Great write up and nice tie - Eric A.
The underwing described by Kelson says Strands of tippet, and tail of golden pheasant; Would you read that as both tippets and tails in strands or just the GP tippets?
Also the with all of the short fiber stuff in the wing (parrot, macaw, summer duck and pintail) do you think this was meant to be a mixed rather than a married wing?
“Tippet in strands” has come to mean an underwing made up of sections of golden pheasant tippets, hence the “strands” terminology. If an underwing is JUST golden pheasant tippets, then it’s usually stated that way. But if it’s smaller sections of golden pheasant tippets that will lie underneath golden pheasant tail strips, it’s tippet in strands.
The way these flies are generally done today is with two matching SECTIONS of golden pheasant tippet, a left and a right, tied on back to back. Then, over them, you will have a tent of golden pheasant tail. This makes up the underwing. Then the overwing, or wing made up of married sections is tied on over that. That’s the way the Childers shown and the Silver Doctor done a couple of weeks ago were tied. Hope this helps.
Some people consider the tippet in strands underwing indicative of a “mixed” wing fly, and a fly having a white tipped turkey wing as being a “built” wing fly. This is due to the fact that almost all the mixed wing fly recipes in Pryce-Tannatt have tippet in strands, while the built wing flies have white tipped turkey. That said, I think it is the construction of the wing that makes a fly a mixed wing fly or built wing, and this can also be construed from Pryce-Tannatt. He makes a Jock Scott with married sections, but tents the sections over one another. There is a wing of white tipped turkey, a wing of married red, yellow and blue swan over that, and then a wing of bustard and florican tented over that, and finally two types of turkey tented over that. The Jock Scott these days is rarely done that way, but I’ll show one in a week or so, if I can pull it off.(grin) That to me is a built wing, and a true mixed wing is made up of all single strands, also shown in Pryce-Tannatt. The last method, of marrying sheaths of individual strands to make a wing is not done much any more. Most of our flies these days are mixed and built both, and most of Pryce-Tannatt’s flies were that way as well in reality.
Confused? I’m not sure you’ll find two full dress fly tiers who agree on mixed and built wing terminology. But tippet in strands is sections of golden pheasant tippet that make up part of an underwing, and the golden pheasant tail is never called “golden pheasant tail in strands”, even though it really is.
Eric
The last question was a good one, but the short stuff question is even better. These flies evolved, and there were no true rules, but Pryce-Tannatt gave clear-cut methods for doing them.
What has evolved over time is an almost anything-goes philosophy where winging is concerned. There are general conventions though. Parrot is for the most part unavailable, and if it says green parrot, it’s just married into the wing as green turkey or swan. Same with macaw if it’s specified in the wing. Wood Duck/teal or Summer Duck/pintail are almost always done as married pairs, sometimes married with gallina if that’s called for, sometimes not. The short fibered feathers are always done as cheeks or sides these days, though Mikael Frodin in “Classic Salmonflies” marries everything in together in a some flies, including gray mallard (don’t know how he does that). Some other conventions include the bronze mallard always being put on as a “roof”, just under the golden pheasant crest topping, sometimes extending the length of the fly, sometimes only a third of the way or so down the wing.
I’ve looked at hundreds of flies on-line and in books trying to get an idea of how things are done, but for the most part I think you’re in good shape looking at the examples in Pryce-Tannatt. With the exception of his mixed wing, what he prescribes is generally followed today. His book is on-line in its entirety.
Eric
Eric, Thanks.
Between Kelson, PT, Taverner, etc. (I’ll leave Blacker and Francis out of the mix) the mixed, built and married are difficult to define. Throw in Rogan’s brushed and it’s hairy.
I’ve got the Childers on my short list, I need to finish the three doctors of Wright first.
Keep em coming Eric, great write ups.
We really feel honored to have Eric producing such terrific flies and articles for us all.
Just the best on the Internet!
I 2nd LFs comments. Great stuff Eric. I’ve learned a lot from your articles.