Proliferation of synthetics

[Ray Kunz]

There are so many varieties of synthetic materials today that a guy marketing his "brand" will try to impress you that his stuff is unique when it is really close to being identical to many others. I realize that this is legitimate business but really burdens us as amateur tiers. It's hard to tell the difference between EP fibers and Congo Hair to justify a 3 to 1 cost difference. It's also tough to tell the difference between flies tied with Estaz and Cactus Chenille.
If we can't tell the difference, I question whether the fish can. Does anyone else agree?
What I'd like to see in the future is a forum devoted to tying flies in traditional manners, using historically available materials as would have been used when fly fishing was first being developed in the Catskills. (Hackles in those days were so poor, by todays standards, that two feathers were needed to tie one fly.) Instead of calling this "Minimalist Tying" I'd like to call it "Historical Tying" or Classical Tying". Not to be confused with "Hysterical Tying". Maybe I could even find a use for my half-century old Metz necks.

[Jayatwork]

You might be interested in http://www.classicflytying.com

[ScottP]

What I'd like to see in the future is a forum devoted to tying flies in traditional manners, using historically available materials as would have been used when fly fishing was first being developed in the Catskills.

Ray,

Check this site; may be what you're interested in:
http://forums.catskillflies.com/inde...m/4-fly-tying/

Some beautiful flies come from there and are an important part of our flyfishing heritage.
Having said that, I do a majority of my fishing out west in some pretty rough water and a lot of the dries I attempted to tie in the "Catskill Method" ended up being very pretty wet flies in the heavier flows (could be that I wasn't tying them properly). Many of those synthetic materials - foam, polypropylene yarn, synthetic fibers greatly improve floatation for my flies. Can the fish tell the difference in the materials? I don't know, but if I can see it, I can fish it better. Just my 1/50 of a dollar.

Regards,
Scott

[NJTroutbum]

I have never really bought into most of the synthetic materials over the years. Bead-heads, Ice-dub and limited patterns with foam (2-3). But aside from that, it's rabbit, beaver hackle and hair.

[AlanB]

...as would have been used when fly fishing was first being developed in the Catskills.

I think you'll find the history of fly fishing goes back just a little further than that, about 2000 years further.

However, I do know what you mean about the proliferation of synthetics. There is little or no difference between many of them. Very few if any are originally fly tying materials. It is a case of finding something useful and then marketing it as a fly tying material. Famously the stuffing of a pillow turned into SLF Dubbing. A friend, Barry Ord Clark, of mine wrote a book on what many of these materials really are. International Guide to Fly-Tying Materials, much to the chagrin of the fly tying materials retailers.

If you want to see traditional flies you will not get more traditional than this. The Greenwell's Glory (Wet and dry) tied using original materials and a hackle from a home processed cape off domestic fowl.
Pictures_0006.jpgPictures_0007.jpgPictures_0009.jpg
The cape may look black but is in fact a dark coch-y-bonddhu.

Cheers,
A.

[Ray Kunz]

Thanks you guys for the websites. To AlanB: 1. I accept your 2000 year comment but I should have noted that the greatest development "in the U.S.A." started in the Catskills. 2. Is the material book you refer to available? 3. I also have a old, unused
Coch-y-bondhu cape of Asian origin that is so nice that I only take it out to pet it once in a while. To ScottP: In the mountainous areas of the east we also have some heavier water which the Wulff series of heavily hackled flies tries to address. And they do work. Also, have you ever tried a fully dressed "Usual" of Fran Betters origin? It's 100% snowshoe hare's foot hair.

[Byron haugh]

I think you'll find the history of fly fishing goes back just a little further than that, about 2000 years further.

However, I do know what you mean about the proliferation of synthetics. There is little or no difference between many of them. Very few if any are originally fly tying materials. It is a case of finding something useful and then marketing it as a fly tying material. Famously the stuffing of a pillow turned into SLF Dubbing. A friend, Barry Ord Clark, of mine wrote a book on what many of these materials really are. International Guide to Fly-Tying Materials, much to the chagrin of the fly tying materials retailers.

If you want to see traditional flies you will not get more traditional than this. The Greenwell's Glory (Wet and dry) tied using original materials and a hackle from a home processed cape off domestic fowl.
Attachment 13151Attachment 13152Attachment 13153
The cape may look black but is in fact a dark coch-y-bonddhu.

Cheers,
A.

Never tire of looking at your beautiful flies, AlanB!!

[Bugsy]

Synthetic vs Synthetic
"Similar" may work equally well for some applications, but not necessarily the same for all applications. If the less costly alternative works for your purpose, there's no reason to complain.

I appreciate classic patterns, but they have been discussed ad nauseam. Over the last 20yrs or so, particularly the last decade, synthetics have opened up a new frontier in tying, front simple incorporation into old standards to wildly different patterns.

[Byron haugh]

Ray,
Interesting post.
I know that Bucky McCormick of BRF in West Yellowstone decided that he will fish this entire year with only natural material flies.
Thought that was timely to your post.

Personally, I generally prefer natural materials with the exception of trailing shucks, some parachute posts, and some underwingings.

[Buddy Sanders]

I want to catch fish with flies that I tie. I tie my flies so that I can catch the most fish with them. I use the materials that allow me to do that. Most of my materials come from craft shops, hardware stores, thrift shops, and sewing centers.

I use lots of synthetics. I've worked my way up the chain of resale/repackage on many of them, or found them sold in different venues for different purposes. This gives me more options, and saves me money. I'm a bit of a materials junky, and being able to buy, say, twenty yards of 'hollow body braid' sold in the craft shop as mesh tubing for flower arranging at a price of $6.99 appeals to me over paying $4.99 for three feet of it at the fly shop. Same with threads and yarns. And, if you are willing to dig a bit, you can find many fly tying materials in bulk from some distributors, saving up to 90%. You just have to spend some time looking at packaging, doing web searches, etc. It's all made someplace, an I guarantee little of it is made in the back of a fly shop in small quantities.

I have no nostalgia about flies, and find that whole 'catskill' thing ridiculous. That a tiny area in the NE US is given all this credit for fly development is really myopic at best, and at worst it's elitist. Fly design was, and is still, being changed, innovated, and improved all over the world. It's just that the things that were written about were those things near where the most writers were, the NE. Public relations and advertising deserve most of the credit for these so-called 'classic' patterns than any skill or innovation on the part of the tyers involved. And, I'll wager that all those folks who we find so fascinating as 'traditional' tyers, if they were still with us today, would laugh at us while happily using whatever material they could to produce effective flies.

If you find researching and acquiring the original materials for a particular pattern enjoyable, or if you decide that you'll only tie with 'natural' materials because it pleases you, good for you. If you think it's honorable or somehow noble to do so, or think it makes you a better tyer or person, you're deluded.

I find the whole argument about 'original' materials tedious and somewhat entertaining. The debate today about such things tends to propose the concept that the historical originator of a fly pattern searched tirelessly for the exact right material before he or she developed the fly in question. The person who 'originated' any fly used the materials they HAD, and if they found a better material for a particular fly, they used it. That's what most fly tyers who are creating new patterns today are doing as well. Using the materials at hand to produce a fly that is effective for a particular purpose or use.

As an artist, when I see someone tie a bunch of classic flies and mount them in a display case and claim it's 'art', I laugh. It's copies. Plagiarism, not artwork. It's like standing in front of a Renoir and copying it. Builds skill, but it's not art. Copying someone else to make a fly for catching fish? Solid plan, works, no one finds that an issue. It's why all these pattern books are out there. But art is innovative by it's very definition. Copies, no matter how well done or how pretty, are not art.

Buddy