Recently on another board, there was some discussion about this famous
fly, and I remembered an article I compiled a couple of years ago,
just berore my eye problems got worse.
I did a lot of research on it, and had added an article about my findings
to my web-site, but I had not listed it on the web-site menu.
I have now refound the article and it is now on the menu.
I shall have to tidy it up a bit, but is readable for anyone interested.
Donald,
I just finished reading the article on your website. Very interesting. Thanks for bring it to our attention. I am curious, what modifications were done to the fly to fish it dry or wet?
Hi TyroneFly,
They are both covered in the article that Donald has on his site. The dry dressing is covered on the first letter that Austin wrote to Skues in 1900. The nymph dressing is towards the end of the article. You can tie a wet version based on the nymph version as well.
Below is a picture of the actual dubbing that Austin mixed and used after the red seal was switched in place of the yellow mohair. This was posted for several months at another forum and was recently deleted. It was found in Eugene Connett’s fly tying chest that went up for auction at Lang’s last fall. Since a picture of this dubbing never existed in any book or article before this was posted, it answers a lot of questions that have come up over the years on what shade of red or pink it ended up being.
The only problem with it is that it leaves a huge hole in the Tup’s story that probably will never be answered. Why would a guy that comes up with a dubbing that’s dirty yellow in color and works really well at catching fish, switch to a completely different color and stick with that one from that point on.
Regards,
Mark
Hi Mark,
Ihat is a very interesting picture of the dubbing.
One of the problems in any historical research on fly tying,
is the lack of good illustrations in older books.
No matter how excellent the prose of writers like
Skues and Courtney Williams. there is nothing like
a good picture. I shall use it in the edited article I am
preparing at the moment. There are quite a few modern
pix of the fly available on the Net. but I have never been sure
how much the dubbing varies from Austin’s.
As to why he changed it, remember Skues was probably
a customer of his and was a very well known figure in
the fly fishing world. He [Skues] was a recognised authority,
and a published author, and he had also given the fjy it’s name.
Hi TyroneFly,
Mark is correct. and remember, this was originally a West Country fly,
where they fished their flies wet or dry as seemed suitable at the time.
As to the Leisenring nymph illustrated, that just happened to be the
first fly tied and photographed for the unfinished article.
A hundred years ago I don’t think they were bothered that much
if someone dressed or fished their own way.
Except for the chalk stream dry fly fanatics Skues had been
winding up for years, of course.
Thanks for that article Donald. I don’t recall any mention of wing material though? Was it tied as a spider originally? I’ll double check the article now though as I read it earlier today.
And, thanks for the photo of the dressing Mark! It sounds to me, though I could be wrong, that the “tag” was just a few turns of the yellow thread prior to starting the dubbed body.
It’s interesting that most of the versions I’ve seen of the Tup’s has the body yellow thread and just a thorax of the dubbing, but from t he above it sounds like it was originally a fully dubbed body, like a March Brown.
- Jeff
P.S. Just had a quick skim again and didn’t find any mention of wings.
Hi Jeff,
There are no wings, it is a West Country dry/wet fly,
sometimes called ‘spiders’.
From what I have seen, the Tup’s Nymph by Leisenring
was the one with the buttonhole silk body.
Have a look under Leisenring and West Country flies on my site.
Donald,
Thanks for the great information, love 'yer site!!!
PT/TB
Thanks Donald. Will have a refresher read of your site.
- Jeff
Hi,
I just remembered that in Bill Tagg’s book he describes the Tups as a fully dubbed body as well. I recall he describes the drubbing as 6 strands of wool straight from the sheep (or at least the sheep’s fence) and two strands of wool dyed red. By strands he means individiual hairs! Anyway, he suggested this would be used to form the body. I think the idea he described was to tie in the ends, then wrap the wool directly around the hook, rather than dub it onto the thread then wrap it to the hook. Anyway, he describes this body as an alternative to some other fly, either an Adams (I seem to recall mixed hackle of grizzle and brown) or Greenwell’s Glory (I’m also recalling quill slip wings), so in the end it’s a bit different from the original Tup’s in the overall dressing but quite close in the fact that he did indicate the body was fully dubbed.
For the nymph I’ve only seen the yellow body with thorax dressing, and apart from Bill’s book (which I found odd because it was so different to every other description I’ve seen), until now I’ve only seen the dry/wet version described in the same way. The nymph version appeared to be just a short hackle version of the wet/dry.
However, from Donald’s presentation it appears that the fully dubbed body version is the way to go. I would think the yellow “tag” would be something like the red tag shown for the Iron Blue dun spider on Donald’s site; with the Tup’s being of similar construction but changing the colours.
Can’t wait to get back home so I can tie a few of things.
- Jeff
Donald, I was always led the believe that the original fly was tied from the underparts of the Tup or Ram which had been dyed that yellow/pinkish tinge by the urine of the Ram. I think Oliver Edwards mentions this in one of his books or videos.
How they got it I have no idea. Chasing a ram around a field to snip a lock of hair from around its nether regions would not be my idea of fun!! Nor its I have no doubts!!
Veniards sell tups seal fur but that is an orange/pink.
Hi Mick,
I am beginning to think much of the mystery and legend about this fly is due to Skues sense of humour. He did name the fly, but Austin did not claim the atributes given to the dubbing by later commentators.
Here is what he wrote to Skues -
"The ram?s wool used in this pattern is taken from the underparts of a ram or tup, and writing of it in 1908, Austin states: ?I always wash the wool from a tup as it is almost invariably unfit unless you do. The floating power of the fly is not injured by this process if it be dressed with a good hackle and touched slightly with paraffin. I do not think that with the addition you mention? - viz. an application of goose grease - ?is desirable: indeed I fancy that it would take a vast amount of washing to get the natural grease out of the wool.?
The ram?s wool which is a feature of this pattern certainly contains much natural oil which is believed to shine in the water."
The sheep (incuding the rams) would be shorn in the spring every year,
so I suppose who ever did it, save the ram’s wool for Austin.
How urine stained the wool was can only be guessed at, but note
yellow spaniel’s fur was added which would rather negate any colour
from the wool. I think the yellow spaniel was added to make up for any
lack of colour in the wool. Probably any belly wool, tup or ewe, would
do. It seems to me that the lanolin in the wool was the most important
element for using it.
Interesting… I know they often used paraffin to oil their flies. I often worry about fly floatents leaving a film, but it must not have worried them or their fish!!
Here is more information about Austin’s mix:
http://www.flyleaves.dk/tup%27s_indispensable.htm
Bill
Here
Great info Bill, I saved it and I shall try to incorporate it,
with all due acknowledgments of course, in my article.
Mark,
Thank you for the info and to you Donald as well. My mind picked up and recalled the subsequent letter regarding the tag, but somehow lost the reference to the first note.
Take a look at the FAOL site “Old Flies and Stuff” found in “Features” and find the archived item Tups Indispensible. I found the paragraph when Skues describes how the Tups was named to be interesting.
My question would be the source of the dye the farmer used on the sponge or rag to saddle the tup so many years ago? Was it red?
I guess the fly was a favorite of Charles Ritz (" A Flyfishers Life"). I tied some years ago looking for the ultimate answer but unfortunately never put it on the water. I find the fly attractive and would certainly put it on the wall with it’s history, even though I haven’t caught a fish with it.
More info on the history of the tup’s indispensable fly. In the article the author mentions a couple of old references to the use of ram’s wool in fly tying. Bill
Very interesting Bill,
the Spirit River Golden Stone Dubbing as an alternative sounds useful.