Prosopium w.

Personally, I steer away from 1x fine wire in long-shanked models (e.g. 1x fine 1x long, 1x fine 2x long, etc). They simply bend too easily for my tastes, a consequence of increased leverage due to shank length. Although in the larger sizes (say 14+) they are ok for dries, but I would not consider them for nymphs. In fact, I prefer stronger wire hooks (1x strong, 2x strong, or 3x strong) for long-shanked nymphs to minimize the risk of bending when bottom-snagged or even while fighting fish. Tying droppers off the bend of fine wire hooks also results in bent hooks.

Nymphs. And maybe BIG dries like stimulators.

I have had a winston 7.5 foot 2wt for over a decade and it handles the flies you are describing just fine. Small indicators (like palsa pinch-ons) are no problem, neither is a little lead and two smallish nymphs. I consistently catch 16-inch trout on it without any trouble, and have got some upwards of 20. My advice is that if you fish for small to medium sized trout on small water a 2wt is great, provided you don't plan on throwing something too outlandishly big (streamer or BIG bushy dries).

I don't mess with tails or antennae. They don't really seem important. I fish a lot of different scud patterns and almost always use curved hooks. My favorite pattern is a "pregnant" scud that incorporates an orange glass bead in the middle of the body. The wapsi sow-scud dubbing is great for making plucked legs, and I usually use a thick ziploc bag for the back, although some of my patterns use swiss straw, prismatic sheeting, and even foam.

I've watched fish refuse naturals on several occasions. Fish often shy away from 'hoppers and salmonflies on pressured waters. And I've seen it during mayfly hatches. But then again, I've watched fish from heavily pressured waters eat little drifting sticks and things too. The whole "lopsided" dun selectivity is the real deal. I use a lot of a similar type pattern on windy days and to selective trout eating BWOs or PMDs. Works great, and the fly doubles as a spinner pattern too.

I don't inventory my materials but I do keep a recipe for lots of my patterns so I can recreate them. I make sure to record hook type and size and material sizes (beads, lead, wire, etc). I also make note of any little tricks i use to tie them so I don't forget. It comes in real handy when I burn through all of a pattern I don't tie often enough to have memorized.

No, but most are probably tied that way. I've never seen the commandment that states Hare's Ears must only be tied with a lead wire underbody either but that one was. Anyway, your point does not accurately reflect the intent of my statement.

Bruce would be a good name for a fly like that.

Those who have nothing to say should probably stay quiet. When the right topic comes along it will be evident.

Mr. and Mrs. Beatty, You might want to look at the bugger again. No lead is included in the recipe or instructions. I am not a pro photographer, far from it in fact. But I did have a stint as a writer for Fly Tyer and American Angler. We both had articles in a couple of the same issues in fact. The pics were the most frustrating part of the whole process and part of the reason I gave up on writing the articles. Thanks for listening!

I hope I don't offend the Beatty's by this comment, but, if the IFFF is going to promote such a program they might want to use well-tied, pretty flies for their step-by-steps. The woolly bugger is not great (and why is it unweighted?), the hare's ear is also pretty ugly, and the soft hackle is atrocious. The other two flies are good. I know from professional experience that good shots of flies are tough to get, and macro photography magnifies every miniscule mistake, and that once a fly is published it can't be unpublished (believe me, there's a couple flies and pics out there I'd like to redo!), but that soft hackle step-by-step is really bad. The head and its excess length shouldn't be used as an archetype for that pattern by anyone and the body is poor. Another critique is that tying in the hackle by the tip is a much better technique in my opinion. This isn't "right" of course (there is no "right" in tying after all), and maybe it isn't traditional (I should but don't know), but it is sure easier and less frustrating. Thanks for listening to my unsolicited two cents.

What if the 70:15:15 is meant to refer to volume, not weight? Seems like an unnecessary exercise in futility to me. Just eyeball it and call it good. Do you really think anyone would notice, let alone a FISH, if you were to mix it 66:14:20?

I have either had or have friends who have had most brands of waders over the years. The Simms G-series is IMO superior to all others (except their gravel guards suck). Cheap Simms waders, however, are no better than the other brands and worse than some in the same price range. If you don't plan on frequently walking through the brush, crossing a fences, or sitting on the ground then you will be fine with most waders, provided they fit properly. But Simms G-series waders are WAY more durable than any other make, and they FIT (which aids in their longevity/durability)! I don't like to be overly cautious with or worry about tearing a hole in my waders, so I bought the best and I have never regretted it. In the past I have had or have seen other brands fail right out of the box or within a couple days of normal use. My friends who have other waders are continuously patching or complaining about leaks while I fish comfortably. I'm going on 5 years with this pair (maybe 4?) and of course have had a couple pinhole leaks, but these were easily repaired. If you like the Redingtons, get them and you will likely be satisfied if they fit and you are careful with them. I agree, it is hard to justify spending $700 dollars for a pair of waders, but it is different than spending $700 for a rod, $500 dollars for a reel, or $90 for a fly line. The waders keep you comfortable and dry, which will make you enjoy fishing all the more.

Pearlescent Sheeting is distributed by Harline...not a lot of shops carry it: http://www.bluequillangler.com/Products/Synthetics/Pearlescent-Sheeting-Material#.U0gCRRwm09k PT/TB The stuff you tagged is not the same as the stuff I referenced. I have both materials and the pearlescent sheet from YFG is the same thickness as swiss straw. The Hareline stuff is MUCH thicker, even thicker than Thin Skin.

The back on the stonefly is a Pearlescent Sheet from Yellowstone Fly Goods (or something very similar). I don't know even know if they are still in business but I have some of that stuff and have used it on scuds for years.

I have had a Traveler for about 15 years, give or take, and it is dynamite. I have had to replace the jaws twice, but figure that is par for the course with the obscene number of flies it has tied. Personally, I wouldn't bother with anything fancier, and I would DEFINITELY get a true-rotary vise, not so much for wrapping materials, but to tie upside down and turn the hook to look and work from different angles.

I have been fishing my VPS 4 and 6 wt rods for well over a decade and LOVE them. I would STRONGLY suggest that you not get a Rio Grand, SA GPX, or any other "plus size" fly line. The VPS is simply too soft and these types of lines will overload your rod. I use a Rio Gold on mine these days.

I have used about a dozen packs and vests over the last 15 years and the Orvis guide sling pack is BY FAR the most comfortable and the best in deep water. The other types of packs fill certain niches better, but the Orvis pack is what I use 95% of the time.

I am REALLY glad someone else has this problem too. The rejects still represent so much time and effort it is hard to part with them...and since they aren't your best (or most current) work I am kind of embarrassed of giving them away.

All this over a carp line???? Quality, situation-specific gear is a nice luxury to have. Not necessary, but it definitely helps. It won't turn a newbie into a pro, but it will give a pro an edge and further their range of effectiveness. Use what you enjoy, but balking at what others enjoy is pretty low-rent. If a guy wants to fish bait on a fly rod with a spinning reel, fine. If he wants to fish hobbled rods with worn out reels and level lines, cool. If he wants to spend a little extra and get a high performance set-up, then why not? A person definitely isn't a better or more savvy angler because of the techniques or gear they choose, but when you get critical of someone else's choices in gear and methods then you are the one with the problem, not them.

*smile* Thanks for commenting. "seemingly large hooks" - the close up image may be deceiving. This is a #14 hook, and a fine wire one at that - hardly qualifies as a large hook as most trout fly hooks go ;-) For me the hook is indeed, as you say, my canvas and I select them with care. The flies come out as I want them to be - with as the first criteria that they are are fishing flies, which will ride the pattern as I want them to ride, and effective in the holding-fish when they are taken. "for such diminutive, sparse patterns" - that is where the rub may lie. Yes, most of my patterns lean towards the sparse. I believe they are closer to the naturals that way. If nothing else, I have more confidence in them tied and fished such. Cheers, Hans W I assume you are in England or somewhere in that neighborhood. I have always been intrigued buy the few tying magazines from that side of the pond I've seen. The patterns in them are quite different from those fished in the Rockies, and many seemed geared towards chalkstreams and lakes. Not that we don't fish "technical" waters and lakes a lot over here, but the overall approach to tying for them seems markedly different. I've often wondered how my spring creek and lake selections and techniques would work over there and how European patterns would perform over here (the bugs are essentially the same after all). Because of your skill as a tyer, I figure you have to be able to fish a little too, and probably use mostly, if not only, your own flies. I wonder about the techniques you use to fish those flies, because the flies have to work for you otherwise you wouldn't tie them, right? I envision lots of swinging and sight nymphing, and of course dry fly fishing on very smooth water. Your flies are different enough from mine that I wonder what I am missing and what angling techniques I could learn based on your ties. Anyway, I didn't mean to come off as critical, your tying just interests me because it is so different from my own.

Very nice, trim tie as usual. After looking at a lot of your flies, one question continually comes to my mind....why do you use such seemingly large hooks for such diminutive, sparse patterns? I figure there has to be a reason because your ties are so perfect but often look like an artist drew a masterpiece in the far left corner of an otherwise blank canvas.

So I have to say that the shape of the 200R is great for midge larva/pupa patterns and soft hackles. I used it for years in sizes 22 and 20 and have had no issues with the gap being too small, and it has held onto some very large spring creek rainbows. I do, however, shy away from it now because it simply bends too easily on large fish. If the same hook were made in a 2x, or even 1x, strong version it would be absolutely fantastic.

I gave up on spray type adhesives....way to messy and troublesome. I now use the two-sided tape used for hanging plastic in windows in the winter. it is more convenient and is nearly (or just as) durable as the adhesives I've tried, which include the ones listed. That said, I must admit that I usually only use foam like this for Morrish-type hoppers.

just make one up.