What is Classic fly tying ?

[Fred H. 0]

When I was looking at some of the post in the classic forum trying to find out what went on with Willowhead , I noticed that there were references to his flies not having classic elements and his flies should have been posted elsewhere. Now . I'm not trying to start a debate or give someone a chance to rehash old arguments. If you could tell me why classic tying is different than the other forms of tying. I get the sense that its not just tying classical patterns that have been done before.

Becuase that would be boring just tying the same patterns over and over and leaves no room for creativity. And becuase of the statement of someone not having classical elements in their fly , leads me to believe ther is room to be creative . All I know of the classics is that Mary Orvis tied some great bass patterns long ago and I will one day try to learn them. Can some one help this nontrout fishing Cajun understand what it is to tie classic flies?

Fred

[Hardyhead 0]

Fred-

 

I will try and help, but there is no hard line here.

 

Classics generally fall into specific patterns types. Streamers and Wet flies encompasses the Mary Orvis Marbury bass and trout patterns, the Carrie Stevens flies, and other streamers such as the Edson flies. These are examples of classics, not necessarily all of the classics out there. Many of the tiers are simply duplicating the patterns for their own collections. There is room for creativity, Lee (waterwolf) and Mike Boyer have tied a number of MOM style flies that are their own creations. Many people tie Carrie Stevens style flies but with their own colors and feather variations. The 'classic' comes from following the underlying concepts, not necessarily the patterns themselves. All the Bergman wets are included as well.

 

For the Salmon guys, it's the forms of Kelson, Francis Francis, Taverner, and other great books on Atlantic patterns. Again, many great tiers such as Dave Carne effort to produce as near as can be copies or interpretations of the flies tied then. Tiers like Bud Guidry tend to lean more to the freestyle approach, but encompassing the classical elements of a salmon fly. Most of the patterns here will have a tag/tail/butt/body of silk/hackle/wing/cheeks/topping style layout. There are exceptions, but the creative part of it (at least for me) is hard, and designing good color schemes and good flow and balance while still within the framework is the trick. Spey flies are often found in this section as well.

 

What you won't see much of in the Classics section is wooly buggers, nymphs, dry flies (not many at least), and generally anything with any synthetic fur (although a bead creeps on to a hook now and then). It's not to say the classic tyers don't appreciate that stuff, it's just does not fit in the framework of what's generally talked about.

 

Again no hard rules, just some general ideas.

 

Maybe Bud will chime in. He might have a better answer.

 

Ryan

[buggybob 0]

Hardyhead, I think you've pretty much summed it up, and quite succintly too.

[CoachBob 0]

I'm more confused than ever.

 

"Classic" seems to be rather ambiguous.

 

Is it an age of pattern thing? Or technique? Or materials?

 

For instance, would soft hackle patterns like those identified by Syl Nemes count?

 

 

 

[Hardyhead 0]

Coachbob, soft hackles are definitely included. Syl Nemes sort of brought them to the forefront, but the several old Irish patterns were basically soft hackles. The whole thing is a bit confusing, and yes, age of pattern comes into effect, but in reality it is a combination of things that make it a classic.

 

A classic survives the test of time, and is appreciated for it's artistic merit as well as it's ability to catch fish. As an example, many salmon flies such as the Silver Doctor have been converted to hairwings by the steelhead/salmon community for ease of tying. The classic is the married or mixed wing Silver Doctor. The practical fly is the hairwing, and if you were fishing, you would probably tie the hairwing on instead of the married wing version you spend 10 hours tying. The definition is loose, but in general anything that shows up in books on fishing from around the turn of the century is considered a classic. Some more modern patterns have been included as well (like the Schmookler patterns).

 

I hope you get the idea, there was a discussion on this at one point on classicflytying.com, I will see if I can find it. If you are interested in learning more about these, simply read that forum, and you will learn tons, ask questions, we all like to help, and some of the fellas and gals really know their stuff (better than me).

[flykid 0]

Eventually everything will be a "classic" but this is referring to a specific type of "old" fly. Spey flies, married wing salmon flies, dee flies, wet flies, classic bass flies (such as mary orvis marbury flies). These are all tied in a specific way with a certain look though the look can vary. Artistic tyers in these areas try to keep basic "structure" of a fly style but do something that looks different than any other fly. If you don't like the word "classic" then you can be more specific. There are whole feather wing flies (using two whole feathers mounted back to back), There are married wing flies (wing made up of married fibers from feathers like goose, turkey, swan, bustard, peacock, etc. It seems confusing and that's partly just because of the way people decided to classifly things. Classic is a pretty broad term so it's really not the best way to describe these but if you get into that style of tying it'll all make sense (somewhat).

[Brian Brown75 0]

May i through in there that most of the classic salmon flies back in kelson trahern and francis francis were tied the traditional way(in hand) which i have tied a few salmon flies in hand and they are something else

[Futzer 0]

I'm more confused than ever.

 

"Classic" seems to be rather ambiguous.

 

Is it an age of pattern thing? Or technique? Or materials?

 

For instance, would soft hackle patterns like those identified by Syl Nemes count?

 

Hi Coach Bob, I would have to say that it falls to the opinion of the observer. Like music, some consider Elvis classic. The ones that consider what they are tying as classic are very passionate about that and to what details of the fly that makes it so.

 

Hope that is not even more muddy, Cheers, Futzer.

 

[Old Hat 0]

I admit that sometimes I struggle to decide where to post a pattern and go back and forth. But I think you have hit on the decision making process Bob, age of pattern, technique and materials all are incorporated into that classic designation.

 

My favorite are wingless wets. Some of these patterns go back a couple hundred years. If I copy a pattern from then no doubt I'm tying a classic pattern. If I change the materials is it a classic? I think that depends next on the material change. If I add krystal flash, or foam, or beadhead etc. that is much different than if I use a different game bird hackle, or use muskrat instead of beaver, or wood duck for the tail instead of grizzly cock fibers. Technique plays a big role also, a nymph pattern can be tied like you most often see on the internet today or you can read Skues and tie your nymph like it describes it in there. The more you incorporate the materials these older tyers may have used (usually what I call organic materials) and the more you utilize the techniques they describe the closer you get to a classic pattern. You can tie a new fly never known before classically or you can tie a classic pattern. I think both of these designations would fit into the classic forums. If all else fails ask, I did. It is generally a polite and helpful bunch of tiers there and most everyone will helpfully send you in the right direction.

 

I'm am sure the case with WH was more than just the flies he was tying. I enjoyed his character and persona on this site, agreed and disagreed with him many times in honest discussion, his style was his own and diverged far from the classic, nothing wrong with that. If I was going to the classic site to learn to tie in the classic styles though, his flies would not have helped me and I think that it is important to maintain that distinction on a site named Classic Tying Forum.