Why not any good?

Ran across this old fly-photo slide recently.
I spent quite a bit of time developing this fly back in the early 1990s.
It has black panty hose wing cases and Tandy boot lacing for the abdomen.
Black rubberlegs and a bit of hackle.

I liked the way it looked and had high hopes for this fly.
But it never did catch many fish. It's interesting how you never really know what will and what won't work. Until you try it:
http://montana-riverboats.com/Uploads/blackstone.jpg

Bob Jacklin has a similar fly, about which he has a similar story. He still ties it a tying shows because the audience always likes it. But he'll be the first one to tell you it isn't his best stonefly nymph:
http://montana-riverboats.com/fragme...-Fly-Nymph.jpg

I know that road all too well myself. I won't pretend to speak for anybody but myself...but i've found over the years, far more success with impressionistic patterns when it came to trout numbers. The impression of legs....the impression of segmentation....the impression of an emerger....the impression of a trailing shuck....etc. The closer I tied towards realism, the lower the catch rate. Countless patterns went by the wayside before I finally caught on. I'm a little slow sometimes. :)

NJTroutbum, I think that's true with most patterns. It seems like the more realistic the fly is, like the less effective it is. It could be that the fish recognize the fly for what it is intended to be and find the minor (to us) flaws which cause them to be cautious. I find that flies that present a general impression of a type of insect (or baitfish for that matter) are more effective because they present the general shape and color of a group of food sources so the fish arn't looking for specific attributes that trigger a strike. That is of course just a guess based on my experience of taking the time and effort of tying up realistic flies and not catching much with them.

Jim Smith
Conyers, GA

May be it's a case as the old saying goes "if it looks to good to be true, may be it isn't". It's a great looking fly. Sure caught my attention.

I think its fair to say that NOBODY wants to EAT pantyhose. :D
All joking aside, those patterns both LOOK good! ...and I have nothing constructive to add.

Might it have something to do with the impression of movement? a real fly does not remain static in the water, even if dead the current could be moving its tail or fluttering its wings.

Blur gives the impression of movement while clarity is static.

I used to compete in Bird carving competitions for many years. The rule there was always KISS- Keep it Simple, Stupid! The more complicated you made the carving, the more the judges had to criticize!
To paraphrase, "The more complicated you make the FLY, the more the FISH have to criticize"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Might it have something to do with the impression of movement? a real fly does not remain static in the water, even if dead the current could be moving its tail or fluttering its wings.

Blur gives the impression of movement while clarity is static.

---

That seems very likely to me. That's a very good point indeed.

I had high hopes for a similar tie.

Thing looked really good.

Trout wouldn't touch it.

What seems odd, though, is that the one the trout would not eat was a stonefly nymph. A very similar tie, but a mayfly imitation, has done quite well for me.

We'll likely never know the mind of a trout.

Buddy

After tying for 30 years, I too have to agree with this. Makes no sence what so ever.

I do not believe I have ever tied anything that look too realistic. I do have several photo finished crank baits in my tackle box which I have caught very few if any fish on. One in particular I have disappointed with was an early version top water Rattletrap. It is in a bluegill finish, looks almost as good as if they had glued the side of a small fish to the plastic body. I loved fishing Rattletraps, anyone can catch fish with them, who doesn't like top water baits. I have wondered if they did not do too good of a job of replicating the natural camoflague nature baits have. Just a thought.

Attachment 10041
We may never know what a fish truely thinks of our creations , but we can learn thru trial an error what works ,when and where we fish. I fished a realistic pattern of a grass shrimp made of clear monofilament that almost completely disapeared ( to my eyes) in the water. It even works well for me in stained water . I can't tell you what about the pattern the fish like or what aspect of it they are keying in on . But it works.
Don't condem a pattern because it looks like the insect it is supose to mimic. Look in a bass fishing lure catalog and you'll see they are not filled with red and white top water plugs of old . They are filled with the most realistic paint jobs , holographic images and etc. All done to give the fisherman an edge when targeting highly pressured fish. Sure the old red and white plug will still work today , but what will you try on the day it dosen't.

Fred

That Jacklin fly looks like one of his bicycle tire tube flies. Maybe the fishies didn't want to get taken for a ride ??

Seriously, I wonder if the rubber retains an odor that might be off putting to the trouts.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Seriously, I wonder if the rubber retains an odor that might be off putting to the trouts.

John

---

Was wondering the same thing....

My best guess would be that the lack of absorbing materials in the fly would inhibit its' natural appeal: Like the real insect, subsurface flies need to be able to aborb some water in order to trap air bubbles. This gives a more natural sheen and imitates the gasses trapped betwixt the inner adult body and its exoskeleton that it is ready to 'shuck' off. Yarns, and dubbed bodies seem to do a better job of this than solid materials like rubber or vinal.

Certainly both are some good assessments as to possible reasons why the pattern would not work. Odor is a very good reason (especially if the Panty Hose were used...uhhhhhhh....soooo to speak.......or....errrrrrrr...I won't even think about the aspect of used latex lol) . Before you go to saying that all fishable realistic patterns do not catch fish (which is a very wrong conclusion), go back and consider first of all the materials used in your fishable realistic pattern; how these materials act in the water as to contributing to realistic movement or action, Color/Light/UV refraction (effect), Odor of that material, etc. What about Strike Triggers for your Fishable Realistic Pattern (what about a certain Realistic makes that Fish want to atttack ???); Legs, Eyes, Gills on Nymphs and Larva.........all these little nuances that tell that fish (even though it is an artificial) that this is juicy or even sets off the Alpha pradator Psychi in that fish. Now, lets say you now have tied that killer pattern. It now comes down to how you present your offering before the fish (even though Charlie Meck in writing about my Hydro-Psycho Caddis Larva in February's edition of Mid-Atlantic Fly Fishing Guide worked in the hardest of fishing conditions, I am sure that if this pattern had been presented poorly before all those Trout, even a skilled Pro would have been skunked). Are you getting it in that fish's strike zone ? Are you presenting that pattern in such a way that utilizes that patterns properties giving it proper action before the targeted fish ??? There are a lot of variables that should be considered. Bob Jacklin is a great Fly Fisherman, and tyer, but still could come up with a pattern that fails (but that does not mean that all fishable realistics suck), or is capable of presenting a fantastic pattern in the wrong way and getting a whiff of skunk (let's say a friend of Bob's is by him and says, "Hey Bob, you are fishing this pattern all wrong....have it rigged up all wrong....or whatever". The friend shows Bob how to fish this "killer pattern......and Bada Bing..Bada Boom,,,,,,,,,,what do ya know.......it is a killer pattern.......the whiff of skunk goes away, and what was a lousy fishing trip is a magical success). It happens in a certain water we may not know how to fish, or what patterns that may work in that certain water, certain conditions, or a place where the fish have seen it all and you have to constantly show that fish something new.........soooooooooo many factors. Even the best tyers and Fly Fishermen (& women & Kids) are always learning something new (or they should be); that is what I like so much about Fly Fishing and Fly Tying (after all these years and I am reaching the Old ****/AARP sending me spam years, and still learn something new on the waters I fish or at the tying vise).