Salmon Fly

[Fishidiot]

A generic salmon fly - no pattern in particular.

 

[eunanhendron]

A nice effort, and in all reality, much better than my first.

 

[Fishidiot]

Wish I could say this was my first - been tying salmon flies for years...just haven't done one in several months.

I definitely need to get some new and more diverse materials and hooks.

 

[eunanhendron]

what hooks are you using?

it is interminably harder to tie wings on up eye irons than on blind eyes.

If you're serious about tying them, or want to get serious i suggest to get blind eye hooks. They're more expensive, about $15 for 6, but you'll get a better hook in terms of proportions etc and better looking flies at the end. Also, tie established patterns, you'll gain a lot more and will be able to see things to correct from expert tied flies.

 

[Fishidiot]

It's an Eagle Claw rubber worm hook - modified with bolt cutters and some wire.

I would respectfully disagree that one will "gain a lot more" by focusing on actual patterns. Many of these classic patterns require expensive and hard to get materials that often can't be replicated with substitutes and, when one does try to use different materials....well, you're not tying the actual pattern anymore anyway and are, by definition, tying something else.

For me, it's more fun to make up flies as one goes along and try different things. Sometimes they work out and look good. Others wind up in the waste bin.

I think the key with classic salmon flies is proportion. You can use the "correct" materials but the fly won't look good if the proportions are wrong. Just my 2 cents.

 

[sniperfreak223]

eunanhendron wrote:
Also, tie established patterns, you'll gain a lot more and will be able to see things to correct from expert tied flies.

that is a never-ending debate among fly tyers, the basic argument of pattern tyer vs. technique tyer, I've always been in the latter category, I prefer to focus more on the techniques involved in creating the pattern rather then the actual pattern, as I feel learning in that way makes one o more versatile tyer in the end, but to each his own. When I took my first serious foray into salmon flies, I started by working to perfect the tags, then the butts, tails, body, toppings, ribs, throat/hackles, underwing, wing, horns and crest, one step at a time until I was satisfied with the results, with no real pattern in mind, just a sharp focus on how the fly should look.

 

[eunanhendron]

Absolutely the key with ANY fly, but more so Classic salmon flies, is proportion - a too long tail or tag right at the start of tying the fly throws the whole fly off.

Not to get into a huge debate about it, but i'll say this - If you're working on technique, there's no need to tie a whole fly. As sniperfreak says, start with the very first part, the tip and tag, get it right on several hooks, at the worst, you can strip the bad ones and restart again when you have it down. Of course, no one does this. Everyone want the glory of the finished product, myself included, and that is often the down fall of a classic salmon fly tyer. They see their flies, like them, but often they're ripped to shreds by expert because everything is out of whack due to the tail being too long or two high.
My reason for suggesting established patterns is because while you are learning techniques, the pattern is well known, and it gives others a reference point for constructive critique. If you are consistently tying 'artistic' patterns, then how is are others to know whether you made the tag too long; the tail high; the body reverse tapered or the wing at 45 degress, deliberately or did they end up like that because of poor technique.

Tying established patterns is more than just tying a nice fly, its also a learning curve to what is widely accepted as a well tied fly.

You're also right about materials, but in fact many classic writers like kelson actually suggest alternatives for some of the materials in their flies, for instance, turkey instead of swan or goose on bigger flies, dyed blue gallina instead of blue jay for throats and body hackles on bigger flies, kingfisher instead of chatterer.
This is another endless debate too - if you tie a fly with subs is it really the same fly. In my opinion it is. However, if you want to tie it 'historically accurate' then you need to use exactly the same materials as in the pattern. Not only the same materials, but also the correct size hook.
Many folks tie salmon flies on outrageously big hooks , when in fact there were very few classic salmon flies tied on hooks bigger than 3/0.
One example here is the flies of Frederic Tolfrey, listed in his book Jones Guide To Norway. Not one of these flies should be tied on a hook bigger than about 1/0 (size 7 on the Philips scale, as he used) but today these flies are tied as big as 6/0 or 8/0. By the same virtue of not using the correct materials, you can also ask 'are these the same fly if they're on the wrong size hook?". Sure they are, but they're not 'historically accurate'.

Just some points to think about....

 

[eunanhendron]

sniperfreak223 wrote:

eunanhendron wrote:
Also, tie established patterns, you'll gain a lot more and will be able to see things to correct from expert tied flies.

that is a never-ending debate among fly tyers, the basic argument of pattern tyer vs. technique tyer, I've always been in the latter category, I prefer to focus more on the techniques involved in creating the pattern rather then the actual pattern, as I feel learning in that way makes one o more versatile tyer in the end, but to each his own. When I took my first serious foray into salmon flies, I started by working to perfect the tags, then the butts, tails, body, toppings, ribs, throat/hackles, underwing, wing, horns and crest, one step at a time until I was satisfied with the results, with no real pattern in mind, just a sharp focus on how the fly should look.

in the end the techniques you use to tie salmon flies, will translate back to tying any old fly.
less wraps of thread, better placement of materials etc will result in all round better flies. Of course these techniques can be picked up in any discipline of fly tying, but tying something which is established and you have a reference for allows easier identification of areas to improve. Same with dry flies..you can sure tied a dry fly and make it up as you go along, but these are almost always made to imitate an insect and of two seemingly identical flies, only one might catch fish because fish see it as a true replica of their current food source, whereas the other might have slightly longer hackle and not get eaten.


More about accessibility of classic materials, if you get deep in to tying them, almost every feather listed in the old patterns can be gotten, obviously for a price.
However, many of the flies i've posted on the forum have very much easily accessible materials, and i'll give one example here.
The Durham ranger, one of the all time classics has materials available right here in USA, none required from overseas and none are overly expensive.
Tinsel
Floss
Ostrich
Seal Fur
GP tippets
GP Crest
Kingfisher
Jungle Cock
Saddle hackles.

That said, a Popham, will require at least 10 Indian crow feather (or sub, I use Red breasted Shrike or Red Weaver), Toucan (or Sub, Yellow Weaver) and Blue Chatterer (Kingfisher)- Thats when it can get expensive, especially if you go for the real thing

 

[Fishidiot]

Here's another one from last night.

 

[shakey]

wow!! i like both flies a lot.that is some mighty fine technique and i like the innovation of using a modified hook!

 

[Fishidiot]

Still on the salmon fly kick this week.

 

[sniperfreak223]

Fishidiot wrote:
Still on the salmon fly kick this week.

where did you get all the junglecock?

 

[The_Sasquatch]

uh huh huh huh. You said "junglecock".

To an untrained eye, Dave your flies look awesome. I'm amazed how deep all this tying can go. I enjoyed the back and back discussion about technique and material that was earlier in this thread.

 

[blueheron]

Your flies are awesome, technically and visually, and I'd happily swing them in any river if you send me a few.

 

[Fishidiot]

Thanks for the kind and encouraging words.

While it certainly isn't necessary to take fly tying to an artistic level - as you know, simple and ratty flies often catch fish just as well or better than intricate stuff - we can derive a lot of fun by exploring the more creative and complex aspects of the tying hobby.

There's more than one reason it's called the "art" of fly fishing.

 

[sniperfreak223]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
uh huh huh huh. You said "junglecock".

hah! you may not know this, but I'm also an avid collector of pre-WWII military firearms, and have the same reaction every time my buddies talk about their Mannlichers...guess some things you can just never outgrow.