Adams vs. Wulff

[Seadog 0]

The other day I thought I would start trying (traditional dry flies). Since I usualy fish for bass or panfish, this is kind of out of my comfort zone. Well. I began tying an Adams. Tail: moose mane, Body: adams grey dub, wing: poly, and hackle: 2 brown neck hackles. I used 2 brown because they were easily accessible and I did not want to dig for a grizzly. Turned out pretty good and I was starting to pat myself on the back :clapping:

 

 

Well, my buddy comes over and sees the fly. He responds, "nice Wulff".

 

I said, no... it's an Adams

 

He replies, " no it's a Wulff" and points out that I did not use any grizzly hackle.

 

So, I began researching patterns and found numerous Wulff flies that use all sorts materials and color patterns. Also, I found some Adams flies that frankly, did not look like an Adams.

 

Excuse me for my ignorance, but honestly, I do not see a whole lot of differences between the two.

 

If I tie and Adams, but use a slight variation in color or material, is it no longer an Adams? Does it become some kind of unpure variation or is it a totally different fly worthy of a new name :dunno:

 

 

[flykid 0]

That's the problem with flies. They can get really messy when you get into naming variations and such. You can make a few changes and all of a sudden you have a "new" fly that might be alot like another pattern. Technically the original Adams has a golden pheasant tippet tail, muskrat fur body, grizzly and brown mixed hackle and grizzly hen hackle tip wings. Now it's basically the same but people tend to use a grizzly/brown mixed hackle fiber tail instead of the golden pheasant. I can see your friends thinking though because of the poly wings and moose tail. As you know Wulffs usually use some sort of hair split for wings (similar to the poly effect) and a beefy tail also made of hair (sort of like your moose mane). So I guess you could call it an Adams Wulff and make everyone happy

 

But to me it doesn't really matter what the name is, as long as it is catching fish

[Sonny Edmonds 0]

But to me it doesn't really matter what the name is, as long as it is catching fish

 

And that's the bottom line.

Too much of this stuff is designed to catch fishermen, not fish.

[flytire 0]

adams (feather wing and tails)

 

 

wulff (hair wing and tails)

 

 

adams history

 

 

some history on wulff flies

 

http://www.overmywaders.com/index.php?quack

[halcyon 0]

You actually did not tie either an Adams or a Wulff style fly. These are correctly and very nicely illustrated by flytire in the above post. If you are going to tie "traditional American dry flies" I would suggest you should actually tie the patterns as they traditionally defined.

[flytire 0]

there was an article by AK Best in one of the fly fisherman/tying a few years ago on 4095 way to tie an adams. i think the names and variations have been covered. :D

[Seadog 0]

You actually did not tie either an Adams or a Wulff style fly. These are correctly and very nicely illustrated by flytire in the above post. If you are going to tie "traditional American dry flies" I would suggest you should actually tie the patterns as they traditionally defined.

 

 

 

I think that is kind of my question. A traditional fly, such as an adams, should only be tied w/ the materials and color scheme of an "adams"?

 

I'm not trying to beleaguer the point, just trying to get some insight

[Seadog 0]

Flytire, thanks for the good info, especially on the wulff.

[Hairstacker 0]

A traditional fly, such as an adams, should only be tied w/ the materials and color scheme of an "adams"?

 

If you are a "traditionalist" and/or take the "traditional" point of view, that is a true statement. In years gone by, if you substituted any of the materials in an established fly pattern, you were expected to call it a "variant" of the original.

 

Of course, those were the days when most folks had much more rigid and inflexible views of the definitions of flies and fly fishing and how they should be approached. In fact, there are still folks out there like that -- some of those streams in England come to mind where club rules dictate you cast only upstream to sighted fish with dry flies. But nowadays, it's much, much more of a free-for-all, where for many folks almost anything goes. Let me hasten to add, I'm not making any value judgements of my own either way -- I say, to each his own! It's your hobby and time, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to get so long-winded. Anyways, it seems like most folks worry a lot less about these things nowadays and you see all manners of variations of flies sharing a given pattern name.

[smallieFanatic 0]

I think the main reason is that one rocks and the other is overated :j_k: I think everbody just about covered it the differances.