What makes a pattern a pattern...

[MickThompson 0]

I'm pretty new to this fly tying business, but after a quick scan of the internet, it seems that a lot of the patterns are just variations of another patterntied in a different color or slightly different material. Does me tying Clousers with calftail instead of bucktail make it a MickThompson minnow instead? (btw, I do this for no other reason than because I have calftail and no bucktail sitting around) How innovative and different does a pattern have to be to really be a pattern?

[Rodd Gunn 0]

 

That seems to be a variation to me. To be a pattern, you have to come up with something totally new. I tie the Clouser Crayfish with Fox Squirrel tail for pinchers. That's a variation. Not a unique pattern. Rodd Gunn

[Futzer 0]

Well If you look back a couple hundred or so years, other than the introduction of synthetic materials, most flies are recreations several times over. Something like a Clouser, or a Dahlberg diver which has a functionally/technically specific element makes a pattern. The other part of making it a pattern is common success way beyond luck. Variation to me is taking an Eastern style Adams for example and tying it with moose hair tail instead of hackle fibers mixed, making it a Western Adams. So I am saying a change to improve an original pattern is a variation. If you can convince me that the calf tail is an improvement then feel free to claim it. I would have to say using bucktail was to get a longer fiber for the size of the fly. If I used black floss on the body of a Royal Wulff, I would not claim it as mine unless Umpqua sold a few hundred thousand of them and everyone I knew had a couple in their box. So it needs to be a successful change.

 

Cheers, Futzer.

[MickThompson 0]

I need a sarcasm button on this thing! I wasn't claiming the calftail clouser, just using it as an exaggerated example. A better example might be a salamander imitation I tie based on the construction of a woolly bugger (a truly universal fly if there ever was one). I bend the hook shank to get the tail to stand up, tie lead eyes to ride point up, add sili legs and a little flash, and replace the marabou with rabbit or squirrel zonker for a tail. This one is still untested (not for long though), but I think it will serve as a flyrod version of one of my most successfull lures for smallmouths and rockbass in small creeks and rivers. Sorry about the fly, its been stuffed in a cramped flybox for a while.

 

Side View

Top View

[CoachBob 0]

A few threads on this forum have discussed the ego in naming a fly as if it were innovative.

Most experienced fly tyers would not have the gall to claim to have invented a fly unless it was significantly different from any earlier similar construct. Moving from hair to foam was innovative at one time...at one time. Changing from peacock herl bodies to holographic floss bodies was innovative...at one time. Why? Because it was a truly significant change.

The real question probably is: how many things do you have to change before it is a new fly?

[Piker20 0]

An update to this thread, do folk worry or check before they post a pattern on the forum that what they are 'naming' isn't just variant of an existing pattern?

I know that when I sit at the vice I most often tie up flies without following published patterns but I am well aware I am influenced by all the patterns I'm exposed to in various places.

I do sometimes worry I'll call a fly something when really its just a change of an established pattern already.

[tidewaterfly 0]

Piker, that's a good question, I don't name flies so don't worry about it. I don't feel anyone can be 100% sure what they create as "new" really is. To me it only matters to those who sell flies, or are looking to gain "fame" from it. Even in the example of Bob Clouser's Deep Minnow, it could be argued that it's simply a jig variation, and many do. It could also be argued that it's also just a bucktail streamer with weight added. In either case. bucktails & jigs were in use long before Bob created the Clouser Deep Minnow. At the time the barbell eyes were a new addition to fly tying. Most would agree that Bob's creation was one of the first to truly utilize those eyes into a highly effective pattern, so he certainly deserves credit for the fly. As a fly it was a new concept, but as something that caught fish it really wasn't.

 

How do you really differentiate between a new pattern, and variations are way too often a matter of opinion. Although probably not in the case of the Clouser Minnow, but in many other patterns, particularly trout flies, it's certainly possible more than one person came up with the very same pattern, perhaps without even knowing any other similar fly existed. I would bet that popularity is more of a deciding factor when it comes to assigning credit to a flies originator than the actual time line of when it was originated when this happens. So the guy who gets the most wide spread publicity, gets the credit.

 

I know in my own tying experience, I've done things & used materials that were not widely known, then next thing I see a magazine article or a fly in a catalog claiming this guy or that came up with something new, when it was something I had done myself or very similar, sometimes many years before. I now think it's a bit comical, as it's highly probable, many others have seen this happen too, particularly anyone who has tied for a long time. There really isn't a lot new in tying, and many think alike because we're all trying to solve the same problem. It's not that complicated.

 

Also, I doubt there is really enough documented history known about fly tying to really determine origins of some flies, plus I would again bet there are many local patterns that may have been popular at one time in a small area, that have long been forgotten. So, in this case, as an example, a fly that was popular in the mountains of Tenn & NC in the early 1900's, but has not been tied since then is then reinvented in 2012, the question would be, is it really new & original or even a variation of a long forgotten pattern? Most would say yes, because of the lack of knowledge about the fly tied so many years ago, but in reality it would not be new or original. IMO this probably has happened more times than we can know.

 

I now just tie flies to catch fish & could care less what to call them, variation or otherwise.

[JSzymczyk 0]

I'm pretty new to this fly tying business, but after a quick scan of the internet, it seems that a lot of the patterns are just variations of another patterntied in a different color or slightly different material. Does me tying Clousers with calftail instead of bucktail make it a MickThompson minnow instead?

 

no, actually that makes it pretty close to a Clouser Darter.

 

To, me an established PATTERN needs to be made of specific materials, colors, etc. I don't worry about it. Any more, there are STYLES more than patterns in use. Woolly Bugger, Clouser Deep Minnow, Soft Hackle, etc etc. No two tiers are going to tie the same pattern exactly alike anyhow.

[troutguy 0]

I think in someways synthetics have made us "big box store" tyers. Everything is the same and has to be the same. I laugh when I hear people are going to copyright a fly pattern. We have been stealing ideas since Dame Julia.

 

With naturals as in nature you have more variations. The species and hatches we imitate vary and evolve.

 

The Cahill hatch in the Catskills of NY was matched by a size 12 fly. It was a pale light gray to white fly with Wood Duck wings. On the Willowemoc a tyer named Mahlon Davidson noticed that the Cahill hatch had a distinct greenish tinge to it so he took whiteish fur and dyed it with willow bark to get a light green. It became the Davidson Special. My grandfather swore by Davidson's ties. To split hairs, yes it was a light green Cahill.

 

I remember as a kid older tyers looking for that certain pink urine stained underbelly of a female Red Fox to tie a Hendrickson. NOTHING else would work. Now days we buy Hareline Dubbin in Hendrickson Pink. Because of the difference in natural furs and the hatch they were copying there were a large number of local patterns. Thankfully there still are.

[Jaydub 0]

I couldn't put any hard and fast rules to it. If you start with an established pattern as a basis, make some modifications and it still retains the general look of the original, I'd say variation. If you sit down and design a fly based what you're trying to imitate or the characteristics you want it to have, it MIGHT be an original pattern. I have came up with patterns on my own that turn out to be really close to some other fly that's already been published. I hate it when somebody has the nerve to copy my pattern before I've thought of it.

 

I don't think I have come up with any truly new technique or material. I have a pantry full of ingredients and techniques that I can use to cook something up. Sometimes the result is different enough that I couldn't say what it's a variation of, even though it's made up of stolen parts and pieces.

[streamcaddis 0]

There are about 40 million patterns out there and about 1 million ways to tie each one.Back in the 60's there were very few materials to work with. I had to go to the family farm and go in the chicken coop for most of my feathers. Now days you are hard pressed to get larger then a #12.Now days you can't find many large hackle feathers.Today you can get a size 18 or lower with no problem. As far as I know there was only one catalog place called Herter's (sp) in Minnesota . In the 70's I think it was all kinds of synthetics came on the market. Now days they call a pattern a recipe.

Fly tying is one fantastic hobby. I'm still learning different ways to tie flies.

[H Dot Verseman 0]

Good posts all around in this. I really like hearing stories from older tiers about local recipes, and how they used to go about it.

[Kirk Dietrich 0]

If you go by the old Feather Wing streamers so famously credited to Carrie Stevens, then by merely changing the color of a Clouser would make it a new and your own pattern.

How many Feather Wing streamers are done in the exact same way as the originals yet are given new names? Actually, if we're talking variations, I'd be inclined to say that Bob Clouser's Minnow is a variation on the Crazy Charlie or even streamers that were weighted by the likes of Joseph Bates.

I'm not really that particular and do in fact give credit to Bob Clouser for that fly as it is easy to tie and very effective.

To me, I don't have an answer as it seems that there are levels of acceptance on what is a variation and what is a new pattern. I'm still confused how variations on Feather Wing streamers can be new patterns but a Clouser that is a variation to a Crazy Charlie is called a new fly and anything using barbell eyes and not called a Clouser is frowned upon.

It could be that Featherwing is a type of fly and if Bob's minnow were named a Bucktail Jig instead of the use of his last name, Clouser then it would be easier to vary the Bucktail Jig style in to your own pattern. Such as Mick's Calftail jig.

 

Kirk

[Peterjay 0]

A few threads on this forum have discussed the ego in naming a fly as if it were innovative.

Most experienced fly tyers would not have the gall to claim to have invented a fly unless it was significantly different from any earlier similar construct.

 

Bob, the next time you need a laugh, look up "Page's Big Eye Baitfish" and take a wild guess where you've seen it before. And if you happen to bump into Lefty, be sure to tell him it's your favorite pattern. (and be prepared to duck LOL) If there's one thing Page Rogers doesn't lack, it's gall.

 

Seriously, a style is about function and a pattern is about form. Deceivers and Clousers are styles. You can tie a lot of patterns within a style. A pattern is specific as to materials, colors, etc., and a style is not. Anyway, this is one of those questions that can't be answered, like "what is art?" In the real world, the only use patterns have is to provide reference points for production tyers and people who want to pass the information along to others. Besides, we're all in this for the fun anyway. Tying is a creative outlet for most of us - if it were just about fishing or copying someone else's work, all you'd have to do is train a monkey to tie woolly buggers and you could catch anything from carp to tuna. Then you could spend all those extra hours doing something useful like starring in pornographic videos or farting.

[heavynets 0]

Where one draws the line between a style and pattern is clearly in the eye of the beholder. The very definitions of the words, as they apply to flies, are purely subjective. There are no rules, unless a patient or copywrite exists, so do as you wish.