Purple Bi-Visible
Hook: Partridge Low Water Salmon #8
Thread: Gudebrod 8/0, white
Hackle: Cock saddle, white
Body Hackle: Cock saddle, black
Rib: Gutermann Sulky Metallic #8050 (purple)
Body: Produce bag ribbon, purple
Video here - please view in HD, if able:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ug0C66zUhM
Cheers,
Hans W
Just an obersvation and a question, Hans.
When I watch your videos ( and I do watch them all ), I come away feeling like one of us is “dyslexic.” That is to say, your approach is just about the polar opposite of mine and the majority of fly tiers I have observed here in the Intermountain West and Northern Rockies. Most of us start tying flies from the rear ( not considering where the tying thread is started ), whereas you often, if not always, start from front.
I’m wondering if your approach is one that you have developed for yourself or if it is a common approach in your part of the world ?? Also wondering if folks from other Regions of the U.S. typically start from the front, or from the rear ??
I’ll volunteer to be the dyslexic one in the crowd, since I acknowledge a long standing tendency to immediately look at almost everything “backwards” and think of myself as having a dyslexic mind.
John
chuckling
John,
I have two alternative ways of spelling “flytying” and one of them is C-H-O-I-C-E-S. Without a choice one cannot make a choice.
I am a hard-wired “why” person. I need to know why I do certain things a certain way, try to deduce why others approach and execute things in a certain way, often challenge them (and myself).
I am well familiar with the “traditional” way of tying a stack of designs and specific patterns, but I also am, always, looking for the better mouse trap. What you see in the videos, with each pattern, is the result of looking at techniques and sequences starting with a clean sheet of paper. Just because certain sequences have been followed, repeated, are the “standard”, does not mean they are the only way to go about things - or even the ‘best’ way. There are almost always several paths leading to the same result, the same final look&feel.
There is, I assure you, method to my madness. The techniques and sequences you can observe in the videos are the result of analyzing, tinkering, evaluating - over the span of four decades of kicking the ball and see where it ends up. I strive for the better mouse trap. I strive for the most efficient way to construct a pattern, to get the look&feel I want in the most direct, and most durable, way possible.
You do not have to agree - that is fine. It is my way - and if nothing else, it offers you perhaps an alternative way. A choice.
There is a method to my madness - and I would be delighted to discuss the why’s and whatfore’s of each of the patterns I present in the videos. Why and how I have decided on the sequence, and the techniques. No dyslexia present 
Here is one simple question back at you. Just pick any of the videos, and map out how you would tie the pattern shown. Map out the activities, the layers of thread, the efficiency of where/when material is tied in. Compare and come back with your conclusions. Perhaps you will convince me of the error of my ways and force me to return to following the “proper” way to construct a fly. I may just have been fooling myself
Looking forward. Seriously.
Cheers,
Hans W
PS As it so happens, the next video (already shot/edited/lined up) has a caddis pupa which gets tied as “conventional” as they come 
WHOO HOO !!! I’m staying with this thread
Hans -
I was not being critical of your approach, just noting that it is generally quite different than my own and others I have observed in this neck of the woods.
I did not mean to suggest, and don’t think that I did, that it is a matter of right or wrong or better or worse or something to agree or disagree about - just different, and was wondering if your approach reflects a general approach in your part of the world or a personal approach that you’ve developed.
You answered the question with your reference to your four decades of analyzing, tinkering, and evaluating.
We certainly don’t disagree about choices and exploring ways to develop simple, effective, and durable flies. I’ve only been creating my own flies for about four or five years, but do now have a collection of originals that will serve me well on most, if not all, the freestone streams and rivers in the Intermountain West and Northern Rockies. I’ll probably fish well over 100 days this year using only those flies.
John
P.S. I typically do mentally determine how I would tie the flies you demo using my approach. There are some things you do that are clearly better for those flies, but for most it would just be taking a different route to get to the same place. On the other hand, a lot of the things you do would not work for me on the flies that I tie and fish, and I suspect you would have a similar reaction thinking in terms of how you would tie the flies I use.
Hans,
I have learned a lot by watching your tying videos and have changed the way I have been tying my flies and following your methods. I have been tying for over 20 years and my tying “style” has been much of the “standard” or “conventional” way. After watching your style of tying, I can see where one could save on tying time, tying thread and ending up with a fly that is much lighter in weight and less bulk due to less thread wraps. I watch all your videos to see what else I can learn from them. A lot of the patterns you show are not the patterns I use, but, the way you tie in material is very interesting to me. Just for example: If a pattern calls for a hackle up front you tie the hackle in at the same time you start your thread base which really cuts down on thread wraps. I now have changed my tying thread from UNI to Danville just so I can use the “split thread” way of dubbing a fly. UNI can be split but not as easily as Danville. I now hardly ever use a dubbing loop.
There are other things you do that really open up my eyes and get me to thinking and I really enjoy your “style” of tying and look forward to learning more.
I “thank you” for sharing your videos and talent here on FAOL…
Hi John,
That is exactly how I read your post
P.S. I typically do mentally determine how I would tie the flies you demo using my approach. There are some things you do that are clearly better for those flies, but for most it would just be taking a different route to get to the same place. On the other hand, a lot of the things you do would not work for me on the flies that I tie and fish, and I suspect you would have a similar reaction thinking in terms of how you would tie the flies I use.
Now this has me interested - can you give one or two specific examples of this (the underlined statement)?
Cheers,
Hans W
I’ve known Hans for quite a few years now, and have even fished with him once. The fact he ties all these flies shows his love of tying, it must be that because he only ever seems to fish one fly! (Mind you a respected authority here once described it as “The best dry fly there is for both river and still water”. Its a good, no great, wet fly as well.) And, of course its his design.
Like Hans I’m always searching for the better way. Some years ago I was at a show in Belfast. Tying along side me were some of the top names in fly tying this side of the pond, Paul Little and Peter Dune to name but two. One gentleman came up to me and asked me to tie an [Atlantic] salmon fly. I looked along the line of tiers and back at the gentleman and said, “In this company you want me to tie a salmon fly?” “Yes,” he said, “I want it explaining.” Perhaps its my mechanical engineering background, but that has always been easy for me. Hans has the same ability, but if mine was delivered in a bucket, his came in a tipper truck.
When I was taught to tie I was not taught patterns, but techniques. Tying a fly is a series of techniques applied to various materials. This way if you know the techniques, and have the materials you can tie the fly. If you learn to tie an Adams, for example, you can tie an Adams. Improving at fly tying, to me, is then about just two things. Learning more techniques (instruction) and improving techniques (practise and some instruction). You will inevitably amass an ever expanding collection of materials, but possession of the materials alone doesn’t make a difference. With all this in mind I would suggest that you learn the techniques that Hans puts before you. You may not use them in what you are tying now, but they will serve you well later.
Something I was taught right at the beginning makes me wonder even now when I see it in many videos. How many wraps to secure a material? Lets look at an example. Tying a fly with a hackle fibre tail and a rib. Both of these emerge from under the thread at the bend end of the hook shank. What I often see is the thread is wound along to the tie in point of the tail. The tail is tied in with a couple of wraps of thread. Then, and this is what I fail to see the point of, the tier winds the thread forward over the tail butts and back to the tie in point. Then ties in the rib, winds the thread forward over the rib and back to the tie in point.
I’m sure you have seen that as well, and perhaps do it. My point is why? If you tied in the tail with two turns, followed by the rib. Without winding toward the eye and back after each stage the rib and tail are no less secure. The two turns of thread used to tie in the rib have also gone around the tail butts. Subsequent turns of thread used to tie in the next material will go around both the tag end of the rib and tail butts. So why do people so often feel the need to advance and return the thread after each material?
The only explanation I can think of is modern thread. When I leaned the tying thread we had available was all around the size of Pearsall’s silk. If you made several layers over the hook shank you ended up with a very bulky fly. Modern thread is a fraction of the size, so does not significantly add to the bulk. But just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. Surely all this running up and down the hook shank is a waste of time effort and thread. My original instructor had a few sayings he often trotted out, one was. “You should use thread as if it cost $5 an inch (which if you buy it from me it does).” Another thing I was taught then also has a bearing on this. Most flies can be tied with one pass of the thread each way along the hook shank.
Now I’m sure Hans will challenge my thinking on this. It is just something that has struck me, and, having thought about it a lot, can’t see any good reason for it.
Keep up the good work Hans.
Cheers,
A.
Which is why I routinely tie in the ribbing material on the way down towards the bend, and in many cases the tailing material also. (It also, as discussed in an earlier thread with ScottP, allows me an easy way to have the ribbing material running dead straight along the bottom of the shank without fiddling required.
The only explanation I can think of is modern thread. When I leaned the tying thread we had available was all around the size of Pearsall’s silk. If you made several layers over the hook shank you ended up with a very bulky fly. Modern thread is a fraction of the size, so does not significantly add to the bulk. But just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. Surely all this running up and down the hook shank is a waste of time effort and thread.
Indeed. However, I would not place the blame at the feet of Pearsall’s Gossamer - to my mind a much more significant factor is the tier’s mindset. One can tie very skinny flies with Pearsall’s Gossamer, including tiny heads.
My original instructor had a few sayings he often trotted out, one was. “You should use thread as if it cost $5 an inch (which if you buy it from me it does).”
Sound advice, Alan. My version reads: "If you cannot explain why a wrap of thread is there, chances are it shouldn’t be.
Another thing I was taught then also has a bearing on this. Most flies can be tied with one pass of the thread each way along the hook shank.
Now I’m sure Hans will challenge my thinking on this. It is just something that has struck me, and, having thought about it a lot, can’t see any good reason for it.
No challenge there at all, Alan. I concur, and most if not all of the patterns I have uploaded videos for follow that approach. One pass in each direction.
Cheers,
Hans W
Sorry Hans I wasn’t including you in the people who do that. I know you don’t. Also I wasn’t blaming Pearsall’s Gossamer, I only mentioned it to describe the rope like size of the old thread compared to the threads we use now.
One thing that you do or more appropriately don’t do, that I can’t use (to answer the question you posed John) is make those beautiful small heads you do. Its not that I can’t. Its not that I don’t like them. In fact I often use your technique to get those small heads on my flies. It is quite simply that customers expect a shiny varnished head on their flies. I’d rather do them as you do, but the customer has the cash.
Cheers,
C.
chuckle Alan, I made that reference with a twinkle in my eye.
I quite enjoy tying with Pearsall’s Gossamer for some of my wingless wets.
One thing that you do or more appropriately don’t do, that I can’t use (to answer the question you posed John) is make those beautiful small heads you do. Its not that I can’t. Its not that I don’t like them. In fact I often use your technique to get those small heads on my flies. It is quite simply that customers expect a shiny varnished head on their flies. I’d rather do them as you do, but the customer has the cash…
Totally understand.
The key difference is that I tie for me, myself and the odd trout. No customers involved - and only the trout and me to please. For many of the flies I tie the head consists of a three turn whip finish and that is it - no materials to tie down, no stubs to cover up - so a small head is almost a by-product, but a by-product which appeals to me
Cheers,
Hans W