Fly tying in style

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

Donald's post on the Tummel style of fly got me thinking about how different "styles" of flies have emerged. There's not just "hackled" and "winged" wet flies, but the wingless divide into "spiders", "flymphs", and "wingless palmered" flies (which might be called "bumbles"?), and winged flies give you Clyde, Tummel, "classic" (for lack of a better term), Invicta style, and so on.

So, having tied up a "Tummel style" fly, I thought I would put together a few versions of the same "fly", tied in a few different "styles".

Here is a "standard" version of a "Cow Dung":
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g142/ ... andard.jpg

And here is the "Tummel-style" version:
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g142/ ... Tummel.jpg

Tied following the pattern for an Invicta (palmered and winged), you end up with something like the following.
Unfortunately, the only hackle feather I had had fibres about 3 times longer than they should be, however, these are very soft and should produce nice action in the water all the same:
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g142/ ... nvicta.jpg


Finally, here's a "spider version":
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g142/ ... Spider.jpg

And, personally, I think all of these will easily catch fish. The spider and the invicta version would be great in riffles due to the movement in the hackles. Having read Donald's site, I realise that the Tummel-style is for getting down deep as the bare hook will cut through the water easily. And the standard pattern should produce a nice profile when twitched and teased through a slower glide section.

Most importantly, of course, is even this limited collection requires one to have at least 4 versions of each fly. And, if you want to have multiple copies on the water, that means one has lots of reasons to be at the tying bench! Enjoy!

- Jeff

[DG]

I tie my flies in "bug" style. That means they look like bugs, so that fish eat them. Beyond that, I am totally without style, and intend to stay that way.

[mr. blur]

yeah but yer stylish dude.

[Bear742]

Hi,

Please learn this trick. It will give us all a lot more continuity when we read your excellent posts. Let us know if you need any tips on how to do it.

Hi,

Donald's post on the Tummel style of fly got me thinking about how different "styles" of flies have emerged. There's not just "hackled" and "winged" wet flies, but the wingless divide into "spiders", "flymphs", and "wingless palmered" flies (which might be called "bumbles"?), and winged flies give you Clyde, Tummel, "classic" (for lack of a better term), Invicta style, and so on.

So, having tied up a "Tummel style" fly, I thought I would put together a few versions of the same "fly", tied in a few different "styles".

Here is a "standard" version of a "Cow Dung":

And here is the "Tummel-style" version:


Tied following the pattern for an Invicta (palmered and winged), you end up with something like the following.
Unfortunately, the only hackle feather I had had fibres about 3 times longer than they should be, however, these are very soft and should produce nice action in the water all the same:


Finally, here's a "spider version":

And, personally, I think all of these will easily catch fish. The spider and the invicta version would be great in riffles due to the movement in the hackles. Having read Donald's site, I realise that the Tummel-style is for getting down deep as the bare hook will cut through the water easily. And the standard pattern should produce a nice profile when twitched and teased through a slower glide section.

Most importantly, of course, is even this limited collection requires one to have at least 4 versions of each fly. And, if you want to have multiple copies on the water, that means one has lots of reasons to be at the tying bench! Enjoy!

- Jeff

Yes, all will catch fish as long as you keep them in the water.

[DG]

My apologies.

I tie my flies in "bug" style. That means they look like bugs, so that fish eat them. Beyond that, I am totally without style, and intend to stay that way.

(pic deleted because the fish were too big)

[JeffHamm]

Hi Bear,

I put links to the pictures in case anyone on a slow connection gets bogged down when there's a number of pics in the post. Not sure if makes much of a difference though? Anyway, if nobody has a problem with pics in the post, then I won't worry about it in the future. If you found that interesting, I do recommend you check out Donald's site, he has some great information there.

- Jeff

[Andy B]

With wet flies this is more to it it than that. Far as winging there is welch, Clyde, Tummel, Derbershire Tweed and a few more that I have not mentioned. The fun part of wet flies you could tell where they origin of the area or the tier is from due to the winging. Wet flies are more than just a fishing fly. They have history, Origin and of course lot's of interesting stories.


Andy B

[JeffHamm]

Hi Andy B,

Yes, the variety in styles for wet flies is huge. I should have done one up like a Cahill wet fly, and a wingless palmer would be good too. I sort of think of the following "groupings" when it comes to wets:
1) spiders (reversed spiders would fit here)
2) flymphs (a tailed spider in my mind)
3) wingless palmers (long tailed, tag tailed, or not tailed; bumbles?)
4) winged palmers (I think of this as the Invicta-style)
5) winged wets (what most people think of for "standard winged wet fly")

The Winged wets then get into styles of winging, and other proportions, such as
5.a) Cahill wets (the wings look sufficiently different on this)
5.b) Tummel wets (the overall proportions and hook use make this it's own category really) From Donald's site, I think one could group a number of UK styles into some sort of "theme" to form a category.

5.c) Peter-Ross category; This being a thoraxed profile rather than a tapered bodied shaped, but now I could be splitting hairs.

Then there's hair wings of course. And so on. There comes a point when one is no longer dividing things into "categories" but rather just dividing things because something between two flies is different. Is adding a rib to a spider sufficient to make a new category? I don't think so, but since adding a tail changes the shape, I personally think that warrents a "category change" (spider vs flymph). Not everyone has to agree with that as a criterion for a division of course; and my wondering whether or not a "Peter Ross" is a different category than a "Greenwell's Glory" because of the body profile differences means I'm not even consistent. Does a collar hackle vs a throat or beard mak

And, when it comes to the proportional changes (standard to Tummel for example), there can always be examples that are somewhere in between. Even collar vs palmered hackls gets ambiguous when you consider Stewart's spiders, with the collar hackle extended 1/2 way down the body? Is it a long collar or a short palmer? Is it a "new category"? Does it matter?

Anyway, wet flies have been around for a long time, and so it's not surprising there are so many different ways to produce them. I find them a lot of fun to fish, partly for this reason I think.

- Jeff