Printable View
Has anyone heard of this "club" ?
Does anyone know a member?
Does it still exist?
If not would anyone like to start it up again?
Even casually?
Interested?
This could be a neat thing Soft Hackle enthusiasts.The legacy of Leisenring and Hidy should be celebrated.
Take Care.
Jim Slattery
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 10 July 2005).]
For those of you who may be unaware the International Brotherhood of the Flymph is alive and kicking. [url=http://www.flymph.com:00ea7]www.flymph.com[/url:00ea7]
There will be a lot of great shared info on the "hoods'" site as it evolves.
Take care, Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:00ea7]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:00ea7]
I don't know about the majority of the folk here but after reading this piece once before when it first came out and now in re-reading it, I realize how much I've forgotten!
Thanks for including it again. Jim (both of ya's) this will be a fun trip!
Jeremy.
So, is any Soft Hackle/Spider/etc. considered a Flymph?
- Gary
------------------
"Catch 'em all ~ Put 'em back!"
Visit [url=http://www.warmwaterangler.net/forum:07ac9]Warmwater Angler[/url:07ac9].
Gary,
Great question.
To quote Pete Hidy who coined the phrase,from the Revised Art of Tying the Wet Fly pg 126 : "Flymph- A wingless artificial fly with a soft, translucent body of fur or wool which blends with the under color of the tying silk when wet, utilizing soft hackle fibers easily activated by the currents to give the effect of an insect alive in the water, and strategically cast diagonally upstream or across for the trout to take just below or within a few inches of the surface film."
To further broaden the "Flymph" equation , I'll add this "Definition" to the mix again from "The Art of Tying the Wet Fly & Fishing the Flymph" By Leisenring and Hidy pg 126 paragraph 2,
"Flymph Fishing is that technique which, by comparison to the "chuck-and- chance-it" use of the winged wet fly, or the hard bodied or weighted nymph fished deep, strives to simulate the hatching nymphs of the mayfly,caddis as they struggle up toward the surface or drift momentarily in or just under the surface film. In suspense, visual excitment, and pleasure, flymph fishing equals or excels dry-fly fishing because the strike is usually visible and the fly must be placed upstream from the trout with considerable accuracy and skill."
I think that you can add diving caddis to the definition as well.
Flymph is a mecurical word that describe lots of aspects yet hard to put your finger on exactly.Yet somehow there is no Doubt to what it is.
Long Live the Flymph!*
*and all it's cousins!
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:aef27]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:aef27]
O.K. gang,
I will announce the MAJOR COO now. Lance Hidy, V.S."Pete" Hidy's son, is going to share with us his father's collection. This is of great historical significance. V.S. Hidy was a well respected author and angler and had correspondence with many of the great anglers of the 20th century such as,G.E.M. Skues, Jim Leisenring, Art Cross,Harry Darbee just to name a few, perhaps we will get a glimpse of what these great angling minds had to say . Needless to say there is a wealth of information to be learned and digested.
There is also talk of perhaps putting all of Pete's writings into one book. For sure the articles that Hidy wrote for the Creel will be put together. I hope you all are as excited about this MAJOR developement as I am. The fishing gods are looking down upon us with smiles upon their faces.
Thank you Lance Hidy.
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:23ece]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:23ece]
Jim Slattery, RW here,
Read my profile line on this post.
Later, RW
------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-
O.K. RW,
I've been waiting for you to respond.It would only seem natural that a person who uses a Leisenring quote for his signature would gladly join the "Brotherhood", would it not?
Besides we could use your sage wisdom .
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:94f2d]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:94f2d]
For anyone who might be interested. A scarce open letter by Pete Hidy has been put on the [url=http://WWW.FLYMPH.COM:c3462]WWW.FLYMPH.COM[/url:c3462] site. Also the first installment from the Hidy collection as well.
Take care,
Jim
?So, is any Soft Hackle/Spider/etc. considered a Flymph??
Yes!!! A Flymph is no more that a fly dressed in the same manner as a traditional North Country Trout fly! Whatever name you care to put on this style it is up to you. It is my belief that many of the noted American anglers mentioned in many posts and who have written on the subject of Flymphs, Soft Hackles or whatever is the in vogue term nowadays are merely self publicists wishing to re-invent the wheel, and because they have found this so called new nirvana of trout flies they choose to rename them to suit there own egos and commercial opportunities.
Let?s say for instance I came to the States and took some Catskill patterns and kept the style but changed body colour and substituted a hackle for something similar but not quite the same, everyone would immediately say that?s a Catskill fly but I?m not sure which particular one. Now lets us suppose I can over to the States with some Yorkshire patterns and made some subtle changes to them and started to call Flymphs or Soft Hackles how many American anglers would now any wiser? Practically none! Here in Yorkshire we know when somebody is trying to sell us something we all ready own ! The great note American angler Theodore Gordon took Halford?s English dry fly patterns and changed them so radically as to invent the classic American Catskill fly. Hiddy, Leisenring and Nemes haven?t really made any outstanding changes to the North Country Flies apart from naming them Flymphs !
Since when did Yorkshire own the Spiders, they have been used and tied in Scotland (Stewart) just as long. Normally it doesn't bother me what anybody claims as long as they are tying and using the flies but when I see a virtiolic and narrow minded letter, as above, it tends to get up my nose.
I have noted myself the inconsistancies of terms relating to Softhackles,Flymphs and Spiders but who cares.
Flymphs are not the same as North Country Spiders as any one using his eyes instead of his spleen could see. The only thing they have in common is the use of game and hen hackles.
This is not Holy Writ it is flyfishing.
It just goes to show not all the arrogant purists are on the river Test.
Personally I have found Sylvester Nemes books excellent. He never claims 'ownership' of the softhackle and gives full recognition to the past. I have only read about the Flymph in Dave Hughes book on 'Wet Flies' and he certainly does the same.
Maybe we have to get "Dr Rob's" permission to use any fly he conceives to be owned by Yorkshire.
I'll stop now before I write something I shall really regret.
------------------
Donald/Scotland
[This message has been edited by Donald Nicolson (edited 01 October 2005).]
Ok Donald tell me what is the difference between a Flymph and a North Country Fly then? Are they not all the same? And if so why do we feel the need to call them something else when they have been called North Country Spiders for centuries! Indeed it was Charles Cotton in 1676 who first mentioned the northern style of dressing trout flies and in all probability it was these slim bodied flies that James Baillie later changed and called spiders. I do not state that Yorkshire lays claim to these series of flies, i merely point out that we know when somebody is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and reinvent something. So I will ask the question again What is the difference between a North Country Spider and a Flymph ?
How about when a North Country spider represents an emerging insect. Not so much a difference as a distinction. Bill
O.K. Dr. Rob,
Let me give you an example . Back in the 1920's ,possibly before, there was a Fly called the Quack, named after an angler by the last name of Quackenbush, a Catskill tie by the way. The Fly was basically a Royal Wulff with a hackle tail. This fly was fished for at least a decade before Lee Wulff invented the Wulff series of Dries. Does changing the tail from hackle to hair change the Quack to a Wulff, after all hair had been used for centuries before? Should we start calling the Ausable Wulff the Ausable Quack? Most people note that it was Rube Cross and Roy Steenrod that dramatically changed Halford's ( Maryatt?) fly into the Catskill style, Gordon adapted Halford's flies to Catskill insects.
Now I have to be honest, I'm a little confused about the "Spider" moniker. The Original "Spiders " were basically a feather twisted about some thead, wound backwards until the hackle was used up, then tied off, the only thread body,if you will, is the knot. A lot different than a hare lug and plover "Spider" (hackle?) would you not agree?
As for the dubbing method used by Leisenring, can someone PLEASE find me a reference to an earlier book, periodical, booklet or letter showing the EXACT SAME technique used by Leisenring. I have read most of the Major books, but not all , and very, very few of the lesser known literature and have not been able to find a previous reference. [url=http://WWW.SNIPEANDPURPLE.COM:9c1ff]WWW.SNIPEANDPURPLE.CO.UK[/url:9c1ff] has both "Spiders" (hackles?) and American wingless wets some of which are "Flymphs". While the similarities are not in question, they sure look "Different" to me.
One last thing. Hidy coined the word "Flymph" probably in the 1950's . It was the name he used to describe what is known as Emergers today. But he was also aware of diving caddis and mayflies as well, which a "Flymph" style fly could also mimic as well.
Hidy was NOT by any means a self promoter. More of a messenger willing to share the knowledge he found. He never took credit for inventing anything ,except coining the term "Flymph" to describe a life cycle in aquatic insects and to designate what type of fly best replicates it, tied by those before him, Leisenrig in particular. Hidy was a fly fishing scholar and had extensive library on the subject.
Take care,
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:9c1ff]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:9c1ff] <A HREF="http://www.flymph.com
" TARGET=_blank>www.flymph.com
</A>
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 01 October 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 01 October 2005).]
Here we have two instances of both a traditional North Country Pattern the ?Cowdung fly? the dressing dating back to 1811.
[url=http://www.snipeandpurple.co.uk/images/flies/Cowdung-Fly.jpg:e8c1f]http://www.snipeandpurple.co.uk/images/flies/Cowdung-Fly.jpg[/url:e8c1f]
And a sample of Hidy's dressings dating back 50 years or so.
[url=http://www.flymph.com/assets/images/Flymphs1WMA11359512-0001.jpg:e8c1f]http://www.flymph.com/assets/images/Flymphs1WMA11359512-0001.jpg[/url:e8c1f]
Now apart from the fact that the Cowdung fly is tied better in the aesthetic sense. Can someone please tell me what is the difference between the two styles of flies!
They are both fished in the same manner and on similar types of rivers. So in essence they are both the same!
The original question was ?So, is any Soft Hackle/Spider/etc. considered a Flymph??
And so the answer has to be yes! My point is why are we obsessed with naming them Flymphs/Soft Hackles or whatever is the in vogue term at the moment when they are all the same !
We know that Leisenring was a student of the English fly tiers, we know also know that Vernon Hidy worked with Leisenring to write the book The Art of Tying the Wet Fly and Fishing the Flymph, the book, also focused on so-called "Soft-hackle nymphs". Hidy's book however was a revised version of Leisenring?s earlier work entitled, The Art of Tying the Wet Fly. So now know that both men were influenced by English tiers notably Skues who himself was influence by the North Country Style of tying and on occasion fished with Max Walbran from Ripon in Yorkshire a man steeped in the lore of North Country Fishing and a major contributor to Pritt.
We are only serving to confuse our fellow anglers into thinking that these new in vogue flies are the latest sure fire winner on the block when in fact they have been around for centuries but we just like to call them by different terms, and it is all these terms for the same type of fly that is leading to all the confusion.
May i also add that on the Brotherhood of The Flymph website it states that "In 1857 W.C. Stewart was one of the first to describe in detail the North Country Spiders of northern England and southern Scotland in his book The Practical Angler. Stewart was the first to fully present these pattern recipes in documented form" This is indeed wrong as James Chetham of Smedley published in 1681 his Angler's Vade Mecum in which he gives us a full list of North Country recipes and is possibly the first man to record the use of Game Hackles rather than to normal poultry hackles.And to my knowledge is the first to mention the spinning of fur bodies on another colour of silk so that it may shine through, the basis of many of todays North Country trout flies.
With regards to your comments on Theodore Gordon was it not he who taught Roy Steenrod how to tie flies ? And also Rube Cross claimed Tutelage although this is open to doubt but his flies are certainly tied in the Gordon manner.
[This message has been edited by DrRob (edited 01 October 2005).]
[This message has been edited by DrRob (edited 01 October 2005).]
Hi DrRob,
You wrote
"Here we have two instances of both a traditional North Country Pattern the ?Cowdung fly? the dressing dating back to 1811. [url=http://www.snipeandpurple.co.uk/images/flies/Cowdung-Fly.jpg:e3784]http://www.snipeandpurple.co.uk/images/flies/Cowdung-Fly.jpg[/url:e3784]
And a sample of Hidy's dressings dating back 50 years or so. [url=http://www.flymph.com/assets/images/Flymphs1WMA11359512-0001.jpg:e3784]http://www.flymph.com/assets/images/Flymphs1WMA11359512-0001.jpg[/url:e3784]
Now apart from the fact that the Cowdung fly is tied better in the aesthetic sense. Can someone please tell me what is the difference between the two styles of flies!
They are both fished in the same manner and on similar types of rivers. So in essence they are both the same!"
I would have to say that a "Cowdung" technically could not be a Flymph as it does not emerge in the water. I suppose if one was fishing in cow dung then it could be a Flymph. The Cowdung does not have a tapered body and there is no accented thorax area. As far as tied better in the aesthetic sense , I would say that your fly is tied very nice but aesthetically I like Hidy's. Hidy's flies are tied to catch fish and represent specific aquatic insects. They were obviously tied that way on purpose. Hidy was a Fine tier, whom you seem to feel is beneath your self proclaimed talent.Talk about self promotion.
You wrote:
"The original question was ?So, is any Soft Hackle/Spider/etc. considered a Flymph??
And so the answer has to be yes! My point is why are we obsessed with naming them Flymphs/Soft Hackles or whatever is the in vogue term at the moment when they are all the same !"
This is ,of course, true. Spiders, north country flies,soft hackles, hackles....can all be Flymphs . This was never really ever in doubt. The point is the term "Flymph" describes a specific stage in a aquatic insects life , what is now called an emerger. The reason for this name was to make people aware of this stage of an insects life.....not to steal any thunder from the north country....the revised version of "The Art of the Wet Fly" has many quotes from different authors used by Hidy to back up his theories. He was not trying to confuse anyone only to illuminate knowledge. You have to remember "Hackles" as well as Short hackled nymphs were relatively unknown to the average American fly fisherman at the time Leisenring told the book to Hidy, in 1941.
You wrote
"We know that Leisenring was a student of the English fly tiers, we know also know that Vernon Hidy worked with Leisenring to write the book The Art of Tying the Wet Fly and Fishing the Flymph, the book, also focused on so-called "Soft-hackle nymphs". Hidy's book however was a revised version of Leisenring?s earlier work entitled, The Art of Tying the Wet Fly. So now know that both men were influenced by English tiers notably Skues who himself was influence by the North Country Style of tying and on occasion fished with Max Walbran from Ripon in Yorkshire a man steeped in the lore of North Country Fishing and a major contributor to Pritt."
It is not a secret that Leisenring and later Hidy as well, both corresponded with Skues. Remember Skues held Leisenring in high esteem. He even presented the Anglers Club with a framed set of Leisenring's flies. Skues must have thought that there was something special about Leisenring's flies to do so.
You wrote
"We are only serving to confuse our fellow anglers into thinking that these new in vogue flies are the latest sure fire winner on the block when in fact they have been around for centuries but we just like to call them by different terms, and it is all these terms for the same type of fly that is leading to all the confusion."
I don't see it that way. I think that it opens anglers eyes by making them aware of something that you can't buy in a fly shop, except of course for the standard Partridge & (insert color). There is a whole new world to explore.
You wrote
"May I also add that on the Brotherhood of The Flymph web site it states that "In 1857 W. C. Stewart was one of the first to describe in detail the North Country Spiders of northern England and southern Scotland in his book The Practical Angler. Stewart was the first to fully present these pattern recipes in documented form" This is indeed wrong as James Chetham of Smedley published in 1681 his Angler's Vade Mecum in which he gives us a full list of North Country recipes and is possibly the first man to record the use of Game Hackles rather than to normal poultry hackles.And to my knowledge is the first to mention the spinning of fur bodies on another colour of silk so that it may shine through, the basis of many of todays North Country trout flies."
I'm somewhat familiar with Chetham's work. If my memory serves me right weren't most of his flies winged? Did he state what technique he used to spin the bodies? If so what was it? The silk shining through is not in question only the technique used to get the results.
You wrote
"With regards to your comments on Theodore Gordon was it not he who taught Roy Steenrod how to tie flies ? And also Rube Cross claimed Tutelage although this is open to doubt but his flies are certainly tied in the Gordon manner."
Yes it is true that Gordon taught Steenrod how to tie. And yes Cross claimed the same. But, no, they did not tie in the same manner . I have studied some of Gordons ties , very Halfordian. Most claim that Cross started the Catskill style dry,some say Steenrod, but all indications point to Cross.
One final note . The IBF was started as a Celebration of Leisenring and Hidy's contribution to the sport. This is only natural, being that it started in the USA.We wanted to rejuvenate the work that Pete Hidy started. It is not however limited to those two but to ALL, for lack of a better universal term, Soft hackle as well as traditional wet fly fans. Our Europe branch is called North Country Spiders.
Best Regards,
Jim
With regards to the Cowdung fly being tied better in the aesthetic sense, I?m sorry what I really meant was presented in the better aesthetic sense, as the Cowdung is new and photographed in the vice where as the Flymphs are presented on a card and look to have been used. There was no intended slight on my part towards Mr Hidy?s tying skills.
You go one to say that that the Cowdung can not be regarded as a Flymph as it does not have a tapered body and an accented thorax area. Later on however you go on to say that, quote? Spiders, North Country flies, soft hackles, hackles....can all be Flymphs this was never really ever in doubt. The point is the term "Flymph" describes a specific stage in a aquatic insect?s life,? what is now called an emerger?. Now if your definition of a Flymph is to be taken as a reference point none of the Traditional North Country Flies/Spider/Soft Hackles (or whatever we care to call them) can not be thought of as Flymphs as they don?t have either a tapering body style or a accentuated thorax area, (many of the Thorax dressings are later newer creations) So are we both wrong? If this is so, your photo of Hidy?s Iron Blue Dun can not be then be called a Flymph in the tying sense as it doesn?t have a tapered body. [url=http://www.flymph.com/assets/images/100_2313.jpg:4354d]http://www.flymph.com/assets/images/100_2313.jpg[/url:4354d]
So are we left with the Flymph being solely Hidy?s term for a ascending nymph?
With regards to Chetham?s work Vade Mecum his flies weren?t all winged, while the book lists many Winged flies there are a few North Country style flies as we?d know them, this is a common mistake as he uses the term Wing as various northern anglers do to mean both wings and legs, he is in fact on a couple of times referring to what we would know as a traditional North Country hackle these were later taken on and developed by John Swarbrick ? list of Wharfedale Flies (1807) and John Jackson ? The Practical Fly-Fisher (1854) but to name a few.
With mention to Leisenring's method of dubbing I haven?t yet found any mention of his method in any British book the closest I have come is Skues method, but this in all truth is very different from Leisenring?s but you can see the how the two minds are working towards the same ends. Interestingly I have tried Leisenring?s method but seem to have a problem regarding the waxing of the thread as I seem not to be able to get the purchase with out using weight of some sort to pull down to thread, I believe Leisenring tied his flies without using bobbins of any sort so it would be interesting to know what wax he used.
As for the question about the starting point for Catskill flies I will bow to your knowledge of American flies, for as I myself am a Scot and not an American I would sincerely expect you to have a better knowledge on your native patterns than I although I am still suspicious about Ruben Cross.
In respect to the IBF I applaud your intention to celebrate the works of Leisenring and Hidy's and their contribution to the sport. Maybe it?s my ever advancing age but when ever is see a Flymph I always have the urge to say Spider! Does this mean I?m blackballed from the Brotherhood of the Flymph?
Rob,
No doubt Jim will chime in later, but I think I can safely address your final paragraph and chapter:
Jim already referenced that the European component of the IBF, of which I am a proponent, generally use the Spider word. Vocal parties interested in signing up for the IBF are most welcome, and I have added you to the IBF list today.Quote:
In respect to the IBF I applaud your intention to celebrate the works of Leisenring and Hidy's and their contribution to the sport. Maybe it?s my ever advancing age but when ever is see a Flymph I always have the urge to say Spider! Does this mean I?m blackballed from the Brotherhood of the Flymph?
Cheers,
Hans W
------------------
=== You have a friend in Low Places ===
http://www.danica.com/flytier
Hi DrRob,
The picture of the Hidy fliies were taken stiil in the wet fly wallet. My mentioning of a tapered body and accented thorax area pertained to my percieved differences between the Cowdung and the Hidy flies.
Again Hidy uses the term Flymph to describe the emerging insect as well as the decendinding egg laying insect. His research found that spun dubbed bodies best replicate this , as stated in the open letter to the ISOFF .
I'm sure his intention was not to limit imitation to just spun dubbed flies , as many of the flies he used were not dubbed.
While Hidy's Iron Blue Dun doen't have the usual tapered body , it has a pronounced thorax area. This was one of Liesenrings favorite "very old patterns" that he loved to use.
Thank you for the clarification about Chetham's work. This is a area that is very cloudy and relatively unknown in the USA. I appreciate your knowledge of history and willingness to share it. Perhaps you would like to enlighten the IBF in this area, I'm sure that our members would appreciate it.
The wax Leisenring used was from a receipe from J. Harrington Keene, an English author I do believe. You are correct , Leisenring did not use a boobin , he preferred to secure the thread with a pin to his tying bench. Email me your address and I will send you some of the wax. Superior adhesive qualities compared to what is available on the general market. It is very dry.
Of course you are not Blackballed from the IBF. Exchanging knowledge can sometimes lead to arguments, differences in opinion, but we never will gain anything from them if we have deaf ears and a closed mind.
Looking forward to your email.
Take care,
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:e2270]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:e2270] <A HREF="http://www.flymph.com
" TARGET=_blank>www.flymph.com
</A>
Jim, RW here,
Hidy did not coin the word "flymph", by his own admission, until 1963. And that seems about right. I have a little known paperback book by Vernon Hidy that he wrote with the editors of Sports Illustrated magazine back in 1960 called "Fly Fishing", and there is not one mention of the word flymph in it. That was 3 years before Hidy himself started using the term flymph, and it wasn't until the reprint by Crown Publishers in 1971, 30 years after the original "The Art of Tying the Wet Fly", by James Leisenring, was published. I started fly fishing in the 1950's and never even heard of the flymph until I became totally engrossed in the history of fly fishing as I got older.
It appears that Hidy was trying to borrow on Leisenring's own fame by saying that his wet flies were a new kind of fly called "flymphs" and putting that description of wets into the American fly fishers psyche, and at the same time giving himself a place in history.
But we all know that flies of that ilk were being tied and used by fly fishers both here and abroad for centuries before Hidy tried to promote the concept of the soft hackle emerger.
Even Ernest Schwiebert, in his introduction to the 1971 reprint of The Art of Tying the Wet Fly & Fishing the Flymph, didn't once mention the flymph by name, or give Hidy credit for it, even though he gave credit to Hidy for being one of Leisenring's most well known disciples, and even when Hidy had been promoting the Flymph for the 8 years prior.
The word just didn't catch on with fly fishers, except in the mind of Hidy, and most of the posters on this thread are absolutely right when they say that the wetfly/nymph/soft hackles go back way to far (centuries) in history to have been created by one man in the 60's.
It was Leisenring that is considered the "Father of American wet flies, and Skues that was considered the modern Father of the English tradition of wet flies. Same as Halford and Gordon were to dry flies.
I believe that Hidy just tried to ride the coat tails of Leisenring into some kind of new expression on the American fly fishing scene and his own place in history. He didn't succeed, except for the 3 chapters in the Crown reprint. The word "flymph" never caught on in the lexicon of American fly fishing.
Just my two cents..good as anyone's I suppose.
Later, RW
------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-
[This message has been edited by Royal Wulff (edited 02 October 2005).]
Hi RW,
I also have the 1961 wet fly book that Hidy wrote for S.I. it was culled from the 3 part series of articles Hidy wrote fo the S.I. magazine that same year, if memory serves me right. I also have a newer reprint of the same book 1969? I'm not sure. That's where there may be a reference to the word Flymph. As it was the last of that whole reprinted series of articles this could have led to my date error.I extrapolated that he coined the term in the 50's as he was certainly thinking about emergers and a way to find a name that would HELP other anglers to be aware of this stage of insect life.
I do find it puzzling that I seem to have to keep defending Pete Hidy. Without Hidy there would be no Leisenring legacy, as he was the main instigator and CO-AUTHOR of the original 1941 book and Leisenring's protege'. Leisenring told the book to Hidy .Hidy created the book.
Ptet Hidy was a man who gave more to the sport than he ever recieved back , as evedence with your slight of him. He was NOT riding Leisenring's coat tails to fame, merely providing information to enlighten us all by sharing the knowledge that Leisenring gave him and furthering Leisenring's ideas on Fly Fishing, while adding his own KEEN observations.You have done Pete Hidy a disservice that is unwarranted .
Again, the word flymph was coined to name ,mostly, the transformation from Nymph to dun and the flies that that best replicated this , specifically Leisenrings adaptation of the wingless wet to this phenomenon.THe Emerger , as you well know, was little known at the time and most certainly little understood at the time.Hidy was trying to illuminate KNOWLEDGE not himself.
Jim
Jim, RW again,
Leisering died in 1951, ten years after the original book came out. If you notice, the flies in that book are all Leisenrings. And the "Leisenring lift" was the name that future writers, maybe even Hidy, gave to Big Jim's method of fishing his wets as emergers.
I know that Hidy instigated, even prodded, Leisenring to write the book, and probably almost ghost wrote it for him, but I also think that Hidy really wanted to give himself a place in history, and parlayed the fact of their friendship and those three last chapters he wrote into something that he could be remembered by. That's not a slight, just actual history the way I see it. Nothing against Hidy here. The flies were Leisenrings, and he certainly isn't the one that called them flymphs. Hidy merely wanted the credit for naming them. Much the same as Swisher & Richards will always be remembered for their no-hackles, which did catch on, Hidy's coinage of the word "flymph" didn't. But in the end they were still Leisenring's flies and the methods he fished them were his, and certainly there were flies like them down through history both here and abroad.
Hidy's attempt at making himself more of Leisenring's legacy than he was by calling Leisenring's flies "flymphs" just didn't work out the way he wanted it too. I could be wrong but it's just the way I see it. You're the one that said all opinions are welcome.
P.S. Dr. Rob, "The republished book by Crown in 1971, "The Art of Tying the Wet Fly", was not a revised version of the original. It was the original. The only difference was the last three chapters added to the 1941 book, that Hidy wrote promoting the Flymph.
Also I might add, Hidy named the first of his three chapters "The Flymph Phenomenon". What phenomenon? I've been fly fishing for 50 years and never heard that terminology used until I became interested in the historical aspect of fly fishing. No fly fisher I ever knew or was aquainted with or any fly shop I ever visited used that terminology.
RW
------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-
RW,
Heres a quote from T.Donald Overfield"s 1971 book " Famous Flies and Their Originators" :
" Hidy has proved to be a worthy successor to his mentor, the old Pennslyvanian German, James Leisenring, and has done much to instil within the American angler the need for thought and reasoning in fly-dressing that will make him a true fly-fisher rather than just a catcher of fish"
Also : " All of Leisenrings expertise may well have been lost to the angling world if ......a young angler called Vernon S. Hidy had not come across "Big Jim" and quickly realised that the Pennslyvania angler had a fund of knowledge that deserved to be recorded for future generations of fly fishers and fly tyers. The outcome of their meeting was a book published in 1941 the Art of Tying the Wet Fly under joint authorship of Hidy and Leisenring....."
Hidy and Leisenring were forever intertwined in history with the first edition.
My perspective of Hidy is that of a angler wishing to share knowledge with other anglers and furthering Leisenring's example in fly tying and fishing.
The term Flymph was the word he used to describe a emerger, and yes it never really caught on.Was he trying to capitalize on Leisenrings name ? I don't think so.
The 1971 edition is a revised version of the 1941 edition. New pictures and some slight changes to the text.
The Flymph Phenomenon is obviously a reference to the change from a nymph to the dun. You as a writer, should understand that you need a catchy title to capture a readers attention.
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:b9fa0]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:b9fa0] [url=http://www.flymph.com:b9fa0]www.flymph.com[/url:b9fa0]
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 02 October 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 02 October 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Jim Slattery (edited 02 October 2005).]
I personally think that for the Flymph to have any relevance in the tying sense rather than the fishing sense it has to be a completely separate entity to the North Country Patterns or Skues style patterns. The fact that Leisenring dubbed his silk differently to anybody else doesn?t matter as we all have our little foibles when it comes to dressing flies.
With regard to Leisenring?s/Hidy?s proposal that these flies were tied to imitate the ascending bug in that halfway stage between nymph and adult and the method Leisenring use to fish these patterns i.e. The Leisenring Lift I have no problem with as the technique is starkly different to the methods of Skues, Sawyer and Kite here in the UK.
I'm beginning to think i should hve kept my big mouth shut and given this subject a wide berth
Jim, RW again
The "flymph" is still just an "emerger", which is the name that stuck, is still used today and is the stage of fly that is recognized by practically every fly fisher that is alive today. Most likely it is because "flymph" is silly sounding and "emerger" is a truer sounding terminology.
Also the word emerger is in Websters with a direct meaning, i.e. emerger: "To rise from or as from an eveloping fluid; to come out into view".
Flymph isn't even in the dictionary.
To put it plainly and in today's vernacular, flymph just didn't cut it with fly fishers. Emerger did, because it is what it is, direct and to the point.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Hidy as a writer or fisherman or friend or anything of the sort, but I think he was being rather gimmicky, if you ask me, in trying to lump a group of wet flies under one silly name like flymph, which quite obviously is just a combination of the words fly and nymph.
And yes, I do think he was trying to capitalize on Leisenring's legacy because he didn't want to be "just" the ghost writer of his book, but wanted to insert a name into the lexicon of American fly fishing that would be used for generations and that he would be remembered by.
I mean, c'mon. He helped Leisenring write the book, and then wrote three more chapters to explain the book? That's like a person telling you something, and then immediately saying "in other words" and telling you the same thing over again another way.
He wrote those last three chapters to promote the word "flymph", pure and simple.
And the fly fishing world didn't buy it.
You can't change my mind, and I probably can't change yours, but why would we want to. This way it makes for interesting conversation and different points of view.
Later, RW
------------------
"We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-
[This message has been edited by Royal Wulff (edited 03 October 2005).]
This just seems like old guys trying to show their superior knowledge when they are doing exactly the opposite.
Check that (this is tongue in cheek) fly by night outfit Umpqua Feather Merchants web site. Search on "nemes" and see if anything shows up.
Then write them a long letter explaining their complete ignorance, and your superiority, and how they should classify flies.
------------------
- rriver
I'm just glad this subject is restricted to one thread unlike some other forums I could mention.
What I meant by my reply really, is a person who is trying to learn the sport and educate themselves would by recent literature be pointed to Nemes, who would then point back back 200 or 300 years.
At this point, you would think everyone would be in a agreement.
This is one of the things wrong with flyfishing- eating their young.
------------------
- rriver
rriver.
I would have to agree with you. This IS all getting rather tedious. Not to belabor the point. My initial goal was to find out more about Pete Hidy's work on the subject of Flymphs. During my investigations I found out he formed a club about Flymphs in the 70's. I was posting hoping to find out if someone knew anything about it and if anyone would be interested in resurrecting it if it was defunct. There are now over 100 members to this new club. A total but pleasant surprise.
It seems that the term Flymph has raised more than a few hackles, mostly by misunderstanding what Hidy was attempting to do, perhaps if he used the term emerger instead of merging fly with nymph their might be less confusion. He could have called them "wingless hackled emergers" or perhaps "hackle emergers" he chose flymph.
Nemes is a good starting point for beginning anglers who are interested in this style fly.
Leisenring and in turn Hidy, and I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, offer a more complete system, although in some ways dated.
These flies have never been available through mass catalog /suppliers. The simple reason is that they are time consuming to tie, and lets face it when you look at them they certainly don't look like anything special ,let alone work.
As far as eating the young,I'm not sure how exchanging information and possibly clearing up some misunderstandings fits into this equation.
Send me a email with your address and I'll send you some Flymphs. You can judge their effectiveness for yourself.
Rw,
I can understand where you are coming from about writers wanting to make a name for themselves . It seems inherent to the profession, I just don't think it was Hidy's driving motivation. There is a lot of great ,useful information in what Hidy had written after his work with Leisenring.
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:ed0d7]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:ed0d7] [url=http://www.flymph.com:ed0d7]www.flymph.com[/url:ed0d7]
Jim
Your goal is worthy...and it's fun. :-)
I'm with you SLW... Jim, ya done good bringing this up. I knew nary a thing about the Flymph 'til now.
My concern is, how can there be a brotherhood with all the division on the subject? Who's side is the brotherhood on? Hidy's and Leisenring's, I'm sure.
------------------
There's almost nothin' wrong with the first lie, it's the weight of all the others holdin' it up that gets ya'! - Tim
MOturkE
The brotherhood is found in the fun, not the contention. :-)
Amen Castwell Amen
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:892e9]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:892e9] [url=http://www.flymph.com:892e9]www.flymph.com[/url:892e9]
JC, those kind of posts make this site the pleasure it is ...
------------------
- rriver
Castwell's post was the first real fun I've had with this topic.
Eric
Myself, I learned many new things:
I did not know this book existed, or that
Leisenring had any connection to flymphs. I only heard about him in passing, reading Borger:
The Art of Tying the Wet Fly & Fishing the Flymph" By Leisenring
Hidy is another new name. I have a good fly library, but it is weighted to Spey and Irish flies.
I appreciated the education.
------------------
- rriver
Hi All,
Just wanted to inform of another "Celebrity" membership. This one is a little closer to the FOAL board and he was a friend of Pete Hidy's. None other than than the esteemed Al Beaty.
Al, does this mean that Gretchen is a member as well?
Jim
------------------
[url=http://www.Jimsflyco.com:83fcd]www.Jimsflyco.com[/url:83fcd] [url=http://www.flymph.com:83fcd]www.flymph.com[/url:83fcd]