Anybody know if these are the same size and shape? I know they differ in other ways.
Thanks,
Steven
Printable View
Anybody know if these are the same size and shape? I know they differ in other ways.
Thanks,
Steven
yes they are the same. It is the "STANDARD" hook which Mustad used to base their designation system on. If they're not EXACTLY the same size/shape they are so close as to not matter.
Thanks. I appreciate the input.
I've been reading Mike Valla's book. It's kind of inspired me.
His proportions are based on the 94840 rather than the TMC 100.
Funny, I grew up tying dries on the 94840. Not sure what else was available back then......................
According to Valla, prior to WWII, the hook of choice was the Allcock brand from England. Valla never goes into why that brand disappeared - my guess would be steel rationing. Mustad was considered inferior by the Dettes.
I haven't used Mustafd hooks for many years
My local fly shop "back in the day" only carried Mustad. It was decades before the Internet. No real alternative.
I don't personally know of any tiers today who use Mustads. I'm sure some/many do, but none who I know
The Dettes, Darbees, Christian, Steenrod et al. used wings and tails as long as the entire hooks and hackles 2x the hook gap.
I do wonder if the "accepted" proportions changed to 1x the hook shank for wings and tails and 1.5x the hook gap for hackle because of the introduction of the TMC 100 and similar sized hooks (Dai-ichi, Orvis), which had longer shanks than the 94840.
You are so right. Mustad produces an inferior hook. It's too heavy, too short in the shank, too long in the point and barb, too wide in the gape, the eyes are frquently unfinished, the steel is too brittle and the hooks break too easily, the hooks are way too dull and need sharpening right out of the box, and lastly they are over-priced! Mustad hooks are so bad that it's amazing that any trout are actually caught on a fly tyed on a Mustad hook. Thank goodness for the new chemically treated hooks that are proportionately correct, lightweight, bend without breaking, are so sharp that you won't know you're hooked until you wonder where your cast went.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron haugh
Now before any of you get upset, this is all written tongue 'n cheek. The idea that Mustad trout hooks are inferior in any way to the comparative hooks by other manufacturers is a joke.
Not sure where the Dettes opined that Mustad hooks were inferior. Inferior to what and when, if it was actually said, did they offer that opinion?
Allan
No, those proportions were around long before TMC. I think they are close to the suggested proportions in J. Edson Leonard's book, or maybe another book from the same period. I don't know the origin of them though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven
1) Inferior to the Allcock hooks that the Dettes had used previously. I kind of thought this was clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
2) Soon after the war. When I go back home, I'll try to look up the date of the letter that Valla reproduced.
3) This was based on complaints that they had received by customers.
In its reply, Mustad basically opined that the Dettes' customers were a few cards short of a full deck and refused to take back the couple of thousand hooks Walt wanted to return.
Jay,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayatwork
Thanks. So no idea what the thinking was behind it?
I use Mustads almost exclusively and search Ebay for what I want, I also trade for Mustads. Allcocks were made until the Germans bomb the plant, it never went back into business.
Mary Dette Clark and her grandson still use Mustads today.
I have 3 of Mary's flies. Is she still tying?
Here's Mary's flies from Hans site. All labeled Mustads. http://www.danica.com/flytier/mdette/mdette.htm Maybe he got it totally wrong ;)
yes, almost everyday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron haugh
Well, that may have been true at that time(say 1940s) but that was quite awhile ago. I'm kinda guessing that since the late 40's Mustad has not been inferior to any manufacturer. In fact, I believe the Dettes have been using Mustads almost exclusively since about that time. About 10 years ago I did a field test that was viewed by several excellent tyers and a few who many would consider 'experts'. I was testing the strength of 3 manufacturers' hooks (same size, and all rated as dry fly 1xf wire), how quickly each hook would bend or break under the same pressure. Low and behold the Mustad proved stronger and was the last one to bend. One manufacturers' hooks straightened completely and the other company's hook broke. Mustad wasbent somewhat but not nearly straight. Performed the same test several times with almost the same outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven
Allan
I doubt it Mark. I know Hans and have flies there too. He is very careful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Vendon
Mary may still use them, but I still doubt that a very big percentage of tiers today use Mustad hooks. I see where she now uses a Dyna KIng vise............
Personally, I use all brands of hooks. I have only had a couple occasions of a hook being broken (on rocks) or bent (on rocks) over many years of fishing.
I have read this thread with interest. I'm not a "professional" fly tier but, I tie flies almost every day. I prefer Mustad hooks. I have used TMC, Allen, Gomatsu (sic), Diachi (sic) and some others. When I can determine the Mustad alternative I'll try to get the Mustads. They have a hook conversion chart that has been referenced on this site a few times. The R50 is the equivalent of the TMC 100 and is the same as the old nomenclature.
I didn't mean to suggest that there was a problem today (in fact, I'm pretty sure I didn't). As for the history, it was 1950 and the letter was to the supplier, H.J. Knoll. Dette cited customer complaints about brittleness. He also had his own complaint about the hook eyes not being closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
H.J. Knoll wrote back saying it had had more complaints regarding the Allcocks it used to supply.
The other interesting thing to me was the Dette gauge (I have a copy that I printed off this site), was based on the Allcock. The 94840 was sized differently. With the Allcock, a size 12 fly took a size 12 hackle. With the 94840, a size 12 fly took a size 10 hackle.
Mustad fly hooks are as good or better quality than anything else out there, and usually not as expensive. This discussion gets reheated periodically on here and other fora. I've only been tying for a little more than 30 years, so I don't have the wealth of experience that some of you do. However, when I was able to scrape together money for REAL fly hooks early on, they were all Mustads, what are referred to as the "Classic" series today. Anyone have any idea how many billions of fish were caught on these horrible, totally inferior hooks before the modern jewelry boutique style hooks of today? Byron, are you joking that you don't know ANYONE who ties on Mustads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven
Well, I was wrong about Leonard. His proportions have the longer tail etc. But I do remember seeing the shorter proportions in a chart in one of the few references I had available in 1978, and none were new at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayatwork
Different people have different ideas about what they like in a fly hook. When I started tying, Mustad was about all I could find. When TMC came onto the scene, they were sharper had much smaller barbs and better formed eyes. I was happy to pay extra for them. Mustad forged dry fly hooks also had very flattened wire in the bend area, which didn't work well with the vise I was using at that time.
What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, Mustad R50 vs 94840
jszymczyk
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/i...er-offline.png:
Mustad fly hooks are as good or better quality than anything else out there, and usually not as expensive. This discussion gets reheated periodically on here and other fora. I've only been tying for a little more than 30 years, so I don't have the wealth of experience that some of you do. However, when I was able to scrape together money for REAL fly hooks early on, they were all Mustads, what are referred to as the "Classic" series today. Anyone have any idea how many billions of fish were caught on these horrible, totally inferior hooks before the modern jewelry boutique style hooks of today? Byron, are you joking that you don't know ANYONE who ties on Mustads?
no. Most tiers I know either use TMC, Daichi, Dairiki (sp?) or (I can never spell this - Gamatksu which, by the way I really like).
Steven,Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven
Here's a comparison of a size 12 Mustad 94840, to a couple of size 12 Allcock Model Perfect W173's. The Mustad is the upper right one, and I stuck two Allcock's by it so you could compare the shank and gape size. You can see that it's really pretty close on the gape.
Regards,
Mark
http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/o...ndon/004-6.jpg
i've never used anything but Mustad in 50 years of fly tying, although I always used 94833 fine wire instead of 94840 for my dry flies. I don't even know what the equivalent is in their new series because I acquired enough 94833's to last through two lifetimes.
RW
90% of my tying is on Mustad hooks. Over the years I have substituted many of them with Orvis hooks (which appear to be Daichi?) since the closest shop to me is an orvis shop. However, I in no way consider Mustad to be inferior & I much prefer the shank length on the 94840 over the rest.
Huh, so the Mustad is actually shorter for the same hook size?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Vendon
Hi Steven,Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven
For that size it is, for others it's a little different. Here's another pic where the Allcocks are on the left, and Mustad 94840's are to the right. I don't have a 94840 size 10 Mustad, or it would have been in the pic. They go from size 10 to 20. The paper helps a bit to see the size comparison. The Mustads are pretty much late 90's/early 2000's stock when they were in 100 count packs. Besides the smaller sizes, they're still pretty close.
Regards,
Mark
http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/o...ndon/003-7.jpg
This begs the question: Why did Walt Dette think it appropriate to upsize the hackle for a Mustad if they were shorter than the Allcock?
Steven,
I don't know if this answers your question and certainly won't even hazzard a guess as to the Dette's reasoning. I will say that in all the readings where there's talk about hackle sizing, it's based on the relationship of the hackle length to the size of the 'gape', not the length of the hook.
Also, WOW! A few of the eyes on the Allcocks are really bent at a severe angle.
Allan
Mark's picture is very much my experience with boxes of 94840s I've purchased between 1981 and 2007. Size 12 would be short in the shank compared to size 14, with both being very similar in length. Same story with sizes 16 & 18. The "proportionally correct" Signature series (e.g., R50) addresses the inconsistent hook:shank ratios across the size spectrum.
In my own use, I commonly use size 14 & 16 hooks, and the 94840 in these sizes have proportions that work well for me. While the bulk of my selection is of "superior" hooks, these have been more than up to the task more often than not. For me, they're a highly functional and less costly hook for knocking about on small waters. (In my experience) the barbs smash easily, the points sharpen readily, they're reasonably strong in these sizes, and they don't break if they tap a rock on the cast. My biggest issue with them is the corrosion-prone finish. Ah well, I can't say I'm more of an angler than the 94840 is a hook.
I started using Mustads in the early or mid 70's. I still have thousands of them and I still use them. I have found that they are generally among the more modestly priced hooks. I have not seen the brittleness problem on any Mustads that I have bought since the late 70's or early 80's. If anything I think they are less hard and brittle than some other brands. I AM tired of having to sharpen the hooks fresh out of the box. That tedium is moving me away from Mustads and to TMC hooks. If Mustad hooks were sharper and I could get the barbless hooks I want from them, I would be back in the fold.
Regards,
Ed, who feels as reheated as this thread.
;)