Mustad R50 versus 94840

[Steven]

Anybody know if these are the same size and shape? I know they differ in other ways.

Thanks,

Steven

[jszymczyk]

yes they are the same. It is the "STANDARD" hook which Mustad used to base their designation system on. If they're not EXACTLY the same size/shape they are so close as to not matter.

[Steven]

Thanks. I appreciate the input.

I've been reading Mike Valla's book. It's kind of inspired me.

His proportions are based on the 94840 rather than the TMC 100.

[Byron haugh]

Funny, I grew up tying dries on the 94840. Not sure what else was available back then......................

[Steven]

According to Valla, prior to WWII, the hook of choice was the Allcock brand from England. Valla never goes into why that brand disappeared - my guess would be steel rationing. Mustad was considered inferior by the Dettes.

[Byron haugh]

I haven't used Mustafd hooks for many years

My local fly shop "back in the day" only carried Mustad. It was decades before the Internet. No real alternative.

I don't personally know of any tiers today who use Mustads. I'm sure some/many do, but none who I know

[Steven]

The Dettes, Darbees, Christian, Steenrod et al. used wings and tails as long as the entire hooks and hackles 2x the hook gap.

I do wonder if the "accepted" proportions changed to 1x the hook shank for wings and tails and 1.5x the hook gap for hackle because of the introduction of the TMC 100 and similar sized hooks (Dai-ichi, Orvis), which had longer shanks than the 94840.

[Allan]

I haven't used Mustafd hooks for many years

I don't personally know of any tiers today who use Mustads. I'm sure some/many do, but none who I know

You are so right. Mustad produces an inferior hook. It's too heavy, too short in the shank, too long in the point and barb, too wide in the gape, the eyes are frquently unfinished, the steel is too brittle and the hooks break too easily, the hooks are way too dull and need sharpening right out of the box, and lastly they are over-priced! Mustad hooks are so bad that it's amazing that any trout are actually caught on a fly tyed on a Mustad hook. Thank goodness for the new chemically treated hooks that are proportionately correct, lightweight, bend without breaking, are so sharp that you won't know you're hooked until you wonder where your cast went.
Now before any of you get upset, this is all written tongue 'n cheek. The idea that Mustad trout hooks are inferior in any way to the comparative hooks by other manufacturers is a joke.
Not sure where the Dettes opined that Mustad hooks were inferior. Inferior to what and when, if it was actually said, did they offer that opinion?

Allan

[Jayatwork]

I do wonder if the "accepted" proportions changed to 1x the hook shank for wings and tails and 1.5x the hook gap for hackle because of the introduction of the TMC 100 and similar sized hooks (Dai-ichi, Orvis), which had longer shanks than the 94840.

No, those proportions were around long before TMC. I think they are close to the suggested proportions in J. Edson Leonard's book, or maybe another book from the same period. I don't know the origin of them though.

[Steven]

Not sure where the Dettes opined that Mustad hooks were inferior. Inferior to what and when, if it was actually said, did they offer that opinion?

1) Inferior to the Allcock hooks that the Dettes had used previously. I kind of thought this was clear.
2) Soon after the war. When I go back home, I'll try to look up the date of the letter that Valla reproduced.
3) This was based on complaints that they had received by customers.

In its reply, Mustad basically opined that the Dettes' customers were a few cards short of a full deck and refused to take back the couple of thousand hooks Walt wanted to return.