What is traditional??

[SilverArdea 0]

Traditional \Tra*di"tion*al\, a. [Cf. F. traditionnel, LL.

traditionalis.]

1. Of or pertaining to tradition; derived from tradition;

communicated from ancestors to descendants by word only;

transmitted from age to age without writing; as,

traditional opinions; traditional customs; traditional

expositions of the Scriptures.

[1913 Webster]

 

2. Observant of tradition; attached to old customs;

old-fashioned. [R.] --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

 

 

..so within that context, we might say that feather-wing flies are "traditional", since we've found more effective flies. That doesn't make featherwings any less fun to tie or fish. Another thing to keep in mind are the origins of "tradition". Here's a little story;

 

One Christmas, a woman was preparing a ham for the family dinner. She worked in the presence of her grandmother, who's hams she'd always admired for being so unbelievably tasty. At a point in the preparation, the woman cut 2" of meat off each end of the ham, before placing it in the roasting pan. Her grandmother turned with a look of horror as the cut meat hit the garbage. "Honey, why did you throw out nearly a pound of perfectly good meat?!" In reply, the woman said "Grandma, I love the way your ham turns out and that's always how you've prepared it. I was following your traditional recipe!" ..and then the other shoe dropped; "My dear, I cut off those ends because my pan was too small and couldn't fit the whole ham!"

 

So, we might be tying what we think is traditional, but depending on the author, they might have gotten it from somewhere else, not had all the materials the original called for, and then changed it to suit their inventory. In a recent thread over at CFT, I did a little visual analysis and presentation of singular patterns variety within the Caerhowd Collection of salmon flies. The results were rather enlightening. "Traditional" isn't always what we think it is.

[smallieFanatic 0]

It's just a kind of vague label. IMO styles of flies which were developed and used in a time predating nylon mono filament leaders.

 

Catskill style dry flies

wet flies with wings of feather slips (married or not)

Feather-wing streamers (with the feathers tied in at the head)

many bucktail styles

Soft-hackles

woolly-worms ("hackle fly") but not woolly buggers

 

There is no set-in-stone group of parameters to decide whether a style is "traditional" or not. Sometimes difficult to put into words, but you know it when you see it.

 

That :thumbsup:

[Eusebius 0]

I'm of the opinion that "traditional" in fly terms means "Fly's That Catch Fish". What has remained constant for 30 million years are the "bugs" or baitfish we attempt to imitate. The tradition becomes those means and methods that do that job the best over time. Hooks, lines, materials and hardware all evolve parallel to the tradition of imitation of those bugs and baitfish. I imagine if one were to take the 12 fly's from Dame Julianna Burners 1496 work that most, if not all, attempt to imitate the mayfly. The "tradition" has been the chase of trout with a mayfly imitiation.

 

Hornberg's, Mickey Finns, Adams, Quill Gordon, Royal Coachman et al have all stood the test of time. Personally I believe such fly's as the Humpy, Stimulator, Lefty's Deceiver, Irresistable, Griffith's Gnat, Hare's Ear, Pheasant Tail and others are destined for immorality with future generations of fly fishers. Because they catch fish they will become "traditional" flys. There must be 1000's of patterns that have fallen off the radar screen over the decades because they were too hard to tye, too hard to find materials for, were just a spin off of someone else's fly or simply didn't catch fish. But hey... they look really cool and are a bitch to tie.

 

I will politley disagree with the tyer who earlier stated "traditional" meant fly's tied for show. I'm of the opinion of just the opposite. Traditional are those fly's, methods and practices that truly add to more tight lines on the water through the ages.

 

I have also come to noticed a stiking correlation between definitions of "traditional" and the age of the persons defining it. But that noticing took some time.

 

Tight Lines,

 

Eusebius

[Firetiger 0]

I recall a signature a guy around here has - something from John Gierach about how true purists (read traditionalists) should hit their trout with stones and eat them raw. And how the stones should, due to another long standing tradition, be quarried in England and cost $300 each :lol2:

 

More seriously: I think the tradition coming through the ages since Aelianus and Dame Juliana is the thinking of the fisherman - you restrict yourself (no worms as a minimum; dry fly to rising fish if you are a true purist) and then try to put yourself in the trout's place and with a thingy on a your line go after it, about to draw blood. The logic behind the imitation and presentation is the key; the patterns and materials and whatever are just tools to this end.

[redietz 0]

Think if in the 1700's they had 5 minute epoxy? "Thee can't use that on an iron"

 

Of course if they'd had epoxy in the 1700's they would have used it. (Although they would have known the difference between "thee" and "thou" )

 

But they didn't have epoxy back then, so they didn't use it.

 

We all have different tastes when it comes to fly fishing. Some people are always going to be looking the latest and greatest flies, rods, techniques, etc. That's great -- it's how the sport moves forward.

 

Others want to feel a connection with the past (and FF has a very long); it's one of the reasons they chose fly fishing over, say, computer gaming. That's great, too.

 

"Traditional" is just a neutral word letting those who want that connection with the past know that this bit of FF - a fly, a rod, a technique, etc has that connection, and those are interested in the latest and greatest no that there's probably a more recent equivalent.

 

 

The definition of "traditional" in one of the above post -- being from before nylon leaders -- is both an arbitrary one and a logical one. The point at which nylon replaced gut is also about the time that rods of artificial materials replaced cane rod, and plastic lines replace silk. It also about the time that many of us were born -- the older stuff belonging to our parents generation. In some sense, it's a way of honoring our parents. It's the type of fishing we read about when we were kids, and wanted to try for ourselves. You don't see anybody waxing nostalgic about fishing greenheart rods -- that was before the time of anyone we knew. And what's more, cane was a clearly better technology. When cane was replace by glass, it wasn't a clearly better technology, but it was what was available. The only reason cane went out of favor was the trade embargo with China. You're also not going to see anybody too upset about fishing nylon leaders instead of gut -- the latter was a PITA, and nylon is clearly better.

 

Modern flies aren't clearly better than older ones, nor are older ones clearly better than more modern ones -- they're just older. (Kinda reminds me of F. Scott Fitzgerald's statement about how "the rich really are different -- they have more money.")

 

Few of us fish just to acquire fish -- it's a heck of a lot cheaper to just go to Safeway and buy some trout -- so obviously have other reasons. For those whose reason is to connect with the past/their childhood, traditional is important. For those who fish to think of new ways to solve old problems (gettin' 'em to bite) then innovation trumps. Either way, it's all good.

 

 

 

[bowfin47 0]

French tinsel is "traditional" but Mylar isn't... don't ya' think that if Mylar was around in t 1890 that the tyers of that day would have jumped on it!

 

Exactly what was the date that delineates traditional versus "modern? In the 1890’s Orvis was selling bucktail streamers. In 1902, Herbert Welch designed the “Black Ghost”, and in the 1924, Carrie Stevens added to traditional bucktail streamer patterns with her “Grey Ghost”.

 

In the late 1940's when Joseph Bates added bead chain "eyes” for additional weight to classic bucktail streamers, few complained that this improvement wasn’t “traditional”?

 

NOTE: Bates didn’t consider his “improvement” a large enough change to these “traditional/classic” patterns to be worthy of adding his name or otherwise renaming the patterns.

 

In the 1980’s, Tom Schmuecker of Wapsi Fly, Inc. created the dumbbell eye to replace the usage of bead chain on these same bucktail streamers. Yet no one would consider a lead eyed bucktail streamer as traditional?

 

Note: Lead eyed bucktail streamers are now known as “Clouser’s”, even though tyers in the Arkansas and the mid-South were replacing bead chain with Shmuecker’s dumbbells on bucktails for a couple of years before Lefty wrote up Bob’s flies).

 

Bowfin47

 

[Rob Knisely 0]

:hyst: Y'all are funny!

 

Slap whatever on a hook to catch your fish of choice.

 

Tying for the art of it? Gather the stuff and do the research, have a ball.

 

Traditional, classic? In my family, we have traditions started by my grandparents, and those started by me. There are patterns that new tiers tie (the term used is standard) that I'd say for our generation of tiers would be considered traditional or classic patterns.

 

Traditional is:

 

1 a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

4 : characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition

 

I couldn't argue with anyone who said the wooly bugger or prince nymph or hare's ear was a classic pattern. Years from now you'll hear folks regarding certain patterns as a classic foam fly.

 

Perhaps simply a matter of personal interpretation of semantics.

 

 

[flykid 0]

The age of something is what classifies something as classic. Plain and simple. The older it is the more classic it is. Although you could argue it has to have been successful and recognizeable, whatever "it" is.

[JSzymczyk 0]

French tinsel is "traditional" but Mylar isn't... don't ya' think that if Mylar was around in t 1890 that the tyers of that day would have jumped on it!

 

Exactly what was the date that delineates traditional versus "modern? In the 1890’s Orvis was selling bucktail streamers. In 1902, Herbert Welch designed the “Black Ghost”, and in the 1924, Carrie Stevens added to traditional bucktail streamer patterns with her “Grey Ghost”.

 

In the late 1940's when Joseph Bates added bead chain "eyes” for additional weight to classic bucktail streamers, few complained that this improvement wasn’t “traditional”?

 

NOTE: Bates didn’t consider his “improvement” a large enough change to these “traditional/classic” patterns to be worthy of adding his name or otherwise renaming the patterns.

 

In the 1980’s, Tom Schmuecker of Wapsi Fly, Inc. created the dumbbell eye to replace the usage of bead chain on these same bucktail streamers. Yet no one would consider a lead eyed bucktail streamer as traditional?

 

Note: Lead eyed bucktail streamers are now known as “Clouser’s”, even though tyers in the Arkansas and the mid-South were replacing bead chain with Shmuecker’s dumbbells on bucktails for a couple of years before Lefty wrote up Bob’s flies).

 

Bowfin47

at least as far back as the '40s people were crimping split shot on streamer hooks. As soon as people began putting bead chain eyes on, people started filling them with lead solder, in effect the same as today's (or 1980's) lead eyes. Nothing is really "new" in the world of tying except for possibly the synthetic material du-jour, whatever it happens to be today.

 

Troutbum mentioned Tube Flies as being fairly new, but I have seen Pre-Columbian indian lures made from a hollow bird bone, with some hair or feather wound on with sinew. If that isn't a "tube fly" then nothing is.

 

It's a state of mind more than anything. Someone casting a cane rod and silk line with a gut leader probably isn't going to use a Chernobyl Ant. Conversely, someone wearing goretex waders, boron-carbon-unobtanium rod and reel with a new-age plastic line and fluorocarbon leader shouldn't probably worry about sticking with "classic" or "traditional" patterns. There is no answer to this, and it is OK like that.

[AlexC 0]

I heard a Nirvana song played on a classic rock radio station not too long ago.

[redietz 0]

French tinsel is "traditional" but Mylar isn't... don't ya' think that if Mylar was around in t 1890 that the tyers of that day would have jumped on it!

 

This is a slight change of subject, but I've wondered about that exact question for years. Neither of the two materials is perfect. Mylar's cheaper, and it doesn't tarnish, but it breaks easily, comes unwound when it does, doesn't add any weight to the fly, and in the case of a rib where the tinsel is could be somewhat protecting a delicate body material, doesn't do that at all. A tinsel tag on a fly in 1890 was going to help keep the silk body from slipping back around the bend of the hook, but mylar seems just as likely to slip itself.

 

French tinsel tarnishes easily, and costs more, but stays in place a bit better, and adds some weight to fly back in the day before lead was routinely added to flies.

 

I really don't know if the a tyer in the 1890's would have jumped at the chance the use mylar. I suspect that some would have and some wouldn't, and that those that wouldn't have would have the made the decision based on which they thought was the better material, not which was more traditional. I haven't been able to make up my own mind about which is the better material, after decades and have often pondered what the old timers would have though of mylar.

 

 

[neoFLYte 0]

You think the Humpy, Stimulator, Lefty's Deceiver, Irresistible, Griffith's Gnat, Hare's Ear, and Pheasant Tail are immoral? <just kidding>

 

 

 

[Batman 0]

in my limited travels "traditional" is another word for "expensive" I do not need to be st straight that is just my opinion,,,,,,,,,,B,,,,,,,,

[redietz 0]

You think the Humpy, Stimulator, Lefty's Deceiver, Irresistible, Griffith's Gnat, Hare's Ear, and Pheasant Tail are immoral? <just kidding>

 

No, just traditional-lite.

[Eusebius 0]

You think the Humpy, Stimulator, Lefty's Deceiver, Irresistible, Griffith's Gnat, Hare's Ear, and Pheasant Tail are immoral? <just kidding>

 

No, just traditional-lite.

 

 

Hmmm. Words are the medium. G.K. Chesterton once said if we can't debate words, we can't debate anything. Immortal is a bit of a stretch for me from traditional. Just my opinion, the flys mentioned have been repeatedly offered by local fly shops, guides, friends, etc etc for MUCH longer than many of the other "types" I previously alluded to. And again, just an opinion, they will continue to be, as THEY CATCH FISH..... Subjective.... now there's another word that may fit......

 

Tight Lines,