Why not any good?

[pittendrigh]

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:


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:

[NJTroutbum]

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.

[James Smith]

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

[TyroneFly]

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.

[FishnDave]

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

[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.

[FlyFlinger2421]

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"!

[bgreer]

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.

[Buddy Sanders]

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

[butternut-tyer]

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