Where's the standard

[Bitterroot]

As a recent inductee into the craft of fly tying (x-mas 05) I am amazed at the numerous pattern recipes for any particular fly. I think I understand the reasoning being a persons attempt to match a particular hatch on a particular body of water at a particular point in time. This aside, somewhere back at the beginning of time, there must have been a starting point or some standard for a certain fly. My question is, where would one find a starting point pattern recipe for common trout flys that haven't had someone's name slapped on them because they tweeked it a little to meet their needs? I'm not looking for one specific fly pattern but rather arrays of flys; IE. Caddis: Little Black, Green Sedge, Gray Spotted Sedge, Little Sister Sedge, Giant Orange Sedge.
Mayfly: BWO, Green Drake, Brown Drake, PMD, Trico, Red Quill.
Stonefly: Little Black, Golden Stone, Yellow Stone.
Appreciate the help - Bitterroot

[Ray Kunz]

Regardless of any ensuing comments I'll bet you find that most recipes (some call them patterns) were, and are, derived from a previous design. Tiers will add a "color", their "name" or a "geographic" adjective to identify it as something they invented. I have watched these types of discussions go on endlessly. Just enjoy the craft.

[LadyFisher]

It depends on how far back you want to go.
Our caddis are different than the British ones, which they call 'sedges' but they are still caddis. Most of our familar recipes are variations of the Brit ones.

Same for mayflies. I don't recall any 'old' stonefly patterns from the UK, but most flies did start there.

The difference seems to be more in dry flies. The Brit patterns are adaptations of wet fly treated (or with better hackle) to float.

There are those who believe the first real dry flies were an American creation. Theordore Gordon is credited by some as the creator of the American dry fly. I personally think it was Vince Marinaro - and that should be good enough for a good discussion in itself.

Standard? I don't think one exists.




------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

[Jgoding]

Standards can be rather disapointing I think. Really, who cares what the "original" body material was because you know what, it could've so easily been something else. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for learning the traditional patterns and I've done my fair share of research and tying different styles of flies but I really hate when people post stuff like I don't have "x" material to tie this fly what do I do??? The answer is so obvious...use something else... be creative.. don't limit urself to following recipes word for word, material for material, or otherwise you'll find it's not so exciting.

[Ron Mason]

There are no fly police, what you seek doesn't exist. The only way to find the source for "original" patterns is to read and research various authors that have documented some patterns. The origins of many patterns were never documented and no one knows where they came from and most tyers, thankfully, feel free to tweak and experiment and add their own style to pattern recipes. A few patterns represent real breakthroughs in tying but most patterns evolve slowly a tweak at a time and change w/ the landscape of changing availability of materials.


------------------
Ron M

[bassman]

I tie many flies and as far as I know with the exception of one I tied for a recent swap all have been my version of an existing fly. But if I do change a fly by material or the way to tie it. I always put in the description that this is my version of that fly. I think many people do this. That are not claiming to be the inventor of a new fly but just trying to show it can be tied different and look different. I recently tied a fly that I named Spring Fly not because I think it is a new invention but because I could not find a fly it was real close to. I do not claim to have invented it.
I beleive this is how many flies come about. It would be real hard to find the origin of a lot of flies because they have been changed many times over the years. Just my 2 cents. John
[url=http://home.comcast.net/~bassman540/johnsfliesandswaps.html:c1556]http://home.comcast.net/~bassman540/johnsfliesandswaps.html[/url:c1556]

------------------
I wish you all everlasting flies and tight lines.



[This message has been edited by bassman (edited 16 March 2006).]

[Jim Hatch]

Hey Bitterroot,

If your looking for "standards" there
are a lot of books out on various fly types
and their histories. There is also a lot
of info here on FAOL in the archieves.

To me, what is even more important than
"standards" is "basics".*G* Our friend Al
Campbell created a number of patterns here
on FAOL that are very basic patterns, easy
to tie, and are very effective to fish with.
His "Too Simple" series of flies is quite
eye opening for me. Check out his articles
in the archieves here and see what you think. Warm regards, Jim

[Ray Kunz]

Hi Bitterroot,
A different approach to establishing the "origin of the species" for fly certain flies would be a great academic exercise. You could go into the historic literature and trace the concept back as far as you could. Then you decide for yourself if that is far enough. You document your conclusions and await responses from folks who have gone further back. What a bunch of work. (G)

I suggest that you read the patterns for flies, in the "Old Flies and stuff"!

There are numerous articles in the archive, that by reading what is said,will give you a better idea on where to start, and direct you in further learning.

~Parnelli

[Gigmaster]

To get an absolutely 'pure' pattern, you'd probably have to go back to the ancient Macedonians and tie one of Aelians Hipporus flies. Other than that, a good source for advice may be Ugg Castwell!

Personally, I find the individuality to be one of the more appealing aspects of the craft.

Semper Fi!