If the creator of a variation really wants the ego boost of having his name in print why not simply identify the fly as’
“Sofa Pillow variant by Joe Smith”.
Good suggestion!
Lead eyes on a bucktail does not make the fly a “Clouser Deep Minnow”… it seems as if by today’s standards any time anyone puts lead or brass dumbell eyes on a fly they automatically call it a “Clouser” without knowing what they are talking about. Granted, the added mass helps get the fly down. BUT the eyes are placed in a specific spot and the bucktail is is tied in a specific manner to acheive the gliding, swimming action of the CDM. It’s not a simple case of putting eyes up front and having it act like a jig.
So, for the example of the “Clouser” it is actually backwards to the concept of this discussion- People are not tying a modified style and calling it their own… they are tying modified patterns incorrectly and calling them the original name! It would be the same if you tied a nymph with purple ice dub and silver ribbing and called it a Gold Ribbed Hare’s Ear. Stupid.
I have been fly fishing and tying flies for 50+ years now. Over that time I have tied lots of “variations” of popular flies and I never thought about putting my name on them. They are simply flies. If someone asked me what fly I am using, if it was a “standard pattern” I tell them, if it was one of my variations I show them the fly. These are flies - stuff wrapped on a hook designed to catch fish. Not to demean anyone but does it really matter who thought up the original idea, and how can we really ever know that the fly that you thought you invented really hadn’t been tied for years by someone else? Unless you are using a new material that no one else has ever used to tie a fly the chances are pretty good that someone, somewhere has tied the same thing. If the only thing I’m remembered for after I cast off this mortal coil is a fly that I tied I have lived a pretty shallow life.
Well said Neil…
It would be interesting to know specifically what pattern the OP was thinking of.
When a variation becomes popular, there needs to be a way to identify it. We have a Sawyer Pheasant Tail Nymph and a Troth Pheasant Tail Nymph. Sometimes there are completely different patterns with the same name. For example, there are several patterns called Muskrat Nymph, who’s only similarity is the use of muskrat dubbing. Then there are patterns named after a certain insect. How can you identify a specific Golden Stone imitation? In these cases the addition of a name isn’t about ego, but about being able to identify a specific pattern.
I’ll go back to an earlier reference and point out an example that is spoken about often across the internet. The Stimulator. More importantly…the Kaufmann Stimulator. I’ve never seen a conflict between either the Birds Stone, the Sofa Pillow or the “Improved” Sofa Pillow. If there were to be an issue it would be between Kaufmann and Jim Slattery if anything. More an industry issue then a pattern naming deal. But again, alot of assumptions out there. Jim originally tie it in NJ, without any thought to any other pattern. So the debate should stop there.
But regardless, if you look at the original Bird Stone or the Sofa Pillow, the only real thing in common is the downwing. Even the “original” improved Sofa Pillow looked nothing like the one commonly tied and referenced today. The one today “oddly” morphed into a mimic of the Stimulator. But that was not the original case. It originally had clipped body hackle, a full standard hackle collar on a straight hook.
The “Stimulator” had a repositioned wing, changing the fly porportions and was tied on a bent shank hook that was manually bent. The thorax was tied such as to provide a two-toned body through palmered hackle.
My point? There are still debates galore about it. Who came first? Who “stole” who’s pattern? And that’s just one example. And what if Jim had named his pattern “Jims Stimulator”? Or “Slatts Stone”? What does it matter? Does that really put a burr under your skirt? Really?
The Stimulator debate will go on. There is an old Deschutes pattern called the Langtry Special or Langtry Stone, that is very close to being a Stimulator on a straight shanked hook. It predates both Slattery and Kaufmann. I’m sure that Randall knew about it. It’s interesting that in ‘Tying Dry Flies’ Kaufmann doesn’t claim to have invented the Stimulator. He says he borrowed it or something like that. The first time I saw “Kaufmann’s Stimulator” was when Umpqua picked it up and I believe trademarked that name.
The Improved Sofa Pillow and Park’s Salmonfly I think are pretty close, if not identical, and I think could also be traced back to earlier patterns.
I think Neil’s point is well-taken. Having your name attached to a fly pattern shouldn’t be of great import. Especially if it is a pattern which does not become a staple in a big percentage of fishers’ fly boxes; I.e., Troth’s Elk Hair Caddis, the Adams, Dave’s Hopper, etc., etc.
Byron, you’re assuming that it is of great importance. Maybe its nothing more than the name that came to mind when first tied, or asked? And I’m still trying to figure out just why in the heck it matters so much to some?
A quick story and then I’m done. About 1990, shortly after tying the Satsop Stone (Named after that particular waters hatch, my first names not Satsop) I visited the local shop in Lacey Washington to tell the owner about my success on the day and show him the pattern. He was my tying mentor. There was another guy in the shop at the time and when I was showing George the pattern he looked in as well. He wasn’t involved in the beginning of the conversation, but when he walked up and asked to see the pattern I offered it to him. Not knowing who tied it, he smirked and said, “it may catch fish, but that’s the poorest tying of a stimulator that I’ve ever seen. It’s all wrong.” And then dead serious he went on to tell me how the tyer should have done this or that differently. Then he said as he handed it back, “Heck a stimulator don’t even have antennae. If a fella is going to tie a pattern, he best learn how to first tie it correctly.” George just looked at me and smiled. I tied that pattern because I wasn’t happy with the Stimmie skittered so high. I wanted a lower profile fly and thought it would better resemble the bugs I was watching. And after seeing the Birds dry I decided to make some changes. Maybe I should have named it the “Birds Stimulator Satsop Variant” LOL
Moral of the story?..You can’t please everybody, so why even start trying.
Ya’all have fun. 