Do you tie known patterns or ....

[Clay]

Yes, I like to tie known patterns or patterns that have proven themselves. I also like to tie flies that take whatI consider proven proportions and techniques and make a fly that catches fish. I would never say that I invented a new fly. I bluntly believe that there is nothing new under the sun, but I have borrowed different things from different flies and come up with patterns that catch fish.

So do you always tie known patterns?

I have people ask me, with what fly did you catch those fish? I often go into a description of the fly without a name. Then they look at me like I am trying to hide something. I often just open my fly box and say - this one, as I hold up an example at which people almost demand a name. I don't name my flies because again, I believe there is nothing new under the sun.

A short story why I won't name a fly: A long time member of our local TU comes to a meeting with a envelop that his is hidding and sharing with a few folks. He says he has discovered a new fly and has created a pattern that is pretty effective. Upon looking at the fly it is a simple soft hackle that has been tied from the 1800s but he goes on to tell how he is considering getting a patten.

I don't want to get laughed at so I don't name them I just fish them.

[solowookie]

I try to tie patterns that are known, but I do deviate; the main form of deviation being I ty the fly with whatever materials rather then going out to purchase the exact ones. the fish don't seem to know the difference, but maybe thats just because I don't fish that well yet.

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I'll tie a bunch "to pattern", things like Royal Coachmans, Invictas, and will follow old patterns from the 1800s as best I can (many feathers now banned; like owl). And, I'll experiment by changing colours, but follow the basic construction technique. I've tied an Invicta using white and grizzle materials, and get a good immitation of a white moth. I call it a white Invicta.

I'll name patterns I made up (even if it turns out they are not new, they are new to me) to help me remember them. Names allow you to compact a lot of information together under one retrieval cue. They transmit a lot of information too (Royal Coachman is much easier than saying tippet tail, 3 part body of herl, red floss band, herl, white wing, brown hackle).

If someone asks, though, I'll usually show them if they are close, name it if it's a known pattern, or give a generally impression (a yellow fly with brown wings).

- Jeff

[Normand]

with all of those tying books i have, i guess i tie known patterns

i think there are new techniques that come along every now and then that make you scratch your head and think that's really cool.

[Bamboozle]

I tie generic styles and vary the colors to imitate just about everything.

About the only specific pattern I tie is a Prince Nymph.

[coughlin]

I tie known patterns and, like most, vary them for color, etc. For instance, I'll take a GRHE and add a couple of wisps of mallard along the side. I think it was John Geirach who complained that some guys add a bump to an old pattern and think they've invented the fly.
Coughlin

[JohnScott]

I definitely agree that the odds of tying something that has not been already tied by someone, somewhere are pretty slim. However, not everything that has been tied is known to everyone. People do come up with flies that are original to them, and that speaks to their own creativity.

Jeff made an excellent point regarding the use of names. How many of us could understand a description of one of his own creations, which I will always remember fondly as his Vanessa, a beautiful fly named after his lovely wife ?? And without names, how can you dedicate flies to people like JC, LF, and Liz, if you are so inclined ??

Having posted threads on a number of flies that were original to me in that I never saw a technique or approach used before and contributed a number of flies to the Fly of the Week column and received very positive feedback on the effectiveness of those flies, I'm encouraged to come up with my own flies, test them, name them and make them available to others for their enjoyment.

The VERY BEST PART of creating a "new" pattern, for me, is to share it and hear that others have tied it, fished it, and enjoyed their time on the water with it.

John

[Clay]

Great comments everyone. What prompted this thread was tying known patterns. I have a couple of friends who insist that I tie only known patterns that someone else originally came up with. Like I am too dumb to create something and the people that created the known patterns have idol status. I do enjoy experimenting and trying new things but when "my" ties are done I can usually say that has a body like "X" and a wing like "X" and a tail like ....

Normand - Super cool library. If you were a neighbor who needs to go to the public library, I would have to keep you in your favorite beverage for the opportunity to borrow a book now and then and return it in the same condition it was given to me. Now that is an investment. You could tie a new pattern everyday for the rest of both of our lives and still not tie them all.

Rick

[okflyfisher]

I am a deviant. While I am familar with a lot of patterns I almost always simplify. I try to think more about the bugs or creatures I am trying to suggest,and how they move or weather they need to be shallow or deep rising or falling etc. These article s by Al Campbel are a great read:

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/alcampbell/ac061603.php

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/alcampbell/ac100603.php

When i first started tying ( before computers and internet were in common use) I tryed to
copy patterns from pictures in my Joe Brooks fly fishing book. Unpressured Brook trout in the UP of Michigan ate these flies with relish.( Of course now I understand they would have eaten almost any fly the right size.)

When I lived out west in Denver caddis and small mayflies dominated my home waters.
There were certainly lots of other bugs that showed up seasonally ,but day in day out the 2 categories mentioned were available to the fish

Now in my oklahoma home waters crayfish and small fish dominate our basses diets usually in heavy cover so it dictates the flies we use. Our trout fishing is in tailwaters below damns,and midges small minnows dominate. In one of our areas caddis and mayflies are also very important ,although they are 2 or 3 shades lighter in color than thier western cousins

[Fisherman John]

A few flies, Mr. Rapidan, Red Squirrel Tail Nymph, etc., I tie in accordance with the pattern but I sometimes tie them a little sparser or thicker than the original. I change the color of the post on some parachute flies (pink vice yellow or white) just to make them more visible to me. I don?t think of these as new patterns, just minor variations and still call them by the original name. One pattern shown to me didn?t have a name, so I gave it one - the ?minibugger? (http://www.nvatu.org/2008_Feb_TLine.pdf), just to keep things straight in my head. It too was just a variation on the Woolybugger but was fun to play around with by varying colors and materials. I thought I invented a new pattern once only to find out that I really reinvented it, but at least it was new to me. I try to give the originator credit even if I make minor variations; like someone said there is nothing new under the sun. If it catches fish then I?m happy!

Enjoy,
John