I’m not seeking to be argumentative. I am merely curious If someone can explain the difference between antron and Congo Hair. Is there a readily available, on-line discussion of these materials which someone If familiar with off the top of their head?
Congo Hair is made from polypropylene, Antron’s derived from nylon; not sure of the chemical structure of the two fibers but there is a difference. Here’s a good discussion:
In his book, La Fontaine says there are inherent properties in antron fibers that make it unique. I believe its fibers are 3-sided (tri-lobal), which helps it to reflect light. Also, it doesn’t turn into a big blob of matted fibers when wet.
Sorry for not being clearer; replacing the antron wing with Congo Hair is not the same thing as replacing one brown dubbing with another as it will not change the character of the fly but the main triggering characteristic that inspired the design of this fly was made possible by the antron wing. Namely the air bubble that the caddis carries with it as it descends to the bottom. The antron is the puller, it will draw fish from a greater distance than the same fly without it. Being that the antron was the primary material that this fly was designed around, I know that the pattern is seriously compromised without it.
I’ve tied the fly with antron and CH underwing and caught enough fish on both where I really didn’t notice a difference. If you wish to tie the fly with antron, and only antron, that’s great; enjoy. I prefer to play around at the vise and see what works, and then what else works.
Regards,
Scott
seeing Bruce’s point, the fact that I modified the salient feature of the fly, I updated the thread title to reflect “variation”
I wasn’t debating either, Scott, I was just paraphrasing what La Fontaine said in his book.
I agree, there is more than one way to skin a cat, or tie a fly.
The object of this board is to have discussions (and debates, as long as we honor the flashing lights when they tell us time is up); that’s what a forum should be. What we don’t need is bloviating windbags pontificating on this topic and that subject, enraptured with the sound of their voice (hearing nothing else) and basking in their own glow; hope I didn’t come across like that. Guess I was kinda in a pissy mood and took BBBruce’s valid observation the wrong way; my apologies to both of you for being a bit short.
The best advice I ever received about fly tying was “You’re trying to make it look like something trout want to eat, not some other guy’s fly.” I would probably keep only to warm water patterns if I had to use the exact material every original recipe specifies. If the underwater judges like it, go for it.
