| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
16 pmd |
"Eye of newt..." |
Lead | ||
|
I find it amusing that some guy in the early days of fly fishing ties a fly using some oddball material he happens to have at hand. Then 100 years later people
are slavishly following his recipe looking for "Eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat and tongue of dog." Not to be critical of people who want to
duplicate a fly for display purposes or just want to go through the exercise of seeing if they can tie the fly in the original style and fashion, but it does
seem that some think the original materials are absolutely essential for an effective fishing fly. I'm sure some of the pioneer tiers would have been more
eager for some packages of poly dubbing than we are for urine stained fox fur or Chadwick's wool. It would have made things a lot easier for modern tiers
to copy their flies too. Nothing at all wrong with traditional flies, but sometimes a little experience and judgment about substituting would make tying a lot
simpler and just as effective.
|
||||
|
|
||||
catskilljohn |
#1 | |||
|
I agree, for fishing flies, subs are a more practical alternative. On the other side of the coin, for some, researching,searching for and obtaining the
"eye of newt" is sometimes just as, if not more than, fun also.
A short while ago, I was on a "Able Mabel" dry fly kick. I have the recipe, as many do, and a photo of one tyed by its inventor, Ed Van Put. The ribbing on the fly calls for "amber". Probably anything will do, but I wanted to know the exact color. Lucky for me, at the same time, Catskillflies in Roscoe just got an order from a private club on the Beaverkill for 8 or 10 dozen Abel Mabels. Luckier still, Ed Van Put dropped off the spool of the actual thread he uses to rib the fly. Dennis graciously gave me a 12 inch piece, and now I know and have the exact color. For a fishing fly, any amber thread will do, but for me, Ed's is the one. CJ |
||||
|
|
||||
upstatetrout |
Abel Mabel | #2 | ||
|
To be able to accurately tie this fly I believe you should have one as fabricated by the tier. As for the
eye of newt ,I agree. The delight is found in the engagement of the pursuit. Tom
Last Edited By: upstatetrout 02/13/2008 20:41.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Hardy Guy |
#3 | |||
|
It's what we do,, nothing odd about following a traditional recipe.
I was involved in a thread on another board where the use of Silver Monkey and the flies tied with it were brought up. Personally,, i don't feel the need to use it as a few materials(namely grey fox) is a suitable alternative. Having said that, i certainly can appreciate the lads who do use it to stay true to the original dressing. Monkey fur seems to violate some sort of,, oh whats the word,,, ethical boundary for me. Pretty much everything else is fair game though
Hardy Guy
Obsessed Salmon Chaser since 1988!!
www.flyfishtheisland.com |
||||
|
|
||||
shakeylee |
#4 | |||
|
i DO tye with modern materials,even synthetics.
HOWEVER to some eye of gecko or salamander is not the same as eye of newt. a 2008 cadillac is NOT a '59 cadillac even though they both could get you to a stream. |
||||
|
|
||||
Ken M 44 |
#5 | |||
It would have made things a lot easier for modern tiers to copy their flies tooNot really because nothing has changed - what was easily available or fashionable then and is not so now will still apply in the future - try sourcing specific 'modern' materials from only 10 or 15 years ago and you can often have exactly the same problem. But you are right - I have never found a fish that cared whether I used cobblers waxed Pearsalls silk or a modern equivalent in even a similar shade. That said I may catch more fish on the older style fly because I feel 'better' about using it and fish a little better ... I do not really know about that one but I guess it applies to many of the things we find desirable - like classic rods for instance. There are some things which I absolutely would not use (unless I already had it from an old collection etc.) or more specifically even try to source because creating any kind of 'demand' for some items results in 'environmental damage'. I will use the following as an example of what I mean rather than any specific tying material - I used to grow tropical orchids commercially and as a 'serious' hobby and what could easily be noted was that often the most 'desirable' for the show growers was also the rarest and the most expensive ... lets us say a specific slipper orchid from some remote region .... demand immediately outstrips supply, price shoots up, collectors descend on the location of species, species is removed by locals who cannot afford to give up the opportunity (often to buy food) and are sold on, it is then found that the species only existed in limited numbers in a specific site - species is now extinct in the wild and probably dying out in collections because it inhabited a very local climatic niche. If we are lucky someone has collected seed or propagated the plant and maybe we eventually do the environmentally good work of 'reintroducing' the species to the wild. If we are unlucky the species is now extinct and lost forever. One thing I would add is that in quite a few old patterns 'unusual', 'exotic' or very specific items were 'used' to specifically limit the available source of the fly - the marketing of exclusivity is certainly not a new thing. But in most cases they just used what was easily available to them, just as we can do now. So do 'Killer Bugs' using Chadwicks 477 catch more fish that 'Killer Bugs' with a similar / identical wool body - probably not ... but they just might and if you really want to tie a Killer Bug exactly as Frank Sawyer did you just gotta have the real deal!
|
||||
|
|
||||
sharps4590 |
#6 | |||
|
I have reenacted for over 30 years and this thread would very much come under the heading of "historic" or "period" correct. A TC Hawken is
a muzzleloader and a pretty good one. It will take a deer, bear or elk and many matches have been won with that rifle, but it isn't any more a Hawken than
is a '59 Chevy. One wouldn't show up at a juried, pre 1840 event carrying a TC Hawken and be allowed to participate. Same with our clothing. A full set
of buckskins modelled after what the moderns beleive was worn at the 1825 rondevous won't fly at a French and Indian war reenactment.
If we want to tie the flys as they were, or reenact a specific period of history, then we gotta have the correct "stuff". In addition, as others have said, the research often becomes half the fun. Practically speaking flys tied with historical correct materials shouldn't catch any more or larger fish than flys tied with matching or similar modern materials. However, as Ken M said, we just might fish the more correct fly a little better and thus catch more fish. I know I hunt a lot more careful when carrying my flintlock and dressed in 1780's clothing than I do when carrying my Shiloh Sharps because of the difference in limitations of the rifles. And it just feels better! Flys are the same for me. Vic |
||||
|
|
||||
shakeylee |
#7 | |||
|
plus for certain things there is no sub.take jungle cock for instance
|
||||
|
|
||||
Ken M 44 |
#8 | |||
So do 'Killer Bugs' using Chadwicks 477 catch more fish that 'Killer Bugs' with a similar / identical wool body - probably not ... but they just might Yikes .... Chadwicks 477 |
||||
|
|
||||
Buck Henry |
#9 | |||
|
Wow, 102 bones! Now that is some pricy wool!
Thanks for posting that, as now I don't feel nearly as bad about spending the $40 bucks it took to accumulate all the stuff needed to make my Tups dubbing!
|
||||
|
|
||||
catskilljohn |
#10 | |||
|
There was a card that sold for $140.00+ a few months ago. The guy selling this stuff is lovin' it for sure!
I will tell you something though, I aint made of money, but if I was a big Sawyer fan, I would be bidding on that too. There is something special about having the right materials. CJ |
||||
|
|
||||
DrLogik |
#11 | |||
|
Had I known about that one I would have been actively bidding past $102.00. That's one of those "Holy Grails" of fly tying. That and
Pearsall's Orange/Brown 6b silk thread. I would gladly have gone for a week eating Beannie-weanies to justify the money.
|
||||
|
|
||||
mvendon |
Chadwicks | #12 | ||
|
For those that don't have any of the original 477, you can buy it at the site link below, just scroll down. It's not cheap, but for something that
hasn't been available for so long, it's not outrageous either. It's been available online since at least October of last year.
|
||||
|
|
||||
joaniebo |
#13 | |||
|
Mark
Chadwick 477 "Killer Bug" yarn substitutes have been available for quite awhile. Approx. 2 - 3 years ago, friends in Europe sent me cards of the substitute yarns available from Lureflash, Veniards and Ellis Slater .... all appear to be very similar in color and texture. Cheers and Safe Fishing Bob |
||||
|
|
||||
mvendon |
#14 | |||
|
Hi Bob,
Its not a substitute. Its the original Chadwick's 477 killer bug yarn. If you scroll down and read whats next to the picture, that's what it states. When it's gone there won't be anymore from him. I believe the only reason that it's still available there is that it doesn't come up when you Google Chadwick's 477 AND that it isn't attached to one of the original cards since he's selling it by the meter. I think it's a very good idea. At least quite a few folks who always wondered exactly what it looked like, or wanted just a piece of this" magical " yarn to try out on several fly's now have that opportunity. You can buy more than just one meter too. Regards, Mark |
||||
|
|
||||
joaniebo |
#15 | |||
|
Mark
My apologies, I looked at the part of the site that had various yarns, including a replacement Killer Bug yarn. At approx. $18.00 / meter, I'll stick with the substitute Killer Bug yarns that I have ..... heck, I doubt if a meter's worth of yarns will do more than 3 or 4 flies, thus these tied bugs with be wallet killers ... and I doubt if the trout / grayling will know / appreciate the cost differences. Best Bob |
||||
|
|
||||
DrLogik |
#16 | |||
|
Try here:
http://www.sportfish.co.uk/product/33767/Chadwick_Wool_Sub_Killer_Bug_Yarn.html $4 bucks isn't so bad plus shipping. |
||||
|
|
||||
catskilljohn |
#17 | |||
joaniebo wrote: Wow, you dont think you would get more than 3-4 flies from 3 ft of yarn? Or did you mean 3-4 dozen? CJ |
||||
|
|
||||
joaniebo |
#18 | |||
|
CJ
Frank Sawyer's tying of the Killer Bug requires that you start wrapping the yarn (with closely packed wraps) at the hook eye, back to near the bend, back up to the eye and back to the bend before you tie off the yarn with the copper wire that was previously wound from the bend to the eye and back again. It takes quite a bit of closely packed yarn to do 3 hook wraps, especially if using a longer shanked hook. Best Bob |
||||
|
|
||||
creakycane |
#19 | |||
|
I have to say, as immoderate as I am in collecting dry fly hackle in every shade of dun and ginger immaginable, and all manner of silks and dubbing materials -
I find it hard to get excited about the right wool on a card for the KB. This seems to me more akin to finding the exact brand and shade of antron that
LaFontaine used to tie the original sparkle pupae. As much as I can often get stoked up to find original/exotic materials, I find that I can't get fired
up about Chadwicks yarn. Am I losing my obsessive-compulsive edge?
|
||||
|
|
||||
Ken M 44 |
#20 | |||
Am I losing my obsessive-compulsive edge?Probably not - but you are saving yourself money !
|
||||
|
|
||||