What is an original

[Mark Knapp 0]

Good morning Mark,

First, let me say, you're flies are exceptional. The moth and the bee are great examples of mimicry and "match-the-hatch" tying.

 

Second, like you, I tied flies without prior knowledge of patterns. I tied flies to fish in specific conditions, not to match any particular bait.

I consider every one of those flies original. I've since learned that others tied flies similar to mine, either before or after I did. "Independent invention" does not make one item a copy of the other. There are only so many ways to tie a fly ... it is inevitable that different people with similar skills will develop similar patterns.

 

Finally ... your flies are originals. and some of them are truly innovative. Thank you for the pictures.

 

Thanks Mike

[Mark Knapp 0]

I agree with Mike. Original. Independently created. Often flies are created at different places by different people.

 

Just because you use dumbell eyes, does the fly automatically become a clouser variant?

 

Thanks Darrell. I think things are changing, as they always do. Early on, every variation of a pattern may have been a new fly, the Zebra and Mercury midges come to mind (I understand why they are different). Now, it seems you could tie a completely different fly but if it fell into a category of known flies it would be a variant. Maybe the world has enough flies.

[Mark Knapp 0]

Very artistic and innovative originals. But,

 

we catch a lot of fish on them,

now that's the important thing, imo.

 

Yep, thanks

[Mark Knapp 0]

As a kid, I remember laying on the dock in Minnesota and catching rock bass, perch, and bluegills by holding the line in my hand and watching them take the worm. We soon ran out of bait, so I asked my grandma for some red yarn and I tied about a 1" piece to the hook with a double overhand knot. Twitching that yarn in front of the fish caught more rock bass than worms ever did. My first attempts at fly tying were just tying dog fur and whatever else I could find onto hooks to look like bugs or minnows. But later when I got more serious about tying, I started to actually gather standard tying materials and built my skills from what few library books I could find in Nebraska. Herters, Orvis, and Cabelas catalogs had pages of flies and I studied each one to determine the materials and tried all that I liked. But the more I studied about the history of fly tying, the more I felt it important to tie classic patterns the way they were "originally" called out. But I'm not a strict traditionalist. I will occasionally put together my own flies that use styles and materials I picked up along the way that I feel do a better job of matching a hatch or baitfish. I enjoy seeing flies that others create. So I'm all over the map. What matters is like tjm said, that they catch fish.

 

I'm all over the place too. It's exciting for me to catch fish on a fly I developed, but I like the classics too.

 

I would really like to be able to tie known patterns well, maybe even try some of the classic salmon patterns, some day. That may take some serious training though.

 

If I tie my own patterns, no one can tell me it's wrong.

[Mark Knapp 0]

 

I understand that part of the art of tying flies is tying the essence of the bug, not necessarily the exact bug. I see the art in that too, it's just not always practical to tie lifelike replicas for fishing.

 

Hi Mark and with MUCH respect for those of you who practice the art of realistic tying- I have never forgotten what the guy who sold me my first fly rod said to me- "I know a guy who ties flies that look exactly like bugs. They're almost indistinguishable except for the hook. Yet when he fishes with us we always out fish him using traditionally tied flies". I tend to think flies with plucked dubbing or soft hackles/feather fibers catch fish because they do a really good job of imitating a dead bug that has been banged up in a stream or waterlogged.

 

Here's how I see the "Original" question-

There are certain flies known the world over, with distinguishing features, if your creation ends up resembling one you should probably use the word "variant" out of respect for tradition. If your winding peacock herl for an abdomen divided with red floss you kind of have to call it a Royal Coachman "variant".

 

Otherwise why not consider a fly you create based on looking at a natural, matching up materials and visualizing the tying technique an original? Someone somewhere may have (or not) come up with a similar concept but that doesn't diminish your insight. Who knows maybe in a few years "Mark's Tiger Rockfish" will be huge with the salt water guys.

 

 

Too many times a fly tied to an exact imitation of the real thing is too rigid, it lacks the fluidity and movement that the real thing would have, that it needs to catch fish. If you could do both, then I think you'd have something.

 

I'm with you on the "original" question.

 

Thanks Mark

[Mark Knapp 0]

I've been known to tie an original pattern or two - but that was long after copying every bug that worked (or that I thought might work...). Years later I was encouraged to send a few patterns forward to be considered by Umpqua Feather Merchants and was lucky enough to have some of them accepted... Every year they receive a bunch of "new patterns" and have the difficult job of selection just a tiny percentage to go into production. Can't say I'd want to be in their shoes. I can only imagine how many Copper John or Clouser style patterns they've had to weed through. The world of contract tying (or royalty patterns) is a tough one. If a new pattern doesn't sell well enough it gets dropped without ceremony (and I've had a few patterns that disappeared from Umpqua's catalogue over the years (and it will happen again if my current stuff no longer sells...).

 

In the meantime, if I'm doing someone else's pattern I always try to make a point of naming the tyer and the original pattern name, while noting that this is my version of their pattern...

 

Here's a good example... my version of Matthews Turneffe Crab...

Although I call them Spider Crabs -they're still Matthews pattern but with outrigger style weedguards...

 

Hi Captain, I'm getting a picture of what a "Published fly" is thanks.

 

I love your crabs, and that's not something I say to just anybody.

 

I'm also getting a clue on what an original is. Like many things in life, that line seems to move around. In some cases a subtle difference in the fly makes it a new pattern, probably early in fly history. In others, probably later, any fly vaguely similar to another is a variant. What do you think.

 

 

Here's a crab I tied without looking at crab recipes or flies. It's not a copy of someone else's crab but there is nothing new here, there must be many crabs like it, it has to be considered a variant of another fly. No? It's apparent to me that I tied the fly up-side-down.

 

I have no ambitions of entering the world of contract tying or royalty patterns. My hat's off to you.

 

Thanks Mark

[Mark Knapp 0]

"Local Knowledge", as Golfers say. It's not necessarily 'what works', but it's about 'what works in your Locale'.

 

Whether it's matching the hatch or opening the gut, it's about what the fish in your area typically feed on. Moths, bees, snails... if they're hungry, they'll eat anything, right?

 

There are as many "variants" of a particular fly as there are variants of the 'Indian' Taco.

 

That was a very entertaining story, Mark... and some awesome looking flies, too!

 

 

Thanks Mr Angler

[Mark Knapp 0]

DSC01063.JPG

 

Here is an original for me. It is tied in the same way many standard nymphs are tied, the pheasant tail nymph for example, but I used only golden pheasant tippet feathers for the tail, the body, the thorax and the wings. It is a stone fly impression I guess and I call it a golden stone fly nymph.

Joe

 

Oh well, my picture did not show up. I will keep trying.

 

I would love to see that fly. In your mind would you call it an original or a variant?

[Mark Knapp 0]

I think I can claim one possibly two original patterns. The first one was the result of a bad day of fishing the Griffith's Gnat for some rising trout. After the last cast of the day. I noticed something on the hook point. I looked at it and it appeared to be an very small insect. I dropped the hook in a small specimen jar took it home. Once I got home I put the hook on a white piece of paper and looked at it under large magnifying glass. Appeared to be some sort of midge or small biting fly. What I noticed was the body was black with a reddish brown tinge to it. This was back in, 1998/99. I had just been introduced to CDC and looking through my packets of CDC. I found I had a packet of black and one of red brown. The bug was about a size 20. Put a size 20 TMC 2457 in my vise. Tied in a black CDC feather and a red-brown one, twisted them together, and wrapped the body. Used some white CDC for the wing. Tied up a half dozen. Went back to the creek the next day and picked up four trout on it. It was exciting. I'd caught trout on a fly I came up with and tied myself. It's still one my top trout producers in my trout box today, just harder for me to tie. Why do I think it was original. CDC was just becoming known as fly tying material in the US. Mostly as bodies or wings. I'm not sure anyone had thought about making an all CDC fly at the time. I later submitted it to the FFF "Fly Pattern Encyclopedia. So I can also say I've had one of my flies published.

 

Do you have any pictures of it? I 'spose I could Google it but is there a link to the FFF fly pattern encyclopedia? Probably on this site somewhere.

[Mark Knapp 0]

"What is an original Since there's no way for me to know weather or not someone has tied a pattern like mine before or not, I will say that my originals are original to me. That's to say that I tied them with no help from anybody else. I didn't look at recipes, or examples of fly patterns. I looked at the organism and tied what I saw."

 

A good discussion starts with a good description. The term "original" means different things to different people. Your definition of original is spot on. If your not tying from a pattern, video, picture or whatever then the fly is original to you not necessarily to the rest of the tying world. In other words, "original" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Now if your tying an "original" to have a fly named after you then there are very very few, like next to none, original patterns. Materials and techniques may change but very very few, like next to nobody, is creating truely 1st of a kind fly patterns in the Internet age where patterns, materials and techniques are all out there. The one post on the effort to obtain the "original" distinction is very rigid, time consuming and often not obtained.

 

Hi Poopy, (still sounds a little informal to me). Yes, I originally started this whole project to tie for myself, to catch fish. Not to save money, I'm sure I haven't done that, but for the sense of self accomplishment. I've gone so far as to land on a remote river with just bare hooks and fishing line, gather up feathers and fur from the environment around me, tie flies and fish. That's the kind of "crazy" I am. I try to make sure there's red in my socks so I have some red thread to tie with if I need it (is that cheating?).

 

I never aspired to have a fly named after me, but stranger things have happened. I wouldn't hate it if it happened. I don't think I could get rich doing it. Much to my wife's dismay money is not a motivation for me. Neither is fame. I just like to do things well.

 

When I started knife making, and still, lots of people said "There's nothing new you can do in knife making, it's all been done. There's only so many way's to attach a piece of sharp metal to a handle" But because I approached it from a different direction, and because I didn't know the "right" way to make a knife, I came up with some different stuff. I broke a lot of rules and took a lot of grief for it but I developed a distinct style that is recognizable. I invented a new knife, got it patented and now it's a big part of what I do. I continue to do things in knife making that nobody has seen before. Some of it is not good, and some will tell you they never want to see it again, but every once in a while something sticks. I have a five year back log in custom knife orders now. It's seriously cuts into my tying and fishing time.

 

Everything that has ever been done, at one time had never been done before. Innovation come from imagination, unfortunately greatness seldom does.

 

You guys are king, and I understand and believe everything that you're saying. I have a lot to learn from you. I don't have aspirations of becoming the next great Popovich I just want to have fun, catch fish and do things well.

 

Thank you, regards. Mark

[Mark Knapp 0]

Something personal to note about "original patterns". I'd been tying commercially for a few years before I ever even considered submitting one of my patterns anywhere... I had also started writing the occasional article about fishing topics - but never fly related... A few more years went by - then I saw one of my signature patterns (every shop I ever tied for couldn't get enough of them...) that had been written up and published in a popular magazine - as the writer's own pattern (and he even had the stones to use the same name that I'd been tying that fly under for twenty years..).

 

The result was that after I got over being a bit angry (understatement...) I learned the hard way that it's "publish or perish" if you're wanting to be known for the stuff you produce... That's the reason today that I make a point of speaking up a bit on various fly fishing or fly tying forums. That's also the reason that whenever I copy someone else's pattern I always make a point of mentioning the original tyer....

 

Wow. Some people got some nerve.

 

Thank you for your insights, I appreciate it.

[Mark Knapp 0]

Sometimes my flies are under-dressed, sometimes they're over-dressed, but I have the same problem dressing myself. Good thing I have a wife. She can't help me with my flies though.

[flytire 0]

 

 

 

Do you have any pictures of it? I 'spose I could Google it but is there a link to the FFF fly pattern encyclopedia? Probably on this site somewhere.

 

 

google "wissahickom midge"

 

its the only fly in the FFF book matching philly's description

[Philly 0]

That's the one. Though it's Wissahickon.

[mikechell 0]

Looked at your knife site, Mark.

I have to agree with those who say, "There's only so many ways to make a usable sharp edge and attach it to a handle." Your blades look good, but they're just knives.

Your handles, on the other hand, are truly beautiful!

 

I like the 1911 system, too.