" graphite rod and plastic lines make it much easier to
cast and play fish in the smaller weights. Having said that, I know a guy
(an old timer) who only fishes for trout with six and seven weights, and
that includes Wisconsin tricos.

It was an enjoyable read. The writing style was from an earlier
era,more akin to Bergman or LaBranche rather than Borger or Cardenas.
But it was a pleasant read. It was too short, which is always a good
sign when concerning someone's opinion of a book.

Books. Feh. Who needs 'em.

Wm

:-)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:21:01 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.

g.c.


Interesting as I'm contemplating using a 12'6" 6/7 wt. two-hander for
streamer fishing on big water, for trout next season. A 6/7 in the
spey ratings is roughly an 8/9 wt. in AFTMA. And yes, I would use it
for dries if a hatch started coming off. BTW, spey lines have very
long, fine front tapers, my Delta Spey lines have 30 footers. My 9/10
Delta (about a 12/13 wt. AFTMA) at the 8' mark is about the thickness
of a 7 weight and about a 5 wt. at its tip. So a 6/7 Delta Spey will
have a very fine tip, probably appraoching a 4 wt. The heavy belly
section only hits the water at the 30' mark. The long, fine front
taper turns over very smoothly and there's not a lot of slap when it
sets down.

On the fishing fighting side, the fish has the advantage on a 12'6"
rod so even a 12" trout will put a decent bend in it. I used a 12'6"
5/6/7 prototype for two days this past summer and at one point fished
it with dries using 7X. Didn't have a single break-off and my largest
fish was 15"-16" IIRC. Even the 10 inchers were fun.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:21:01 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

I just finished reading the Lyon's reprint of J. Edson Leonard's book
"Feather in the Breeze". Leonard was a fisherman who started
flyfishing, mostly in the East, in the 1920s. In his chapter "The Long
and the Short Of It", he refers to one of his favorite bigger river
trout rods as being a 9 1/2' Phillipson cane that threw a DT8F(!)
line. He claimed that it would "place a dryfly as softly as a thistle
dropped by an upstream gust". Interesting.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout? I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.

g.c.


Interesting as I'm contemplating using a 12'6" 6/7 wt. two-hander for
streamer fishing on big water, for trout next season. A 6/7 in the
spey ratings is roughly an 8/9 wt. in AFTMA. And yes, I would use it
for dries if a hatch started coming off. BTW, spey lines have very
long, fine front tapers, my Delta Spey lines have 30 footers. My 9/10
Delta (about a 12/13 wt. AFTMA) at the 8' mark is about the thickness
of a 7 weight and about a 5 wt. at its tip. So a 6/7 Delta Spey will
have a very fine tip, probably appraoching a 4 wt. The heavy belly
section only hits the water at the 30' mark. The long, fine front
taper turns over very smoothly and there's not a lot of slap when it
sets down.

On the fishing fighting side, the fish has the advantage on a 12'6"
rod so even a 12" trout will put a decent bend in it. I used a 12'6"
5/6/7 prototype for two days this past summer and at one point fished
it with dries using 7X. Didn't have a single break-off and my largest
fish was 15"-16" IIRC. Even the 10 inchers were fun.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

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

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
SNIP
He was using a silk line. I'm not sure exactly how the diameters
compare, Mike C. probably knows this, but I'm guessing that an 8 weight
silk would be equivalent to about a 6 weight modern line in terms of
diameter.



Yes, in fact more comparable to many modern plastic #4 lines.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout?

No. On flat water, especially when it is shallow, I think it can make a
difference when using the same length leaders. I fish some areas where
the fish are put down by any significant line slap. However, you can
compensate for that by using a longer leader.


The only real criteria is how gently you can get the line to float down.
Heavy plastic lines cause more splash and are more difficukt to control than
silk lines generally. One may use longer leaders, and many do, but this
causes other problems.


I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.

Sounds like you caught a sufficient number with your six weight!


Personally I think that using the lightness rod possible for the given
conditions is just more pleasurable. The lighter the rod and reel, the
more pleasant they are to cast. Like you, I use a 4 weight for most of
my fishing.


I agree with that too. It is much more pleasant to fish with light gear.

Willi



TL
MC

"Willi & Sue" wrote in message
...
SNIP
He was using a silk line. I'm not sure exactly how the diameters
compare, Mike C. probably knows this, but I'm guessing that an 8 weight
silk would be equivalent to about a 6 weight modern line in terms of
diameter.



Yes, in fact more comparable to many modern plastic #4 lines.

My question is, other than the pleasure of experiencing the lightness
in the hand of the rod itself, do you think it is really necessary for
people to use very light lines to be able to catch trout?

No. On flat water, especially when it is shallow, I think it can make a
difference when using the same length leaders. I fish some areas where
the fish are put down by any significant line slap. However, you can
compensate for that by using a longer leader.


The only real criteria is how gently you can get the line to float down.
Heavy plastic lines cause more splash and are more difficukt to control than
silk lines generally. One may use longer leaders, and many do, but this
causes other problems.


I know that
my first three seasons on Black Earth Creek ( a southern Wisconsin
spring creek) were fished with a 6 wt. line and I caught fish (2000+
according to my old logs) on every thing from a #6 Hex dry to a #24
midge with no more spooking of fish than I do now with my 4 wt. rods.

Sounds like you caught a sufficient number with your six weight!


Personally I think that using the lightness rod possible for the given
conditions is just more pleasurable. The lighter the rod and reel, the
more pleasant they are to cast. Like you, I use a 4 weight for most of
my fishing.


I agree with that too. It is much more pleasant to fish with light gear.

Willi



TL
MC