Usually when we think of a nymph we think along the lines of the original PTN of a fly with tail, body, thorax and thorax cover. Nymphs haven’t always been this way. GEM Skues tied his “in the round”. I don’t know if this will make much of a difference, but I would like to. To that end I’ve tied some nymphs in the round. The plan is to fish today’s standard tying until I’m having good results, then to change it for one of the ones tied in the round, and note the difference, if there is any.
Here’s some of the nymphs I’ve tied to try this with, along with the standard dressings. With the obvious differences I’ve tried to keep them as similar as possible.
Very nice flies. Charlie Brooks tied many of his nymphs, especially stoneflies, “In the Round”. I hate spending a lot of time tying flies that I know stand a good chance ending up snagged on the bottom because that’s where the fish are; Brooks’ flies are pretty easy to tie and very effective. I’m sure yours will prove to be, too.
My opinion, and it is not worth much, but, I feel you will see a marked improvement with those tied in the “round”. They are very close to looking like a “flymph” and the “flymph” is a “go-to” for me. I will look forward to your comparison report. I really do think you will see more action from the tied in the “round” due to more “movement” of the material in the current which looks like “food” to the fish. Keep us in the loop…
The topic pops up now and again as tiers discover or rediscover Brooks writings on this side of the pond. My fly box contains patterns that are regular as well as those ‘in the round’ and sure enough, they both catch fish.
What I never liked about adhering to ‘in the round’ as dogma, is that there are key triggers built in regular patterns that would be pointless and maybe even counterproductive to replicate ‘in the round’. For example, flashback wingcases would become flashy thoraxes (or omitted altogether). While there may be times where they might work, I have often found a little flash can be effective, and a lot of flash can kill a pattern. As with everything else, the philosophy has its place, but there is no single solution to the problem, in my mind.
Postscript: It is often overlooked that many of Brooks’ noted stonefly patterns were not tied completely ‘in the round’. For example, there’s no way you can tie a forked biot tail and have it look the same from all angles. A technicality perhaps, but an illuminating one never the less.
Alan,
Brooks actually dove in the river to watch nymphs’ actions and then decided that since they were “tumbling " as they became dislodged, there was no " top” or “bottom”. Thus, the lack of a wing case on his nymphs.
His primary nymph was the big Western Stonefly on his home waters of the a Madison River.
This is from his book "the Living River " where he compares his pattern (The Montana Stone Nymph) to the big stonefly. Both pretty ugly in my opinion.
I’m very much a fan of “in the round”. I’ve long suspected that the main reason nymphs are tied with an obvious top and bottom has more to do with wishing to be seen as more “scientific” than a wet fly angler; not because they catch more fish. (Not that both don’t catch fish.)
I have two of Brooks’ books. Really like his writing. I have not made up my mind about his concept of “tying in the round”, but, just to play devil 's advocate, other than reducing the time of tying, why not tie the nymph as it exists in nature…legs underneath and wing case(s) on the top. As a real nymph would tumble, would not each “side” show? If so, why tie only one side? As I said, except to save tying time?
If that were the case realistic patterns would produce better than standard nymphs. I am not aware of this being the case, but I could be wrong. I suppose if you can calculate the exact body density of each individual nymph. Not to mention species. And, get it/them to tumble exactly as a natural would while attached to your tippet, you would be on to something. I do not see many realistic patterns winning trout competitions. I do see a lot of generic attractors winning though. There comes a point when the fisherman is caught by the pattern and not the trout.
As I said, I haven’t made up my mind on this concept yet. I’m not talking about the “super realistic” nymph patterns v. “In the round”, just ones with a simple wing case…similar to those in AlanB’s photo above on the right.
Guess I’m still trying to find the advantage of a single-sided view v. The natural? Would a nymph pattern with wing cases on top and bottom be good?
I certainly agree that there would be a little time saved in tying " in the round", but the other advantage(s)?
I tie both ways, fancier for flys I give away and simpler for myself. For example I tie my Hare’s ears with no wing case or legs. Haven’t noticed in any difference in appeal to the fish. I admire beautiful products of the fly tyers art and try to tie them myself. Do the fish care? I think not. I think impressionistic beats realistic in fly fishing . Some think that impressionistic flys look more alive than realistic. Maybe they’re rigkt.
If you look at Roman Moser’s flt patterns (specifically his nymph patterns) you’ll see his patterns are very simple with not having wing cases or legs.
A couple of weeks ago I tried a new to me dry pattern, the Original Bubble Sedge, and after getting lazy drying the fly started to fish it wet. After about 8 or 9 gills the CDC was shredded to the point of not being there. The fish attacked it more then when it was a dry fly. By the time a I lost the fly to a tree, a total of 31 gills were landed and the last 23 or so were with just the fox squirrel wrapped hook of the original pattern. It did not seem, at least on that excursion, that the fish cared if there was a top or bottom to the fly. It started as a dry and ended up a scrawny nymph.
I have tied and fished nymphs both on the round, out of laziness or speed, and with wing cases and they both seem to work equally well for me.
At Skirton Weir on the river Lune the sea trout (sea run browns) were going mad for a Teal Blue and Silver one night. They shredded the fly to the point there was a few turns of thread, bit of silver wire and some loose silver tinsel left on the hook. Changing it for a new fly resulted in no fish. Put the old one back on, and the fish responded again. Sometimes the one they destroy is the one they want. Sea trout though, are known for being fickle creatures.
Cheers,
A.
