Jump to content
Fly Tying
Sign in to follow this  
Robert_S

How much variation is needed----

Recommended Posts

Been reading a lot of posts about original patterns and how they are all variations of past patterns. Well how much variation do you think is needed before it can be called "different" and stand as a pattern on its own. Take a humpy and a stimulator, they are both tied on hooks, can use the same kind of hair for the wing and tail, can both use floss for the body, can both use the same kind of hackle, not much left. but I wouldn't call one a variation of the other. Take an extended body adams and a parachute adams, two different looks should they be able to stand on there own. Here are two pictures of the pattern "Trout Fin"

 

IPB Image

 

Real nice wet fly tied by mikem.

 

IPB Image

 

And a dry fly tyed by myself.

Now I know the dry is a variation of the wet yet both have a different look, are fished differently, and if you where to ask for the pattern Trout Fin you would have to make sure which one you wanted the dry or wet so is each a pattern by themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are very pretty patterns... send me the reciepe for both,I can change the thread color on both and make more royalties!!! LOL!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Many texts, Malone's Irish Trout & Salmon Flies in particular list both the wet and dry version of many flies. So, what you have done here isn't all that unusual. The Trout Fin listed in Ray Bergman's book is meant to mimic the fin of a Brookie. Don Bastian tells a story of fishing with his father where his Dad uses a Brookie fin as bait and how this is the basis for the design of the fly. So, while your variation is an excellent adaptation, it may not be as effective as the wet version.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many texts, Malone's Irish Trout & Salmon Flies in particular list both the wet and dry version of many flies. So, what you have done here isn't all that unusual. The Trout Fin listed in Ray Bergman's book is meant to mimic the fin of a Brookie. Don Bastian tells a story of fishing with his father where his Dad uses a Brookie fin as bait and how this is the basis for the design of the fly. So, while your variation is an excellent adaptation, it may not be as effective as the wet version.

 

I know all that TB, just looking for what people feel is enough variation in a pattern to stand on its own. Take your wet fly in your own avitar. Don't know if its a copy of another pattern or not but do you feel its different enough then whats been tyed in the past to be considered a new pattern? I'm not looking to crown a new pattern, just wondering where everybody feels the line is drawn. There are a lot of new tyers out there and to say to them, just tie whats been around already because your never going to come up with anything new, I think is incorrect. I still think that there is plenty of room for new patterns using old materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Personally, I dont own many pattern books and I tie based on what action I want out of a fly and what I want to imitate so I dont know if the flies that I tie have been done before or not. So when I "name" a fly I just try to give a generic description like "rabbit strip crayfish" because that is what it imitates and the materials that I used. That way I dont get called out with somebody saying I stole a pattern and called it my own.

 

As far as a variation is concerned, that is a tough call because somebody out there may have already tied that and named it themselves. Just for example the two trout fins that you tied are, to me, completely different patterns. If it was me who tied the variation I would be inclined to call it something like "Dry Trout Fin" instead of claiming it to be "Will's Orange Slice" for the reason I mentioned above.

 

If a different material or color is used I would say it could warrant a name "tweak" just to keep people from being confused but I wouldn't go as far as giving it a whole new name just for those reasons. I would stick with a descriptive name like "Antron Adams" or whatever.....you get my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smallie I agree with you totally on what you said. And the naming, if its a variation it should have the name of the fly its taken from like Parachute adams or extended body adams and Trout fin dry which is what I used to discribe the pattern. Its just that I have seen so many posts on a lot of different forums where some think that its all been done before. Thank goodness the majority of tyers don't feel that way or we would all still be dunkin worms because the first 4-5 patterns ever created would be the only "originals".

Wills Orange Slice---- has a nice ring to it, you'll have to work on something. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The fly in my avatar was my entry in the FTOTY. It is actually a combination of several different flies tied in the wet fly style. The wing color scheme was originally devised by Davy McPhail, the yellow/black tail is found on several different wet flies. The tag from a Childers salmon fly and the rest, I just liked the colors. I named it the McPhail in honor of Davey's contribution to it's most prominent feature. The whole point of the fly was to win the contest, I doubt anyone would tie one and actually fish with it.

 

So, to answer your question. Is it a "new" pattern and deserve to stand by itself as such. I don't know and it really doesn't matter to me whether it does or not. :dunno:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plum, I think if you change a little something from an original pattern you have created a variation. I tie an elk hair caddis by Al Troth, but added a few wraps of hackle as a collar, called it my Skittering caddis.

So by adding a tail and making it dry, you have the PlumBob variation in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no hard fast rules in fly tying or fly naming. Probably the most "correct" answer to your question is to simply say that when a bulk of people start refering to a pattern as an independent pattern it becomes one.

 

Little example

 

Consider a Blonde, a Deceiver, and a Bucktail Deceiver all imitate baitfish

 

The blonde has a bucktail tail and wing

 

The Deceiver has a saddle hackle tail and a bucktail wing

 

The Bucktail Deceiver has a bucktail tail and a bucktail wing

 

All three are considered independent flies with the accepted history being that Lefty created the deceiver by making changes to a Blonde and Bob Popvics improved the deceiver by essentially changing it back. The reason I think is simple, the Lefty's Deceiver is collectively known - if you read "Tie in the tail Deceiver style" you know exactly what that means.

 

So thats my yard stick. If I announce the name of a fly to a group of knowledgeable fly tyers and they know what I mean then its a pattern, if they totally don't know what you mean its a new pattern, if you can describe it by refering to a different pattern its most likely a variant.

 

So back to the example. I often tie my baitfish with a bucktail tail and a calf tail wing - I don't consider them a separate pattern. I'm not really sure what its a variant of though because a case could be made for all three parent patterns. Ultimately, the last person to decide this should be the tyer - you'll know you have a successful pattern when there is yet another variant of your variant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no hard fast rules in fly tying or fly naming. Probably the most "correct" answer to your question is to simply say that when a bulk of people start refering to a pattern as an independent pattern it becomes one.

 

Thats a good rule of thumb Sean Juan. My reason for asking this question is a young friend of mine who hasn't been tying to long was all excited about this new pattern he tyed. When he showed a group of us the fly a few started to jump all over him saying its like this pattern and thats been done before, nothing new, really got the kid down. Although it was like some other patterns, kinda like TB's wet how its got a little of a couple other flys in it. I felt that it was a new pattern. Now if all he had done was change the color of thread then no I would say its not new. I think its possible to still come up with a new pattern even with the same materials that have been around for years, if its a good fish catcher then better yet it will have a longer life, if it dosen't then it will just get buried with the zillion other patterns that came before it. But if your one to try different materials with different applications I say go for it and don't listen to the nay sayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My philsophy on having a fly that is yours, is that it has to genuinelly be yours. If you take a fly that has already been tied and you take it and tweak it, there can be just cause to name it yours. But there has to be a lot of field research done, and using those specific two flies for a long period of time, wether it be 2 months of solid fishing or two years, and there must be a definate advantage to using this pattern of yours.

Or the other way I feel is coming up with a pattern that is completely yours. Doing field research on the insect of your choice, learning how it swims (all the specifics) and coming up with a pattern that is different from anything out there. Also field testing it and being sure it works.

 

Anyhow, that is my 2 cents on that subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case Plum its a very simple answer.

 

It may not be new but its new to him, and thats just as good.

 

I have limited patience with grown men who try to squash a kid's enthusiasm. Like the entire history or fly tying is required reading before you lash feathers and fur to a hook, or that one has to take a global fly box census before presenting a pattern.

 

I was in a similar situation at a show once. I just told the kid that this is a good example of why your parents and teachers tell you not to be overly concerned with what other people think, its because a huge number of them are bona fide ass-wipes.

 

That should answer his question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...