Dubbing brush vs. dubbing loop

[troutnabout 0]

I've used dubbing loops but never brushes. What's the diferrence for durability and look? :dunno:

[Redwings1 0]

I use both, but with the exception of pre-made EP Sparkle Brush I much prefer to use dubbing loops for my flies. I find I have much more control over a dubbing loop, less bulk, and less waste.

[Soft-hackle 0]

Hi,

I've seen the commercially tied dubbing brushes, but prefer to make my own brushes, off the fly. As Redwings says, you have more control over the heaviness of the brush, the materials used (color & how rough or fine) and underlying thread color. I believe all these attributes are important when dressing flies that look more natural.

 

Mark

[Chad Trout 0]

I use both, prefer using the dubbing loop, but the brushes do come in handy and work well when needed for certain flies. I have a little tool to help make my own dubbing brushes, only have made a few, but I need to find the right (small) wire or right thread that wont break when spinning the brush.

[KevCompton 0]

I find myself using both brushes and dubbing loops -- in fact, used both in the Brush Hog (sorry to re-run this pattern).

 

 

The brushes can add the weight of copper, stainless steel, or tungsten wire, while providing flash and more durability. Or the choice of a thread core that may differ from the working thread. The 'bugginess' of the brushes looks better to the tier.

 

Dubbing brushes have limitations, though. They can be time-consuming to spin, and often too costly. The smaller the fly, the more difficult to use a brush. With smaller and smaller patterns, 'split-thread' loops, or two-stranded mono threads from Europe allow one to spin loops quickly and to size.

 

So I fall somewhere in the middle. A given application or desired effect often will dictate the technique.

 

[flyfishingtaz 0]

I dont tie alot of flies that require dubbing, so I just use a loop. Also I'd imagine that the brushes would add alittle weight to the fly, so it may be used primarily for wet flies. I am sure Im wrong, but being I've never used em, it would seem reasonable.

[GPB 0]

Well, to throw a bit of a spanner in the works, I prefer to use the split thread method using UTC thread instead of dubbing loops though I do like using brushes when I want to blend allot of different types of materials together.

 

Kev, nice fly, out of interest what hook did you use, Knapek?

[troutnabout 0]

:dunno: Thanks GPB! What is UTC thread?

[GPB 0]

:dunno: Thanks GPB! What is UTC thread?

It's a brand made by Wapsi. It splits very easily comapred to other threads, you split the thread with a bodkin, pack the material between the thread (almost like a loop) and then you spin the bobbin to twist, quick dubbing loop without a dubbing tool and creats less bulk. I even use this to spin sculpin wool if the hair is dense (frizzy) enough, just spread it properly

 

The Marc Petijaun (sp) split second thread does the same, if you look at some of the magic tool demo's on the web they use the same method.

 

Kev, just saw this flies submission int he coldwater, got the hook type, nice pattern

[troutnabout 0]

Thanks. I'll check it out. Sounds like a cool process.

[rockworm 0]

troutnabout

 

The difference between the dubbing loop and and the dubbing brush is one of degree. With the dubbing loop the fur fibers are usually rolled or spun onto the thread- the fibers will be oriented more or less along the thread. When the dubbing loop is spun and wound around the hook, the result will be a more-or-less smooth body (or thorax, or head.) I say "more-or-less" because the tyer has quite a bit of control over how bushy the result is.

 

With the dubbing brush, however, the fur is placed so that the fibers are perpendicular to the threads (or wires, or thread-halves) used to hold them. These fibers will all flare out from the body of the fly. Dubbing brushes are great for making fur collars on wet flies.