Welcome to 'just old flies,' a section of methods and flies that used-to-be. These flies were tied with the only materials available. Long before the advent of 'modern' tying materials, they were created and improved upon at a far slower pace than today's modern counterparts; limited by materials available and the tiers imagination.

Once long gone, there existed a 'fraternity' of anglers who felt an obligation to use only the 'standard' patterns of the day. We hope to bring a bit of nostalgia to these pages and to you. And sometimes what you find here will not always be about fishing. Perhaps you will enjoy them. Perhaps you will fish the flies. Perhaps?


FITZ MAURICE

Eric Austin - February 22, 2010

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Fitz-maurice

The more I've learned about wet flies and their history, the more I've wondered about two questions. As we know, the earliest American and Canadian wet flies were simply ones from Great Britain. Those transplanted to America brought their flies with them, and for the most part they worked just fine over here. A little more color was needed to attract the brook trout, and those changes were quickly implemented. Why then did the fundamental order in which wet fly materials were put on a hook change in America? To ask the question more pointedly, why did the Americans eventually put the wings on a fly last, or over the hackle, rather than the traditional way the Brits had done it for hundreds of years, wing, then hackle on last, with the hackle in front of the wing?

The second question involves the use of the vise. Why, after using no vise for 400 years or so, did we all of a sudden find one to be so necessary? Vises did exist, but they were relegated to beginners, and no self respecting fly dresser worth his salt would have ever resorted to one. What changed?

As to the second question, a book by John Harrington Keene provides some clues to these mysteries. He's a good one to study, as he was an Englishman living in the U.S., and a dry fly devote' of Halford. He straddled both continents in a fly tying sense. I've thought for some time that small dry flies were the reason we started using the vise on a regular basis, and John Herrington Keene says as much in his book from 1887, Fly Fishing and Fly Making for Trout. He states:

A great many of the old time fly tiers use only their fingers, but the extreme delicacy of some of the smaller midges, and the intricacy of many of the chief larger flies, render the supplementary aid of the vise and pincers extremely convenient. Besides, I believe that it is quite impossible for an adult to learn to tie a good, strong, neat, intricate trout and salmon fly by his fingers alone. The less handling a fly receives, the better for its appearance and workmanlike strength and integrity.

I've done considerable tying in hand myself, and have discovered that larger wet flies and salmon flies are not all that difficult with a little practice. Small dry flies on the other hand present some real problems, not the least of which is simply holding a #18 or #20 Mustad hook in your hand! Try it sometime, try to hold these small hooks between thumb and forefinger and keep them steady. It is virtually impossible. This belies the old story of Lee Wulff being interviewed while he's working on something in his hands. At the end of the interview he produces a perfect #20 dry fly that he'd been tying in-hand as he answered questions. I believe every word right up to the #20 part. Now he could have done a #20 in-hand with a small hand vise or clip, that I'd buy, but no way did he do a #20 without something to steady that hook.

In an article on fly making for the book American Game Fishes Keene gives us an idea of what constituted a small hook in his day. He states:

Of course the size of hook varies from the smallest 14 or 16 for Pennsylvania Trout to the number 1-0 and 2-0 for the Black bass of Michigan waters.

As you can see, flies had gotten nowhere near as small as they are today, but even then, tiers were little by little discovering the joys of the vise.

As to the first question about why American wings go on last on a wet fly, Keene as much as gives us the answer in his description of tying a typical wet. Here, Yankee ingenuity and Yankee thrift both come into play. There was a period in this country where wings were tied on in a reverse fashion, that is, tied on sticking out over the gut snood initially, then doubled back over and tied down again to finish the fly. I'll give a small demonstration with a Royal Coachman:

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Thread Base

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Wings tied in

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Tail tied in

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Herl butt

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Floss body

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Herl joint

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Hackle

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Wings reversed

fitz maurice old flies February 22, 2010

Head finished

The idea here was to make a wing that could never be pulled out. One problem with wet flies is that the wings are somewhat fragile and can be rather easily pulled out unless the fly is put together with great care. The reverse winging technique made the wing's pulling out a virtual impossibility. Flies with "workmanlike strength and integrity" were very important to Americans then, as we weren't yet the rich nation we are today. The winging method described by Keene was very popular, and this can be verified by looking at early catalogs from Thomas A. Chubb in Vermont and Abbey and Imbrie in New York. In the Chubb catalog, reversed wing trout flies sell for $1.25 a dozen while "common" trout flies sell for only $.50 per 12. Abbey and Imbrie in 1907 sell "extra fine reversed wing flies" for $1 a dozen, twice as much as their normal flies. With reversed wing flies the wing has to be tied in first, and reversed last, there's no other way to do them. It's my theory that tiers just got into the habit of tying down the wings last, and eventually just kept making ordinary wet flies that way.

So what of the Fitz-maurice? Well, I found that fly in a fly plate in American Game Fishes, a book wherein Keene does an article entitled "Fishing Tackle and How to Make It", and gives the recipe for this fly among others. Mary Orvis Marbury makes mention of the name as well in Favorite Flies, in the Trout Flies section. There was a fly named the Maurice, very similar in construction to the Fitz-maurice, and here are her comments regarding the namesake of both flies:

Mr. Fitz-Maurice has been for many years manager of the fishing department of the old house of John P. Moore's & Sons, New York city, now known as Shoverling, Daly & Gales. By his cordial, energetic kindliness Mr. Fitz-Maurice has won for himself and his firm many friends. It is pleasant and fitting that the fly bearing a portion of his name should be looked upon also as being reliable.

Here's the recipe for the Fitz-Maurice, the Maurice being virtually identical save for the tail, which looks to be red goose, and the hackle, which looks like it's palmered over the black chenille.


Fitz-maurice

    Tail: Peacock fiber

    Body: Black chenille and Red floss ribbed with gold tinsel

    Hackle: Yellow

    Wings: Mallard breast feather

    Head: Red wool



Credits: American Game Fishes by W. A. Perry ("sillalicum "), A. A. Mosher, W. H. H. Murray, W. D. Tomlin, A. N. Cheney, Prof. G. Brown Goode, W. N. Haldeman, Francis Endicott, Fred. Mather, S. C. Clarke, Rev. Luther Pardee, Charles Hallock, F. H. Thurston ("kelpie"), J. Harrington Keene, Prof. David Starr Jordan, William C. Harris, B. C. Milam, G. O. Shields ("coquina"), J. G. A. Creighton, Dr. J. A. Henshall;Favorite Flies by Mary Orvis Marbury; Fly Fishing and Fly Making for Trout by John Harrington Keene; Trout Fishing in the Catskills by Ed Van Put ~ ELA

 

Comment on this article

Previous Reviews


[ HOME ]

[ Search ] [ Contact FAOL ] [ Media Kit ]

FlyAnglersOnline.com © Notice