"This is where the problems start. Who developed the coachman? Are you sure? When did it become a royal coachman, a leadwing coachman, a fanwing coachman, a then a (whoops) Royal Wulff? If the original tier wrapped a body in peacock, is every peacock fly a copy or variation of that fly? If I sub. peacock ice dub for peacock, is that still only a peacock variation? What if I use black ice dub. Is that just a variation now, or is it a black gnat? Color changed it? Why not the synthetic as a changer? What about a Royal Wulff with poly wings? Is that still a Royal Wulff, since Lee only made a change from white feather fanwings to white calf-tail to call it a Royal Wulff? Can I call my Winger Adams a 'Don's Adams' like Lee Wulff changed the Royal Fanwing Coachman by just changing the wing material? (Maybe there was a tier named Royal Fanwing. No Buggs, there wasn't. And nooo, we can't call a green Adams a Don's Adams-apple!)" Good example writing of two of my own: With this variation I feel that I've been innovative and created something new, even though it's in fact nothing more than taking an old fly and applying other materials in other ways. I tied it being inspired by the old one, but it's a fly I as well could have made without having the old one in mind. Making a flat, tapered and segmented body to imitate the insect would seem more natural to me, than making it look like a dull sausage. But... basic blueprints for the prototype (and I'm not ashamed to call it that) were on the table... and even though chenille has turned into Antron and Krystal Flash / Ice Dub... and plain wrapping has turned into weaving on underbody, its name is "Montana" + the describing "Slim & Sparkly": http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/mss_1.jpg http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/mss_2.jpg http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/mss_3.jpg I feel the same way with this sister variation of its sister fly... and since this prototype, with the tails/antennaes and bi-color dorsal/ventral, is more imitative than its "sister fly", it's probably also more likely the one I would have tied without having another fly in mind. However, if I actually was aiming for being imitative, enough to bother with bi-color weaving, a bi-color chenille sausage would have been my last choice. But, again, basic blueprints are on the table so it's "Bitch Creek"... with the describing "Slim & Sparkly": http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/ <http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/bcss_1.jpg> bcss_1.jpg http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/ <http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/bcss_2.jpg> bcss_2.jpg http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/ <http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/temp/bcss_3.jpg> bcss_3.jpg But since this one actually is woven from the start, it's ALL about changing the materials. So technically, to take it a step further and change its white rubber legs into white biots, to make it even more imitative wouldn't make a difference. It's still just another change of materials. It would turn it even more into a different fly ('even more' as I think mine already is)... but built upon the same blueprints. And if I took a couple of antron strands and made a wingcase out of them, to make it even more imitative... would it be a completely different fly or a "Bitch n' Montana Mutation, Slim & Sparkly version"? The original "sausages" were in my head from the start and I aimed to improve, so these are just 'my versions'. But if I had done them before I knew of the originals, had them on my web page for a couple of years and then suddenly seen a friend using the sausages, I wouldn't automatically think he had made 'chenille versions' of my own. The appearances of these two, the shapes, their sharp contours and the light reflecting glare (which I wish the camera could capture better) make them differ a lot from the originals. How many would think 'Montana' if my thorax was black? But 'improving an original' or 'creating from scratch' doesn't matter to me. The "Slim & Sparkly generation" has been a development in its own and both of them are version three. Already existing blueprints don't stop me from feeling innovative after my work with these. Several friends have also asked for a step-by-step on the "Sparkly Bitch", so I made one yesterday (http://www.swedneckflyfishing.com/bc_slimsparkly_steps.htm). ... and today I'm packing my fourth Bitch Creek version for Don's Rope Swap. ;o) /Nick - "innovative copy-cat"
-----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] För Don Ordes Skickat: den 26 juni 2010 20:50 Till: [email protected] Ämne: Re: [VFB] QUOTE FOR THE DAY My two cents: His comment doesn't make any sense. 1. He says "during the time period (past two decades) we have a proliferation in new tying materials...". 2. But then he says "Truth to be told there seems to be little that is truly new in the fly tying world." So which is it? Since there are many new materials, like foam and synthetics, there must also be new techniques for applying these to hooks. There are new books, DVDs, PATTERNS, AND techniques. Foam patterns are very productive, and it would be a stretch to say a foam hopper is a "recycled variation or modification using new materials on an old, forgotten fly." That's rediculous. Braided body materials have sparked hundreds of new patterns. I know tiers who feel this way. They never create anything new, so they refuse to see anything anyone else does as new. They find the closest thing to compare it to, and call it a variation of that. It becomes a matter of limited perspective rather than an actual fact. I feel that I am a creative and innovative tier, but I rely on the biggest names in the business for 2nd-hand verification of that. I, on the other hand, am continually amazed by the new things great tiers dream up. The level of artistry in realistic tying right now is incredible. Check Paul Whillock's site. YES, there are many times when a tier THINKS he has a new fly, pattern, technique, or material, and then can be shown something that makes his an identical - even if not intentional. The fly-tying industry right now is so huge that one cannot research all of the patterns in the world before claiming something is 'new'. In many cases patterns resemble well-known originals many decades old. Others resemble later patterns that other tiers have published that are not very well known. The drive right now is to call everything you tie by your name. Everyone wants their name on the books. Did 'Dave's Hopper' start all this? I can't remember too many flies earlier that had the tier's name. This is where the problems start. Who developed the coachman? Are you sure? When did it become a royal coachman, a leadwing coachman, a fanwing coachman, a then a (whoops) Royal Wulff? If the original tier wrapped a body in peacock, is every peacock fly a copy or variation of that fly? If I sub. peacock ice dub for peacock, is that still only a peacock variation? What if I use black ice dub. Is that just a variation now, or is it a black gnat? Color changed it? Why not the synthetic as a changer? What about a Royal Wulff with poly wings? Is that still a Royal Wulff, since Lee only made a change from white feather fanwings to white calf-tail to call it a Royal Wulff? Can I call my Winger Adams a 'Don's Adams' like Lee Wulff changed the Royal Fanwing Coachman by just changing the wing material? (Maybe there was a tier named Royal Fanwing. No Buggs, there wasn't. And nooo, we can't call a green Adams a Don's Adams-apple!) I have had many 'amused' self-appointed masters approach my tying table tell me that there's nothing new, especially in techniques. And them I rope-dub them a 20-second fly and change their minds. And then I show them the 'Baits Hotel', and they learn what new thinking is all about. Maybe some day someone will show and prove to me that the rope-dub technique has been used by others. I checked for 8 years and no one could produce anything. I will then humbly admit that we share the same technique. (It is not Polly's technique, which some mistakenly apply to it- but I have his book, and it's not the same.) I was definitely not taught it and did not read about it, and no one else has seen or read about it either, and no patterns exist that I have been able to find. So if someone has thought of it, they didn't extend it into all of the sub-techniques either. So yes, it does sometimes happen that a fly pattern or technique has ben done before. But if one believes that NO pattern or technique is new, then that person needs to get (his head) out and see a little more. Off my soapbox... DonO ----- Original Message ----- From: Jimmy D. <mailto:[email protected]> Moore To: Virtual Fly Box <mailto:[email protected]> ; Fly Fishing World <mailto:[email protected]> ; Hill oountry Fly <mailto:[email protected]> Fishers Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:41 AM Subject: [VFB] QUOTE FOR THE DAY "During the past two decades we have seen an explosion in the popularity of fly fishing. Thousands of new fly fishermen, and women, have embraced the sport and taken up fly tying as a part of it. During this same period we have had a proliferation in new tying materials; and new magazine abound espousing and rehashing the many nuances of tying. After fifty plus years of fly tying, I am always amused by tyers who purport to have discovered a brand new technique. Truth to be told there seems to be little hat is truly new in the fly tying world. Claims of hot new patterns consistently appear that are nothing more than recycled variations or modifications using new materials on an old, forgotten fly." ( AIN'T IT THE TRUTH ! I've run into that a few times when I tho't I'd invented a new fly. "Tying Flies The Paraloop Way" Ian Moutter **************** ><((((((((º> ***************************************** JIMMY D. MOORE, ARS WB5RHT,author Moon Holler Misfits Fishing & Hunting Club, Member, TOWA, Past VP Guadalupe River Trout Unlimited, North Zone Fishing Editor Emeritus, Texas Fish & Game Magazine, VFB & FFW Moderator, Scout Exec. BSA, Retired, http://bigtroutman.tripod.com/index.html ***************** <º))))))))>< *************************************** -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VFB Mail" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vfb-mail?hl=en VFB Mail is sponsored by Line's End Inc at http://www.linesend.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VFB Mail" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vfb-mail?hl=en VFB Mail is sponsored by Line's End Inc at http://www.linesend.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VFB Mail" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vfb-mail?hl=en VFB Mail is sponsored by Line's End Inc at http://www.linesend.com
