Fishing The Fly Scotland
Index => Fly Tying => Topic started by: Loxiafan on 09/03/2013 at 01:55
-
This is a follow on from the whole Pearsall's 6A debate a couple of years ago but also to canvas opinion on another area of spider flies, that of correct hackle density. I have hinted on here before my own thoughts on 'historically correct' hackling of Spider flies, that, based on my observations of 'period' flies that survive by exponents and founders of the style, that the hackling density they used seems 'heavy'. It would seem perhaps that the 'sparsely' hackled spider is a modern phenomenon ?
Now, I tend to dress spider hackles realtively densely, possibly akin to Ollie E, but I also tie and use sparsely hackled spiders for particular conditions - fickle fish, when I want the flies to sink etc.
Here is a pic by Phil Bailey from 'the other forum' of a Orange Partridge tied by none other than Francis Walbran (1852 -1909) !
(http://i50.tinypic.com/x6j19k.jpg)
That would be a 'heavily' hackled spider even by my own standards ! But, look at that Orange thread ! Hot Orange ? Definitely nothing like 'modern' Pearsall's 6A ! ;-) FYI there are more photos of flies like that by Walbran in Leslie Magee's excellent book.
So, don't accept dogma - when we are told that spiders should be sparsely dressed to be authentic or correct then that is clearly not the case ! Of course, the sparse ones work, and very well too, but then so do ones like that above that we are told are 'wrong'.
When you are at your bench tying your Don spiders for this season why not tie both types, sparse and less sparse. How about fishing a duo of a sparse spider on dropper and a heavier hackled version on point (or vice versa), especially if you fish across and down with the swing ?
Hae fun and happy tying,
Lindsay
-
But, look at that Orange thread ! Hot Orange ? Definitely nothing like 'modern' Pearsall's 6A !
hi Lindsay,
i'll let you lads fiddle about with what's traditional or not but if you don't mind, i just wanted to point out one can't really accurately judge colors from photographs, specially on the net where just about every computer screen has it's own settings and limitations.
i guess the point being, if we all took our computers and looked at the same image simultaneously, very few images would be the same.
just as an example i took your image and simply increased and decreased saturation levels by just a few points.
orangier
(http://i48.tinypic.com/9gbp02.jpg)
and drabberer
(http://i45.tinypic.com/10ghfh4.jpg)
as far as hackle density goes, i'm not a big fan of 'more' as when wet the fly takes on the appearance of a solid 'water-drop' veiling the underbody, a micro streamer of sorts as opposed to a less denser hackle that lets light come through, shows distinctive yet asymmetric 'bug body parts' like a drowning, drowned, emerging or whatever bug in that state and those parts move more in the water as the fly drifts.
anyhow, interesting to see how thick the tippet is on that fly... :z4
cheers,
marc
-
Hi Marc,
I am interested in the 'traditional' aspect but only from an interest/pseudo 'romantic' perspective :wink I will fish whatever I think will work, Pearsalls 6A (current, and which does work) or sparse spiders.
One of the principal modern exponents/self-appointed 'experts' of this 'style' wrote a coulple of articles last year and also ties and sells 'traditional' patterns. His patterns are sparse, yet in his article the historical flies to which he bleated on about were all much denser, and typical of the one above and elsewhere. Just saying, when a modern 'expert' tells you hsi way is 'traditional' and correct, well possibly the latter but not necessarily the former if you see what I mean !
Cheers,
Lindsay
PS even with your manipulation, still look nothing like my recent 6A :wink :z7
-
Marc, that's not the tippet. Didn't you know that the much unheralded but true great grandfather of spider fishing - the Right Reverand Winstable F. Sake recommended that the end of a clear intermediate fly line should be whipped directly to the hook shank?
Seriously though, I know that a lot of guys are well into the history that goes with fly fishing and pay respect to the pioneers of fly tying by trying to reproduce the patterns as dressed but I'm not really fussed. I am a self confessed heathen :z8
I tie in whatever feather takes my fancy in a rough match and wrap with as much turns and in what direction as floats my boat on any given day.
I'm not detracting from the study & effort that the old boys (and modern ones) put in but although materials have greatly increased we still don't see the beasties as seen from the trouts eye - colours, movement, shimmer, whatever............ and to be honest I hope we never do.
Iain
-
PS even with your manipulation, still look nothing like my recent 6A :wink :z7
no, but since i just bought shares at Pearsall's i was hoping to generate a few more sales of different colored threads... :z4 :z4 :z4
-
Marc, that's not the tippet. Didn't you know that the much unheralded but true great grandfather of spider fishing - the Right Reverand Winstable F. Sake recommended that the end of a clear intermediate fly line should be whipped directly to the hook shank?
:z4 :z16 :z4
-
Seriously though, I know that a lot of guys are well into the history that goes with fly fishing and pay respect to the pioneers of fly tying by trying to reproduce the patterns as dressed but I'm not really fussed. I am a self confessed heathen :z8
I tie in whatever feather takes my fancy in a rough match and wrap with as much turns and in what direction as floats my boat on any given day.
Me too, no room for dogma in my flytying ( as JT would say :wink ). Just can't stand contradiction and pointing out that the sparse hackle is very much a modern 'trend' ?? I like to tie variants of the same fly pattern (I don't use many), so longer winged DHE's, sparse and less sparse spiders etc. Gives me choice on de bank.
Marc, that "thick tippet" I am sure you are aware is gut - it is probably about 1/16" thick and 0.5 lbs B.S :z4 Nought wrong wi Pearsalls "modern" pale tangerine 6A, great with a Grouse hackle (heavy or sparse).
L
-
Marc, that "thick tippet" I am sure you are aware is gut - it is probably about 1/16" thick and 0.5 lbs B.S :z4
i gathered, nylon came around a little later... :z4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon
-
I have hinted on here before my own thoughts on 'historically correct' hackling of Spider flies, that, based my observations of 'period' flies that survive by exponents and founders of the style, that the hackling density they used seems 'heavy'. It would seem perhaps that the 'sparsely' hackled spider is a modern phenomenon ?
Without pontificating on one of my favourite subjects, what you have to remember, First and foremost, is that Spider style flies originated in the north of the country, because they had moors where they went out and shot birds, so whatever the local bird was generally became the local spider hackle. They were flies that had to be simple to tie with whatever materials were available locally. I don't think there are any real founders to the style, only a handful of people who had the wherewithall to write about it.
Hackle density is generally accepted to get sparser the further north you go, as the bodies get shorter, so it could be about proportions or it could be down the increasingly frugal attitudes that stereotypes have us all cracking jokes about :z7. Mind you clyde style flies tend to incorporate a small slip of a wing as well and that adds to the density, sort of kills the sterotype as well :wink
What i can do, rather than quoting other people interpretations, is quote one of the main writers/exponants of the North country flies, T.E Pritt, whose book of 1885 "North-Country Flies" Does not contain any photos, only plates with drawings.
The drawings have the Spiders with varying lengths of hackle and varying density, some sweep back and some stand proud so you start to wonder if that relates to the specific imitation. Don't fret just read his text, Pritt didn't tie flies he just fished them and his last paragraph in the introduction to his fly book says this.
"It only remains to be said that the illustrations on the following plates have been carefully copied from flies dressed by various Yorkshire makers. The Originals, or others like them, have done service on half the rivers and lakes of England and Scotland, and have never failed to give a satisfactory account of themselves, despite lugubrious warnings of local hands that "they were no use there". You will be told this probably on every new river visited; yet may you safely fish your own flies and laugh to scorn the dismal prophecies of anglers who believe that the trout in their own river differ in their choice of flies from those of any other river in the universe."
So he at once makes the point they are all tied differently to suit whatever the Maker deems proportionally correct, and that it doesn't really matter, its about confidence and suggestion. Theres a nice hint of Angler Exaggeration in there too :z4
If you look further into the text you will find Pritt's own personal preference which he alludes too with this statement
"Within reasonable limits, the flies for Yorkshire rivers, and for most other rivers of equal size,-for as the size of your river increases so, to a small extent, must your flies- cannot well be dressed too sparingly in the matter of the feather. It stands to sense that to a creature with such wonderful vision as the trout it is better to err in offering a deception, rather too small than too large."
So Sparse was the modern way in 1885 if you thought like Mr Pritt and you fish a bigger fly on a bigger water, but a smaller fly is more likely to catch a fish.
Seems like good sense to me. But i'm sure there are plenty people who would find something different to say :z18
I tried to find some earlier quotes from W C Stewart's book, but the gist of his writings were more about using a fine tippet and presentation and he showed a marked derision for fly patterns. He was a commercial angler so whatever worked that was cheap and effective was his way. Still some good hints there for the modern angler, Fine tippets and presentation is the way :z16
I think a lot of the confusion comes from too many different interpretations that are heralded as "Traditional Style".
That style varied between makers as well as Area, but the general idea and purpose was the same, to make effective flies that were cheap and easy to tie using the available feathers, but still be suggestive enough to fool a feeding fish.
Not much changes really :z16
Sandy
-
The fly above is actually one tied by Walbran himself, who I understand also sold them (he had a tackle shop) - see Magee's book for pictures of other heavily hackled flies in wallets sold by Walbran. Given Walbran died just a few years after Pritt's book, and fished waters in that region at that time (and before), it is still interesting that he tied his flies with denser hackles.
There was an article last year in FFandFT where there was a photograph referencing the 'oldest' extant N.C spiders in a wallet/book from the 1700's. These looked heavily hackled to me also.
My 'sparse' might well be your 'heavy', so description, like Pearsall's threads onscreen, may well be vague or open to interpretation. :z7
It's all great stuff though :z16
Lindsay
-
The fly above is actually one tied by Walbran himself, who I understand also sold them (he had a tackle shop) - see Magee's book for pictures of other heavily hackled flies in wallets sold by Walbran. Given Walbran died just a few years after Pritt's book, and fished waters in that region at that time (and before), it is still interesting that he tied his flies with denser hackles.
Just one maker though, did you actually read what i posted :z8
Theres a good chance Pritt had some of Walbrans flies, amongst others :wink. I just picked Pritt because his book is the earliest i have that illustrates that there are lots of variations and no Specific historically correct tying style.
Sandy
-
...did you actually read what i posted :z8
??? Aye, sure did and have read Pritt back to back, Stewart (c.f Baillie), Nemes, Leisenring ad lib, ad nauseum :z6 As you stated, in the time of Pritt, sparse may have been the way (for him), but clearly not for Walbran, or the 18th Century extant examples (whoever tied them). Out of actual surviving flies from the period I have not seen, there aren't many that I myself would call 'sparse' :X2 FWIW even Pritt's drawings don't look terribly sparse (by today's standards) and descriptions are vague (that was my point). However, an actual extant period 'fly' I guess is a bit like an archeological artefact - it is real, tangible, hell you could even 'try' it ! :wink
Not disagreeing with you Sandy, quite the opposite :wink, in fact I have admitted I myself apply the doctrine of variation myself, just making the point that when a guy posts nice spiders on a forum and everyone tells him his hackles are too dense, who says ? ! :wink
L
-
I know we are in agreement :wink I just have a slightly different way of looking at it ( or so i think :z4)
However, an actual extant period 'fly' I guess is a bit like an archeological artefact - it is real, tangible, hell you could even 'try' it !
Or it could be still in one piece because it didn't work very well :z7 we won't ever know :z8
I had an interesting correspondance with Syl Nemes over the years and he was very opinionated as to what was a Historically correct way of doing things and why what he was doing was different and new, He used to bite very easily when i suggested he was re-inventing the wheel and choosing a particular Style to be historically correct, so he could say his ideas were new.
He did keep corresponding, so i think he had a good sense of humour :z7
just making the point that when a guy posts nice spiders on a forum and everyone tells him his hackles are too dense, who says ?
Perhaps that is people helping to spread their own knowledge and experience, which would be surely why he posted them in the first place :z16
I work in a world of Absolutes, so the vagueries of fishing keep me sane, and its good that we all keep sharing anything new we have re-discovered :wink
:z18
Sandy
PS. I'll have to get you into Cane rods :z16 that will keep us busy for years :z12
-
PS. I'll have to get you into Cane rods :z16 that will keep us busy for years :z12
Sshhh, the missus is hovering :wink
If you have FF and FT Feb 2012 check Bob Smith's article, but more interestingly the photo of the flies on p.49. These are from a manuscript that pre-dates everything (I think), maybe early 1700's ?? Bob was supposed to bringing out a book on all this nonsense but must have been side-tracked. I saw these flies and was "wow", just how I used to tie my P and O's and Peacocks etc as young lad :z16. It is referenced as "Holy Grail" manuscript in the text ! :z4 Article also states that Brumfitt dressed flies for Pritt (that he then illustrated in his N.C flies book).
We need a "Time Team" special on North Country Spiders ? :z4
Cheers,
Linz
-
:z4 I remember a 'discussion' on this theme over a year ago.... Guess it's that time of year again.... :grin ...
Personally I can go along with both the 'debaters' for a great deal of their statements... But (there's always an but(t) isn't there.... ;) ) I guess it will always be a point of view or the position one takes.... Guess the "Truth" is somewhere in the stars... It's the position one takes that makes it the real one.... I think my truth makes it just as right as an other ones.... (puff the wine is sinking in ... :oops )
Being a believer in evolution I think things have to go forward... not forgetting he past, but make use of it... learn from it and make a new reality out of it.... Perhaps it's this way the spiders (and other flies) have developed.... ZX2 (woooh... my head aches...)
-
I tied this as a clyde style P&O
(http://i590.photobucket.com/albums/ss343/rabbitangler/PartridgeampOrange.jpg)
it has the recommended 1 - 1 1/2 turns of hackle for a clyde style.
Sometimes we are guilty of taking things written 100+ years ago too dogmatically especially when we have access to good quality tying materials, remember thgese guys were using the local materials. Saying that we trout tyers are nothing copmpared to the detail & precision fully dressed salmon tyers go in for, it's almost a disease which thankfully I have only had a slight touch of :wink
-
Nice fly Peter :z16
:z18
Jim
-
I tied this as a clyde style P&O...it has the recommended 1 - 1 1/2 turns of hackle for a clyde style.
Sometimes we are guilty of taking things written 100+ years ago too dogmatically especially when we have access to good quality tying materials, remember thgese guys were using the local materials.
Liking it ! Nice Spider Peter, very well proportioned and balanced :z16 Agree with you on the dogma, hence my OP. Do you strip one side of the feather for the more sparse spiders ? I have started doing that and quite like it (though it felt 'wrong' ripping off good fibres !).
Lindsay
-
....just looking at Walbran's spider again, after Peter's, another epiphany ! Because Walbran et al were having to whip the gut to the hook shank, his 'spider' is much thicker bodied than what we use today ( because we have hooks eyes !). Must admit I really like my spiders, and dries, to be quite slim bodied. That may not have been a luxury afforded these old masters ?
The 'period' Spiders in B.Smiths FF&FT photo are also chunky monkeys by todays standards, presumably due to the whipping of the gut, but also quite thick thread used. So basically (some) 18/19th Century spiders were fatter and hairier - Meatloaf Spiders ? ! :z4 :z7
Lindsay
-
18/19th Century spiders were fatter and hairier - Meatloaf Spiders ? ! :z4 :z7
ask and Ye shall receive...
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2hs9p9f.jpg)
:z18,
marc
-
that's lovely, Peter :z16
Gents, i recall reading somewhere that there should not be more than 13 legs (hackle fibers) on a North Country Spider.
could someone enlighten me on this please ? (just the history/author part, not a debate whether this is right or wrong :X2 )
thanks,
marc
-
Lindsay, i've been thinking about this gut stuff and was wondering if it couldn't be considered as bait ? :z4 :z8 :z4
-
ask and Ye shall receive...
That will never work Marc, for a start it's got the wrong number of legs for a 'spider' ! :wink :z4
L
-
Gents, i recall reading somewhere that there should not be more than 13 legs (hackle fibers) on a North Country Spider.
could someone enlighten me on this please ? (just the history/author part, not a debate whether this is right or wrong :X2 )
I've heard/read that too...but can't remember. Possibly OE referencing it on his Wet Fly DVD ? He certainly poo-poos it, preferring to do more wraps on his own spider/NC flies (and I am with him on that).
Some Spiders I see have less than 13, sometimes 8 or 10 ! :shock These, to me, just look 'wrong', basically thread on a hook, but I can't tell you what the fish think as I wouldn't use one :wink
L
-
i have a hard time agreeing with a poo-pooer that feels the need to wear a safety helmet to go fishing... :z4
-
that's lovely, Peter :z16
Gents, i recall reading somewhere that there should not be more than 13 legs (hackle fibers) on a North Country Spider.
could someone enlighten me on this please ? (just the history/author part, not a debate whether this is right or wrong :X2 )
thanks,
marc
Saw a couple of clyde styles tied by an old guy when I were a lot younger and he obviously adhered to the 'as many fibres as there are legs'. He was also using a 11' or 12' greenheart rod and he was catching many many trout!! :z14
-
thanks Peter but i guess the mystery still remains. 6 isn't 13, heck it's not 12 either ! (in the case the angler's seeing double :z3 )
cheers,
marc
-
Do you strip one side of the feather for the more sparse spiders ? I have started doing that and quite like it (though it felt 'wrong' ripping off good fibres !).
nope both sides but 1 1/2 turns max of hackle :z16
-
nope both sides but 1 1/2 turns max of hackle :z16
Cheers Peter that was what I thought looking at your flee. To be honest, I do think the barbs 'sit' better (if you stroke them back as winding) without the stripping than with, I must admit.
L
-
i have a hard time agreeing with a poo-pooer that feels the need to wear a safety helmet to go fishing... :z4
hey Marc, you've no been fishing with me......you might need it !
L
-
not to worry, mate. i still have one of these from when i was a tree surgeon :z16 :z2 :z4
(http://i50.tinypic.com/raz37p.jpg)
-
I think it was OE who mentioned 13 fibres for a NC spider. I am sure somewhere I head that a spider tied in the Clyde style should only have x number of wraps of silk on the body and that it was not supposed to go anywhere close even to the hook point, tied very short.
Regardless Pete, that's a nice fly :z16
Cheers
Ben
-
I think it was OE who mentioned 13 fibres for a NC spider. I am sure somewhere I head that a spider tied in the Clyde style should only have x number of wraps of silk on the body and that it was not supposed to go anywhere close even to the hook point, tied very short.
He does mention it Ben, but doesn't approve....in his best Yorkshire drawl " a fish't have that down ti nowt in no time". Ollie wraps at least 2 - 3 full turns (unstripped) on his Wat Bloas. Tummel style spiders seem to have very, very short bodies. Local tends eh, ? !
Lindsay
-
Hi Lindsay,
I think you may be correct on both counts mate. OE does use more hackle than 13 barbs and it could very well be Tummel rather than Clyde spiders that are tied short.
Cheers
Ben
-
it could very well be Tummel rather than Clyde spiders that are tied short.
Thats the one Ben, clyde style - level with the hook point (no further back) sparse hackle and wing. Tummel - the body barely exists probably less than half way from point to eye max. Both very effctive.
Peter
P.s. both styles available from yours truely at competative prices :grin :grin :X2