Proliferation of synthetics

There are so many varieties of synthetic materials today that a guy marketing his "brand" will try to impress you that his stuff is unique when it is really close to being identical to many others. I realize that this is legitimate business but really burdens us as amateur tiers. It's hard to tell the difference between EP fibers and Congo Hair to justify a 3 to 1 cost difference. It's also tough to tell the difference between flies tied with Estaz and Cactus Chenille.
If we can't tell the difference, I question whether the fish can. Does anyone else agree?
What I'd like to see in the future is a forum devoted to tying flies in traditional manners, using historically available materials as would have been used when fly fishing was first being developed in the Catskills. (Hackles in those days were so poor, by todays standards, that two feathers were needed to tie one fly.) Instead of calling this "Minimalist Tying" I'd like to call it "Historical Tying" or Classical Tying". Not to be confused with "Hysterical Tying". Maybe I could even find a use for my half-century old Metz necks.

You might be interested in http://www.classicflytying.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray Kunz

What I'd like to see in the future is a forum devoted to tying flies in traditional manners, using historically available materials as would have been used when fly fishing was first being developed in the Catskills.

---

Ray,

Check this site; may be what you're interested in:
http://forums.catskillflies.com/inde...m/4-fly-tying/

Some beautiful flies come from there and are an important part of our flyfishing heritage.
Having said that, I do a majority of my fishing out west in some pretty rough water and a lot of the dries I attempted to tie in the "Catskill Method" ended up being very pretty wet flies in the heavier flows (could be that I wasn't tying them properly). Many of those synthetic materials - foam, polypropylene yarn, synthetic fibers greatly improve floatation for my flies. Can the fish tell the difference in the materials? I don't know, but if I can see it, I can fish it better. Just my 1/50 of a dollar.

Regards,
Scott

I have never really bought into most of the synthetic materials over the years. Bead-heads, Ice-dub and limited patterns with foam (2-3). But aside from that, it's rabbit, beaver hackle and hair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray Kunz

...as would have been used when fly fishing was first being developed in the Catskills.

---

I think you'll find the history of fly fishing goes back just a little further than that, about 2000 years further.

However, I do know what you mean about the proliferation of synthetics. There is little or no difference between many of them. Very few if any are originally fly tying materials. It is a case of finding something useful and then marketing it as a fly tying material. Famously the stuffing of a pillow turned into SLF Dubbing. A friend, Barry Ord Clark, of mine wrote a book on what many of these materials really are. International Guide to Fly-Tying Materials, much to the chagrin of the fly tying materials retailers.

If you want to see traditional flies you will not get more traditional than this. The Greenwell's Glory (Wet and dry) tied using original materials and a hackle from a home processed cape off domestic fowl.
Attachment 13151Attachment 13152Attachment 13153
The cape may look black but is in fact a dark coch-y-bonddhu.

Cheers,
A.

Thanks you guys for the websites. To AlanB: 1. I accept your 2000 year comment but I should have noted that the greatest development "in the U.S.A." started in the Catskills. 2. Is the material book you refer to available? 3. I also have a old, unused
Coch-y-bondhu cape of Asian origin that is so nice that I only take it out to pet it once in a while. To ScottP: In the mountainous areas of the east we also have some heavier water which the Wulff series of heavily hackled flies tries to address. And they do work. Also, have you ever tried a fully dressed "Usual" of Fran Betters origin? It's 100% snowshoe hare's foot hair.

Could not disagree more strongly. Choice is always better than a lack there of, and as others have pointed out, I think you are over simplifying the history of fly tying. Nobody can force modern tiers to use any new materials, and substitution is always an option, no matter what some commercial tier might insist.

And with regards to "historically available materials" do you mean like Bustad, Condor, Eagle, Heron, or Stork? How about the original dubbing for Tup's Indispensable? Chadwicks 477 perhaps? Not all examples of materials used by Catskill tiers per se, but illustrative examples nevertheless.

Seems to me if you think the debates about the different materials are unique to today's tiers, I think you do not fully appreciate what an opinionated and picky bunch fly tiers actually are.

P.S. If you have no use for your 'old' Metz capes, just post. I'm sure you'll find no shortage of volunteers to take them off your hands.

The reason people use synthetics today (IMHO) is because we have them. I would imagine if the 'originators' of many of the traditional patterns had synthetics they would have used some of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tig

The reason people use synthetics today (IMHO) is because we have them. I would imagine if the 'originators' of many of the traditional patterns had synthetics they would have used some of them.

---

Agree. As a culture we have always pursued improvement.

I don't see any material as a bad thing. But I am a reluctant convert. :)

I like working with the natural materials more, and I'm addicted to hackle. If I see a neck in a shade I can use, and one that I don't have already.....I will eat, drink and sleep nothing but that hackle until I find a way to get it. It's sad really. LOL But I'm also a realist. ice-dub works. Can't deny it. Not a real fan of foam because I don't care for working with it. But it keeps floating...hard to ignore. However.....a hackled fly? Hard to beat. :) I still prefer shellaced turkey and pheasant tail over plastic shelback though. And gave away all my micro-fibbet tailing years ago, which was replaced by hackle fibers.

Like Whatfly said....we are an opinionated and picky bunch.

Yes Barry's book is still available. You may get one Direct from him, his site is http://thefeatherbender.com/ \\However he is based in Norway so you may be better trying to obtain it locally.

I must admit I swing between the poles on this one. In tying for fishing I will use anything. I will also frequently substitute materials. On the other hand if I am tying for display I make sure I have the right traditional materials. Though they are opposite extremes I don't see a contradiction in this.

Having home processed two capes I think, from now on, I'll leave it to Mr Whiting. I can't tie enough flies to pay for a new cape in the time taken but I can make a contribution. Also I'll never get the kind of practice a pro has doing them.

Cheers,
A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatfly

How about the original dubbing for Tup's Indispensable? Chadwicks 477 perhaps? Not all examples of materials used by Catskill tiers per se, but illustrative examples nevertheless.

---

Actually, there was discussion years ago about the original Tups dubbing and a member of this site, Jeff Serena, tracked down the exact recipe. He sent some to me and I've since duplicated it as needed. It is excellent stuff. Oh, and if you happen to read the Notes and Letters of Theodore Gordon, he had a lot of praise for that dubbing.
I'm sure if synthetics were available in the early/mid 1900s the tiers then would have used them. Personally, I like natural materials. That plus the fact that for me, fly tying has been an addictive habit, I have a ton of the natural stuff. Worse is the fact that, like NJTroutbum, I would get more if I thought I liked the look of some material. Sick, sick, sick(:

Allan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlanB

I think you'll find the history of fly fishing goes back just a little further than that, about 2000 years further.

However, I do know what you mean about the proliferation of synthetics. There is little or no difference between many of them. Very few if any are originally fly tying materials. It is a case of finding something useful and then marketing it as a fly tying material. Famously the stuffing of a pillow turned into SLF Dubbing. A friend, Barry Ord Clark, of mine wrote a book on what many of these materials really are. International Guide to Fly-Tying Materials, much to the chagrin of the fly tying materials retailers.

If you want to see traditional flies you will not get more traditional than this. The Greenwell's Glory (Wet and dry) tied using original materials and a hackle from a home processed cape off domestic fowl.
Attachment 13151Attachment 13152Attachment 13153
The cape may look black but is in fact a dark coch-y-bonddhu.

Cheers,
A.

---

Never tire of looking at your beautiful flies, AlanB!!

Synthetic vs Synthetic
"Similar" may work equally well for some applications, but not necessarily the same for all applications. If the less costly alternative works for your purpose, there's no reason to complain.

I appreciate classic patterns, but they have been discussed ad nauseam. Over the last 20yrs or so, particularly the last decade, synthetics have opened up a new frontier in tying, front simple incorporation into old standards to wildly different patterns.

Ray,
Interesting post.
I know that Bucky McCormick of BRF in West Yellowstone decided that he will fish this entire year with only natural material flies.
Thought that was timely to your post.

Personally, I generally prefer natural materials with the exception of trailing shucks, some parachute posts, and some underwingings.

I want to catch fish with flies that I tie. I tie my flies so that I can catch the most fish with them. I use the materials that allow me to do that. Most of my materials come from craft shops, hardware stores, thrift shops, and sewing centers.

I use lots of synthetics. I've worked my way up the chain of resale/repackage on many of them, or found them sold in different venues for different purposes. This gives me more options, and saves me money. I'm a bit of a materials junky, and being able to buy, say, twenty yards of 'hollow body braid' sold in the craft shop as mesh tubing for flower arranging at a price of $6.99 appeals to me over paying $4.99 for three feet of it at the fly shop. Same with threads and yarns. And, if you are willing to dig a bit, you can find many fly tying materials in bulk from some distributors, saving up to 90%. You just have to spend some time looking at packaging, doing web searches, etc. It's all made someplace, an I guarantee little of it is made in the back of a fly shop in small quantities.

I have no nostalgia about flies, and find that whole 'catskill' thing ridiculous. That a tiny area in the NE US is given all this credit for fly development is really myopic at best, and at worst it's elitist. Fly design was, and is still, being changed, innovated, and improved all over the world. It's just that the things that were written about were those things near where the most writers were, the NE. Public relations and advertising deserve most of the credit for these so-called 'classic' patterns than any skill or innovation on the part of the tyers involved. And, I'll wager that all those folks who we find so fascinating as 'traditional' tyers, if they were still with us today, would laugh at us while happily using whatever material they could to produce effective flies.

If you find researching and acquiring the original materials for a particular pattern enjoyable, or if you decide that you'll only tie with 'natural' materials because it pleases you, good for you. If you think it's honorable or somehow noble to do so, or think it makes you a better tyer or person, you're deluded.

I find the whole argument about 'original' materials tedious and somewhat entertaining. The debate today about such things tends to propose the concept that the historical originator of a fly pattern searched tirelessly for the exact right material before he or she developed the fly in question. The person who 'originated' any fly used the materials they HAD, and if they found a better material for a particular fly, they used it. That's what most fly tyers who are creating new patterns today are doing as well. Using the materials at hand to produce a fly that is effective for a particular purpose or use.

As an artist, when I see someone tie a bunch of classic flies and mount them in a display case and claim it's 'art', I laugh. It's copies. Plagiarism, not artwork. It's like standing in front of a Renoir and copying it. Builds skill, but it's not art. Copying someone else to make a fly for catching fish? Solid plan, works, no one finds that an issue. It's why all these pattern books are out there. But art is innovative by it's very definition. Copies, no matter how well done or how pretty, are not art.

Buddy

Well. now maybe I'm a romantic. Or maybe I like the history of the art of flytying. But I don't have any problem with letting the catskill tyers have their moment, any less than the Northwestern folks have the stimulators, tarantulas and chernobles. You have Carrie Stevens style streamers, Atlantic Salmon patterns and Skykomish Sunrises from the pacific. I love the regional flair of each and every style and give each their due. The Catskill tyers did develop a great deal of the hackled fly. Not because they were any better. But they were the seeds of genetic hackle, which like any material out there has a niche within the tying world for a particular style of tying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buddy Sanders

As an artist, when I see someone tie a bunch of classic flies and mount them in a display case and claim it's 'art', I laugh. It's copies. Plagiarism, not artwork.
Buddy

---

So then I take it that by your definition, every one of today's 'full-dressed Atlantic Salmon flies' that are dressed by modern day tiers like Ptalis, Seymour, Jorgensen, etc. but were originated and dressed by Kelson, Trehern, Parsons, etc., are mere duplicates, copies, frauds and not pieces of art? You see no 'art' in a Jock Scott dressed by Ptalis or other modern day dresser? Now, I'm not saying they are originals, but to say they are not art is somewhat excessive. Also, what if someone today makes an original Atlantic Salmon fly but then procedes to dress up a dozen or two dozen of the same fly pattern. By your logic, all of the flies after the first one are: "copies, Plagerism(even though the tier is copying his/her own pattern), not artwork".

So "art is innovative by it's very definition". The world according to Buddy. Someone's going to have to break that to the Dutch Masters like Vermeer, who painted in that tired "realistic" tradition, Vladimir Horowitz who just "copied" those old songs that Beethoven wrote when he played, Rachmaninoff who years after the fact was still composing those sad pieces in the classical style, and Andrew Wyeth who insisted on painting in that realistic style that was so over by the time he came on the scene. I've heard art defined a lot of ways by many people but this definition is somewhat limiting, especially when it comes to fly tying, or anything else in the real world actually.

Buddy ties flies solely to catch fish, that's it, the end, the only thing that makes sense to him. This shows a complete fundamental misunderstanding of what fly fishing was and is. Fly fishing was conceived as a more sporting way to fish. I liken it to bow hunting rather than hunting with a rifle. The traditions play a large part the overall pastime of fly fishing, dare I say fly fishing is, "by definition", a traditional way of fishing. While Buddy has a big problem with those of us that honor and keep those traditions, I have a big problem with those who don't.

I see supposedly innovative flies all the time that are glorified Buggers, glorified RS2s, glorified Muddlers, glorified Pheasant Tail nymphs, where a bit of flash has been added by some new synthetic material and now we have an "innovation". Yes, this is the "art" to which Buddy refers. The guy who patented the Kapok fly, now there was an artist!

Buddy's absurd definition of art aside, there are tiers who do raise the bar to the level of artistry, whether the flies they produce are innovative or not. If Rene Harrop's no hackle dun is not art, I truly don't know what is. He didn't invent it. It's tied with natural materials. There are patrons all over the world who collect fly tier's work. They must see something in these "copies" that Buddy doesn't. The reality is, and here's my definition of art, art is whatever influential people of a given era say it is. While Buddy bemoans the fact "That a tiny area in the NE US" is given all this fly fishing credit, there is a group that is smaller still in New York City that has defined what art is for everyone over the last century or so. The problem there is, they've lost sight of the traditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buddy Sanders

If you find researching and acquiring the original materials for a particular pattern enjoyable, or if you decide that you'll only tie with 'natural' materials because it pleases you, good for you. If you think it's honorable or somehow noble to do so, or think it makes you a better tier or person, you're deluded.
Buddy

---

Boy have I tried not to respond to this. However, since you made the claim that I, and innumerable fly tiers are deluded because we think that tying with natural materials makes us better all around fly tiers (I'm guessing you mean better then those who tie with synthetics). Surprise. Bottom line is - We Are! How's that? I'll give you a few examples: You try using natural feathers to create a pair of identical wings for a full dressed Atlantic Salmon fly (Jock Scott, Roy G Biv, the Popham, Ray Mead, etc. and then tying them on the hook versus using some synthetic fibers. How about a simple deer hair winged comparadun versus one winged with synthetic antron, Hi Vis, Congo hair, or other . Maybe you think that getting wood duck wings on a Catskill style dry fly is as easy as using a barred synthetic material. Each of the techniques used with natural materials in these examples will make you a better tier. Now this is not to say that flies with natural materials will catch more fish, cast better, be more durable and last longer. But I'll tell you this - you get a tier who's mostly tied with synthetics and he/she will do poorly with natural materials. You take someone who's mostly tied with natural materials and he/she will do very well with synthetics. And if you think otherwise, it is you who are just plain wrong and the one who is deluded. Tiers who know natural materials and how to use the techniques needed to apply those materials are better tiers then those who, for the most part, only use synthetics.

I don't regret having started this thread but wish it hadn't gone down so many sidetracks.
My complaint about proliferation related only to the way so many sales outlets are calling the same material by different names in an attempt to get us to think it is something better.
My other completely separate thought was to emphasize my personal enjoyment in using what I consider traditional flies that have at least a little history. I was not suggesting we limit ourselves to only flies of hundreds of years ago, I think Art Flick's Cream Variant, Fran Betters Usual or Edson Tigers as being somewhat classic. I'm not at all adverse to progress but I don't enjoy patterns that exclusively use styrofoam and silicone rubber. I also get enjoyment using my old Phillipson bamboo rod and taking my 20 year old BMW out on Sunday drives. Thanks for thinking about the subject.

I would never equate a '94 BMW to a Phillipson bamboo; now if it was a '74 2002 tii....... ;)

Regards,
Scott

Ray,
I'm with you. Love some classics and get pleasure from using such......flies, vises, rods, etc.

For example, I have an old vise used by Fran Betters. I enjoy taking it out and using it once in a while. Sorta provides a connection to an old Master.

I doubt that any of us who like the traditional aspects of fly fishing has much against synthetics, I use a foam ant all the time and it's very effective. After all, Ray Bergman used celluloid. Early this summer I caught a nice rainbow by Eastern standards on the Lycoming in Pa. I got it with a Leadwing Coachman wet fly, a fly I hadn't fished since the '60s. It was such a thrill to see that fly work after all these years.

Byron, I envy you that vise. Fran was a legend up there, and rightly so. He was an artist even by Buddy's definition!