Quote Originally Posted by eaustin View Post
Well, no. The 94840 was the standard dry fly hook for years and years, so it was and is the defacto standard. As the standard, there's nothing to correct. It's proportions are correct, and hooks that deviate from it are therefor incorrect. Or were those proportions really way off and nobody noticed for 50 years? It's all subjective of course, but it's like saying the New Coke is now Coke. No, it's New Coke, and was so unsuccessful that they had to abandon it. Someone thought they had to correct the taste of Coke. There was nothing to correct, Coke is Coke. Someone thought they had to correct the proportions of a hook that was the standard for 50 years. This would have been fine, had they not done away with the original.

Whether or not a hook is chemically sharpened is meaningless to me. Were we not hooking fish all those years with the 94840 and the 3906B and the 3399? Life is change. I've always been a fan of Mustad, loved the old hooks, don't hate the new, just wish they had left well enough alone.
Eric
I seem to remember Datus Proper arguing in "What the Trout Said" that the "true" standard was the old Partridge system.

To tell the truth, I've always preferred look of the Tiemco proportions.