Well, I was wrong about Leonard. His proportions have the longer tail etc. But I do remember seeing the shorter proportions in a chart in one of the few references I had available in 1978, and none were new at the time.
Different people have different ideas about what they like in a fly hook. When I started tying, Mustad was about all I could find. When TMC came onto the scene, they were sharper had much smaller barbs and better formed eyes. I was happy to pay extra for them. Mustad forged dry fly hooks also had very flattened wire in the bend area, which didn’t work well with the vise I was using at that time.
What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, Mustad R50 vs 94840
[b]jszymczyk[/b]
:
Mustad fly hooks are as good or better quality than anything else out there, and usually not as expensive. This discussion gets reheated periodically on here and other fora. I’ve only been tying for a little more than 30 years, so I don’t have the wealth of experience that some of you do. However, when I was able to scrape together money for REAL fly hooks early on, they were all Mustads, what are referred to as the “Classic” series today. Anyone have any idea how many billions of fish were caught on these horrible, totally inferior hooks before the modern jewelry boutique style hooks of today? Byron, are you joking that you don’t know ANYONE who ties on Mustads?
no. Most tiers I know either use TMC, Daichi, Dairiki (sp?) or (I can never spell this - Gamatksu which, by the way I really like).
Steven,
Here’s a comparison of a size 12 Mustad 94840, to a couple of size 12 Allcock Model Perfect W173’s. The Mustad is the upper right one, and I stuck two Allcock’s by it so you could compare the shank and gape size. You can see that it’s really pretty close on the gape.
Regards,
Mark
i’ve never used anything but Mustad in 50 years of fly tying, although I always used 94833 fine wire instead of 94840 for my dry flies. I don’t even know what the equivalent is in their new series because I acquired enough 94833’s to last through two lifetimes.
RW
90% of my tying is on Mustad hooks. Over the years I have substituted many of them with Orvis hooks (which appear to be Daichi?) since the closest shop to me is an orvis shop. However, I in no way consider Mustad to be inferior & I much prefer the shank length on the 94840 over the rest.
Huh, so the Mustad is actually shorter for the same hook size?
Hi Steven,
For that size it is, for others it’s a little different. Here’s another pic where the Allcocks are on the left, and Mustad 94840’s are to the right. I don’t have a 94840 size 10 Mustad, or it would have been in the pic. They go from size 10 to 20. The paper helps a bit to see the size comparison. The Mustads are pretty much late 90’s/early 2000’s stock when they were in 100 count packs. Besides the smaller sizes, they’re still pretty close.
Regards,
Mark
This begs the question: Why did Walt Dette think it appropriate to upsize the hackle for a Mustad if they were shorter than the Allcock?
Steven,
I don’t know if this answers your question and certainly won’t even hazzard a guess as to the Dette’s reasoning. I will say that in all the readings where there’s talk about hackle sizing, it’s based on the relationship of the hackle length to the size of the ‘gape’, not the length of the hook.
Also, WOW! A few of the eyes on the Allcocks are really bent at a severe angle.
Allan
Mark’s picture is very much my experience with boxes of 94840s I’ve purchased between 1981 and 2007. Size 12 would be short in the shank compared to size 14, with both being very similar in length. Same story with sizes 16 & 18. The “proportionally correct” Signature series (e.g., R50) addresses the inconsistent hook:shank ratios across the size spectrum.
In my own use, I commonly use size 14 & 16 hooks, and the 94840 in these sizes have proportions that work well for me. While the bulk of my selection is of “superior” hooks, these have been more than up to the task more often than not. For me, they’re a highly functional and less costly hook for knocking about on small waters. (In my experience) the barbs smash easily, the points sharpen readily, they’re reasonably strong in these sizes, and they don’t break if they tap a rock on the cast. My biggest issue with them is the corrosion-prone finish. Ah well, I can’t say I’m more of an angler than the 94840 is a hook.
I started using Mustads in the early or mid 70’s. I still have thousands of them and I still use them. I have found that they are generally among the more modestly priced hooks. I have not seen the brittleness problem on any Mustads that I have bought since the late 70’s or early 80’s. If anything I think they are less hard and brittle than some other brands. I AM tired of having to sharpen the hooks fresh out of the box. That tedium is moving me away from Mustads and to TMC hooks. If Mustad hooks were sharper and I could get the barbless hooks I want from them, I would be back in the fold.
Regards,
Ed, who feels as reheated as this thread.
