RW:
Keep in mind that wet flies from the old country all had soft hackles for the collar on winged wets. Very hard not to find a traditional winged wet back in the 1800's that did'nt. As time went on and these flies started arriving in America, the Full collar for some reason started to be lossed and the false hackle/beard came about. Harry Darby when he tied traditional winged wets tied his flies with a full collar. Harry felt the false hackle or beard was useless and the the full collar added more movement to make the fly a little more life like. I have tied my fishing flies both ways and have caught a good amount of fish. I really need to pay attention this year to see which one works better or see that there really was'nt no differance. Soft hackle wet flies work and work well. I have seen over the past two years of experiments that traditional winged wet flies has worked extremely well and has not failed me. What failed me was my presentaition of them. Getting skunked a day or two and you quickly figure things out on how to get them to work. I will not say anything or comment any negative issues with soft hackles. I to fish them and like them a lot. Liesenring truly was the master of them in the USA and all the fish he caught I feel was proof enough how affective soft hackles are. I will not pit one against the other. I feel both styles of wet flies deserves a place in your fly box. I really feel Nemes is a little to opinionated when it came to both styles of flies soft hackles vs winged wets. Nemes in his book two centuries of soft hackled flies can be quoted in the introduction on page X " When other American writers such as Ray Bergman wrote about wet flies, they dealt with patterns tied with gaudy wings and tinsel bodies, flies that in no way resembled the subdued, delicate style of soft hackled flies." Also to end this text Nemes also added " In one of his articals of Forest and Stream, Gordon noted that "winged flies are the favorite of this country, and are usually the most successful". Patterns in Bergmans book Trout, Gaudy, I think not. They are fine works of art that truly catch fish. I bought Nemes books because I too have an interest in soft hackled wet flies. I feel these flies are simplistic yet affective. Some are nice looking and the rest are drab ugly. Both styles of wet flies catch fish. I fish with both styles and feel like I said before they deserve a place in your fly box. I respect the writing and knowledge of Liesenring and Skues. I feel these were to fine men that were ahead of there time. Bergman was the Anglers Angler that all could relate to. Bergman brought his lessons and learning and teaching down to the common mans level. The common man could totaly relate to Rays triumphs and days of failure. Don has shown me via a slide show the Herters catlogue where the patterns found in Ray Book Trout were for sale all over. It's hard to believe that these flies were not fish catchers back then and hard to beleive they will not catch fish today. My trials and Tribulations on the Willowemoc, BeaverKill in NY, Fishing Creek and the Tully in PA, The Ken Lockwood Gorge and the Big Flatbrook and Pequest in NJ over the past two years with nothing but Bergman wet flies has been a big success. Yes I was skunked here and there, why because of my presentation. This has taken two years to figure out what I was doing wrong and at times stumble upon what to do differently that lead me to success. Classic winged wet flies work, they catch fish, they are a thing of beauty. I really feel Ray was right about fishing these flies and how to fish them. What I have been learning of late is when to fish the patterns, meaning time of day and month as well as bright sunny days, over cast and at night. Now far as wet flies for my self this year to fish with, I have tied myself 23 dozen. Now I am working on a Dozen for Hans, this year for some reason I have come out of my shell to let all see and critisize my work. I bet Allan tied at least double the amount of wet flies. Rw care to wager on Allans totals.
Andy B