Originals

After watching hundreds of fly tying demonstrations by outstanding fly tiers, watching bunches of videos on fly tying, and reading countless recipe / tying sequence articles in books, magazines, and here on FAOL and other websites, I saw a technique demonstrated in a "step by step" presentation in another thread yesterday which I have never seen before.

Another BB member suggested that an existing fly might serve the originator of this unique technique just as well as his new fly.

Well, yeah. Just like the originator of that fly might have been as well served by an earlier fly originated by an earlier tier, just like the originator of that earlier fly might have been as well served by an even earlier fly originated by an even earlier tier, just like .... and you all know where I am going with this. Somewhere to the dark ages of fly angling with a history of untold millions of fly anglers fishing the same fly, forever.

Something else, something more important in my view, was lost in the suggestion that an existing fly would do as well. That folks who come up with an original pattern ( and somewhere there is probably an earlier version of the same or a nearly identical fly, but unknown to our new originator ), get an unusual reward and satisfaction from catching fishies with their own original fly.

In the past six or seven years I've designed three or four original flies - maybe not in the sense those flies had never existed anywhere at any point in time, but original in the sense that I had never seen them and did not copy someone else's fly. Those originals expanded, with minor modifications in size, color, and materials, to seven or eight flies which serve most of my fly angling needs year round.

I don't kid myself that these flies catch more or bigger fishies than other flies would catch if I fished them instead. I wouldn't be at all surprised if other flies "outfished" my own originals, at least some of the time.

And I don't have to kid myself that no other set of flies could ever give me the satisfaction I get from going out with a box full of my own "originals" and successfully hunting trouts. And I am sure that no other set of flies could "outfun" the originals I use.

John

I couldn't agree more. I try to fish with my own patterns at all times. I don't always make it. I mean I do still fish Prince Nymphs and Woolly Buggers too. But even then I always have my own twist on it. And that makes the whole exercise that much more enjoyable.

Well said! Tying and fishing my own patterns is as much a part of my fishing experience as catching the fish itself.

For me too!

Yesterday was quite an experience for me on the water. I started off fishing a bead head prince nymph, dropped with a copper john. I was steadily taking fish on both flies. Eventually the Prince became so chewed that it lost its wings. From that point on the fish only hammered the wingless prince nymph. So I'm thinking I'm going to tie up a few wingless prince's for my box now. :) I'm sure there is a similar fly out there, but I have no idea what it would be called.

Paul

You know how chewed up flies sometimes work better than flies that just came out of the box?

I chew mine ahead of time.

Got to be careful though and always debarb.

It took me over ten years to decide to give tying a try. My son and I just started tying about this time last year. Over the course of the past year I have slowly weaned myself from the "store bought" to those I've tied myself. Now my box contains nothing but "my flies". But apart from the weird/incorrect proportions, substituted materials, or other abnormalities that make them "unique", you can't consider any of them "originals" regardless of how you define it. I'm too busy perfecting my tying of "classic" patterns to come up with anything of my own. But even with that being the case, I'm always ecstatic when a fly I've just learned to tie (regardless of how poorly) still manages to catch fish. I can only imagine what that would be like if the pattern was "an original".

---David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pittendrigh

I couldn't agree more. I try to fish with my own patterns at all times. I don't always make it. I mean I do still fish Prince Nymphs and Woolly Buggers too. But even then I always have my own twist on it. And that makes the whole exercise that much more enjoyable.

---

The Prince Nymph and the Woolly Bugger are two flies that have never worked for me. Go figure.

On the other hand, I never leave home without some Griffith Gnats. And during the winter, rubber legs stonefly nymphs, of course.

John

I only fish flies I tie myself. I have a few of my own patterns, some work really well, others have caught fish but have not found their moment. I also tie a lot of basic spiders, which are not following a pattern, but following the basic technique. And, of course, I also have a lot of classic old patterns tied up, some that I just would not want to be without. I find great satisifaction in catching a fish on a fly I've tied myself, and even more on one I've designed myself.

- Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by branhap

............ From that point on the fish only hammered the wingless prince nymph. So I'm thinking I'm going to tie up a few wingless prince's for my box now. :) I'm sure there is a similar fly out there, but I have no idea what it would be called.

Paul

---

Sounds like a Zug Bug to me! Peacock herl is good stuff.

Many times in history the same thing has been invented by different people or reinvented again and again. Necessity is the mother of invention. If you have never seen it before and it is new to you it is an original to you even if someone, somewhere, sometime has tied it before. And if someday you find that some had already tied it and ?named it? so what; you have observed the situation, have come up with the same solution and if it works, great, just have fun with it!
I once observed an egg sack on a sulfur mayfly, couldn?t find any fly pattern that matched what I saw so just tied some orange yarn on the butt of my sulfur mayfly and it works. I?m sure that someone somewhere has done the same thing.
Good Luck, have fun!

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utah David

... I'm too busy perfecting my tying of "classic" patterns to come up with anything of my own. ...---David

---

David -

I did the same thing for years ( and never did perfect my tying of anything ) before I started closely observing the things trout eat and attempting to design my own original patterns. I think it is necessary and desirable to tie a lot of established patterns with a lot of different materials when you are starting out, so when you do make the leap you know what materials will work and how to incorporate them into your design.

My "stuff" is really, really simple. Partly because I don't much like fly tying, and partly because I am not very good at it, but mostly because I'd rather spend time fishing than at the vice.

John

P.S. I don't count as "originals" the millions of named flies you see in the catalogs or on websites that are basically variations on established patterns with a minor change of material or color. Somewhere behind all those flies are originals - most likely tied by someone who wanted to go fishing, not make a buck coming up with something "new" to put a name on and sell. That is not to disparage folks who make a living coming up with new flies for the market. If you watch Scott Sanchez or Kelly Galloup, for example, you have to come away with a great deal of admiration for what they do, their art and craft, whether you have any interest in tying / fishing any of their patterns or not.

There's nothing wrong with originals, as long as you realize that very few of them (which is not say none) are significantly better than established patterns. It really takes years to make that determination.

If you look at flies from any given decade over the last century or so, how many survived (or will survive) for, say, fifty years or more. Those that did were truly successful originals. Some of the others were good, too, but just went out of style. The majority, though, I think were flashes in the pan.

My own personal bias is for fish patterns with long track records, but recognize that innovation has its place. In fact, this evening I'm probably going to tie some sulfur wet flies with zylon wings. I've already got a good winged sulfur wet, but the zylon will be easier to tie than a quill wing. Whether it works or not is up to the fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

...If you look at flies from any given decade over the last century or so, how many survived (or will survive) for, say, fifty years or more. Those that did were truly successful originals. ....

---

... the way I see it, are those that give the originator a great deal of satisfaction, reward, cheer, joy, and a bucketful of smiles when they attract and hook up fishies. And when others who are "gifted" those originals report back having a good time fishing them.

As an example, my FEB salmonfly is only three years old. Between yesterday and Saturday it accounted for over 70 wild and native West Slope cutthroat. Not atypical for it and its golden stone, hopper, October caddis, and skwala siblings.

It matters not at all to me if those flies last fifty years, or one day beyond my ability to fish with them. It matters not at all to me if others ever see or fish them, although most people who have used them consider them very effective, durable flies. It matters not at all to me whether some other pattern would have caught as many or bigger fish. It matters not at all to me that others' biases and opinions differ from mine - they will find, hopefully, flies that will help them be truly successful, however they define that term, on the water.

I suspect that Sandy, Ralph, Phil, Byron and a good number of others share my take on what is truly successful and what is not.

John

My fly patterns are the best in the history of western (or eastern) civilization....because I tied them.
That criteria only works for me I know. But works it does.

Two things I try to achieve when being "creative" the vice.
1, Crack a problem I have encountered on the water. Not always easy assess success with this, as, by the time I get back to the water, something will have changed.
2, Find a simpler solution. This one I can do. Though I will often tie rather complex flies, the ones I fish with tend towards being very simple. That way I am more inclined to risk loosing one casting into tight corners. The complex flies tend to be for customers! People often ask "Do you tie flies to catch fish or anglers?" My response to that is "I've never had a fish pay me for a fly."

Some people do crosswords, I prefer to work on one of these problems. Most of the time I end up re inventing the wheel, but its fun.

Cheers,
Alan.

It only seems reasonable to me to believe that back several years ago when the current plethora of materials did not exist that two tyers in different locations looked at a species of insect came up with pretty much the same recipe and technique for turning their materials into an artificial replica of that insect.

When I first stated beginning to learn about trout I attended a seminar held by the Georgia DNR. Don Bartlett, who is pretty much the godfather of Georgia trout fishing, made a comment in a session, where they were demonstrating how to tie certain patterns, that stuck with me. He said the idea was to make your fly look like an insect that trout eat not some other guy?s fly. I think that is something John and Sandy have demonstrated well with some of their patterns.

I've never come across Don Bartlett before (Great name for a fly tier though, Bartlett is my favorite salmon hook.) but that is exactly my philosophy of imitative fly tying.

Cheers,
A.

JohnScott,

Agreed, I personally, hate carrying around a fly that does not catch fish. I'm very practical on the water, and carry "zero" flies out of nostalgia or simply because I tied it myself. I'm my own biggest judge on patterns that I create.

Many times you tie a pattern that works well on a particular water "one year"...then dies out. I clear them from my box quickly. Others, like the LTD patterns have been fished for years by friends and family, and from coast to coast. They are proven patterns.

But realisticly, in 23 years of tying.....There are only about a dozen that I feel fit that bill and sprouted from my vise.

The process of finding those jewels though is half the fun of fly fishing. :)

got to give them more time , prince in rivers where stoneflys and ,caddis ,buggers in rivers with fish, best with sink tip line

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnScott

The Prince Nymph and the Woolly Bugger are two flies that have never worked for me. Go figure.

On the other hand, I never leave home without some Griffith Gnats. And during the winter, rubber legs stonefly nymphs, of course.

John

---

No point, Billy. I have a selection of flies that do just fine for me on the streams and rivers I like to fish. Why bother taking more time with flies that I don't enjoy tying, don't enjoy fishing, and didn't work for me after a reasonable effort ??

John

P.S. Besides, they're not originals.;)

Ran across this thread when I was looking for something else. Thought there might be some folks out there that would enjoy it for what it is, or how it reminds them of how this BB used to be.

Thank you John..... ;-) .....lee s.

Still fish the FEB Hopper, as well as four others I tie some flies for.
Rick