Fly Patterns

[terrymiller1973 0]

I am not looking to start an argument but just curious. I read a post and it mentioned that maybe the fly is a new pattern. What actually qualifies a fly as a new pattern. Is a classic fly tied with new materials in a slightly different color new or just a variation of an old fly pattern. I have not been around fly tying for very long and I am sure with the release of new materials new patterns have emerged along with them but what makes a pattern truly new.

 

In my short time tying I have seen some beautiful work and very grateful for all the information shared here on a daily basis. I do not want to reinvent anything as far as the classics or patterns I was just curios.

[flytire 0]

Is a classic fly tied with new materials in a slightly different color new or just a variation of an old fly pattern.

 

in a sense its a new fly, but in reality its just a variation and should be called so. once you deviate from the established recipes, they become variations

 

if you substituted olive dubbing for the traditional gray dubbing of the adams dry fly it might be called an 'olive adams variation'

 

strictly my opinion, the experts may disagree

[mikechell 0]

Terry, you might be referring to my post about a Sphynx Moth fly ... a was joking. But if the fly represents an insect that's not been imitated before, then I'd think it qualifies as a "new fly". If you look at all the flies tied over the past couple of centuries, I suppose there's NO SUCH THING as a "new" fly, only variations on previous patterns. But as you mentioned, there are so many new materials, and so many insects that have yet to be presented.

By that same ideology, there's no such thing as new music, only variations on previously composed musical compositions. I mean, how many pleasant ways can you string together 8 notes of an octave?

[utyer 0]

I view a fly pattern more as the way the fly using similar materials is assembled. An upright wing (any color,) dubbed body (any color,) hackle fiber tail (any color,) and hackle wound at the thorax (again any color,) is the same "pattern," at least in my view. Any change in color doesn't change the "pattern," its just a variation.

 

When you make major changes to the materials, ie a hair wing and tail, you have now developed a "new pattern." Any changes in color (using the same set of materials,) would in my view be a variation. The Wulff series is and example of a "pattern." The color names associated with them indicate the variations of the Wulff pattern, like Gray Wulff, Royal Wulff, Olive Wulff etc. The way these "patterns" are put together (not the specific colors or hairs,) are what make them the same "pattern." I could put together a fly with an Elk Hair wing, a moose hock tail, a dark brown body, and a Black Hackle, and "name" it a Black Bart, but its just a variation of the Wulff series of "patterns."

 

When you look at some "traditional" patterns (an Adams for instance,) there was or is a specific set of materials used in the "origonal" pattern. The Adams used Grizzly hackle tips (tied more widely spent) as the wings, a gray muskrat fur body. The tail and hackle were mixed brown and grizzly. If you use other furs or dyed muckrat in any color, as a body, you have altered or varied the "pattern." A fly tied with a brown hackle tips, a tan dubbed body, and brown and grizzly hackle and tail is the same "pattern" as the Adams.

 

Given a specific recipe, you get one and only one fly. Wood duck flank wing tied upright and divided, a cream dubbed body, with cream hackle fiber tail, and a cream hackle (tied dry fly style,) at the thorax, gives only ONE fly. The common name for it is a Light Cahill. One could used this exact same set of materials, and by tying the wing and hackle just a bit differently (wing tied down over the body, and hackle tied under the thorax,) and have a wet fly called a Light Cahill. Then just make one change to this by tying the wood duck flank in and pulling it over the thorax, any create a Light Cahill Nymph. By altering the WAY these SAME materials are put on the hook, I believe, I have three different "patterns" from the same recipe. Make a change in the way I handle the wing case (divide the wood duck fibers along each side after they are pulled over the thorax,) and I have a fourth "pattern." This nymph is style or "pattern" is known as the AP nymph, and it can be tied with many combinations of materials, but all are AP nymphs.

 

John Barr turned the AP Nymph into what could be considered a new pattern by changing the way he handled the materials (they are tied in the same way,) but John cuts the tails and legs to the proper length. The Barr Nymphs are quicker to tie, and are a good way to use up over sized hackle or flank feathers. I prefer to use the natural tapered tips of the fibers for the tails, but that is just a style choice.

 

Developing a new "pattern" is a challenge, making a new recipe is not hard at all. A pattern will yield many many different looking flies, and many different patterns can be made with the exact same materials.

[perchjerker 0]

I view a fly pattern more as the way the fly using similar materials is assembled. An upright wing (any color,) dubbed body (any color,) hackle fiber tail (any color,) and hackle wound at the thorax (again any color,) is the same "pattern," at least in my view. Any change in color doesn't change the "pattern," its just a variation.

 

When you make major changes to the materials, ie a hair wing and tail, you have now developed a "new pattern." Any changes in color (using the same set of materials,) would in my view be a variation. The Wulff series is and example of a "pattern." The color names associated with them indicate the variations of the Wulff pattern, like Gray Wulff, Royal Wulff, Olive Wulff etc. The way these "patterns" are put together (not the specific colors or hairs,) are what make them the same "pattern." I could put together a fly with an Elk Hair wing, a moose hock tail, a dark brown body, and a Black Hackle, and "name" it a Black Bart, but its just a variation of the Wulff series of "patterns."

 

When you look at some "traditional" patterns (an Adams for instance,) there was or is a specific set of materials used in the "origonal" pattern. The Adams used Grizzly hackle tips (tied more widely spent) as the wings, a gray muskrat fur body. The tail and hackle were mixed brown and grizzly. If you use other furs or dyed muckrat in any color, as a body, you have altered or varied the "pattern." A fly tied with a brown hackle tips, a tan dubbed body, and brown and grizzly hackle and tail is the same "pattern" as the Adams.

 

Given a specific recipe, you get one and only one fly. Wood duck flank wing tied upright and divided, a cream dubbed body, with cream hackle fiber tail, and a cream hackle (tied dry fly style,) at the thorax, gives only ONE fly. The common name for it is a Light Cahill. One could used this exact same set of materials, and by tying the wing and hackle just a bit differently (wing tied down over the body, and hackle tied under the thorax,) and have a wet fly called a Light Cahill. Then just make one change to this by tying the wood duck flank in and pulling it over the thorax, any create a Light Cahill Nymph. By altering the WAY these SAME materials are put on the hook, I believe, I have three different "patterns" from the same recipe. Make a change in the way I handle the wing case (divide the wood duck fibers along each side after they are pulled over the thorax,) and I have a fourth "pattern." This nymph is style or "pattern" is known as the AP nymph, and it can be tied with many combinations of materials, but all are AP nymphs.

 

John Barr turned the AP Nymph into what I condider a new pattern by changing the way he handled the materials (they are tied in the same way,) by cutting the tails and legs to lenght.

 

Developing a new "pattern" is a challenge, making a new recipe is not hard at all. A pattern will yeild many many different looking flies, and many different patterns can be made with the exact same materials.

[Piker20 0]

Ditto Utyer.

[phg 0]

Yeah, its a very debatable topic. If you look at some of the "classic" patterns, the alteration of a single material/color results in a different pattern. A Light Cahill is tied with ginger hackle, and a Hendrickson is the same fly tied with dun hackle, and a gray fox is is the same as a Hendrickson, except that it is tied with Mallard flank wings. Want more? A Pale Watery Dun is the same as a Blue Dun, except that the PWD should have a sandy tinge to the dun hackles. It should be noted, however, that these subtle changes in color are noticed by the fish. If they are taking Light Cahills, there's little chance that substituting a Hendrickson or Gray Fox will work.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, any fly tied with dumbbell eyes in the Clouser style is called a "Clouser" regardless of the materials or colors.

 

It is all very subjective.