FLYMPH FORUM

How important is it to you as a fly tyer/fisherman to have the Tups dubbing be as close to the original as possible? Will it catch more fish? Is it a way to stay with tradition?

I also used a Pink Squirrel nymph that is not even remotely tyed like the original. Yet, it was successful for me.

I really do not sweat the details of a pattern that I am trying to duplicate. I will substitute at will any of the ingredients.

Yesterday there was an emergence of Cream Midge emergers on the river. The first pattern I came to that kind of resembled the bug was a size 18 Tups. I bit the tail off, put it in line on my nymphing rig, and had some good success with it. I am sure a cream thread midge or Buckskin nymph would have done just as well.

Hook - Size 18 , WFC model 8
Thread - Griffith Shear 14/0 Lt. Yellow
Hackle/Tail - Dark Dun hen
Thorax - Hareline Light Yellow rabbit with Red synthetic dubbing added

DUBBN wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:44 am How important is it to you as a fly tyer/fisherman to have the Tups dubbing be as close to the original as possible? Will it catch more fish? Is it a way to stay with tradition?

I also used a Pink Squirrel nymph that is not even remotely tyed like the original. Yet, it was successful for me.

I really do not sweat the details of a pattern that I am trying to duplicate. I will substitute at will any of the ingredients.

Yesterday there was an emergence of Cream Midge emergers on the river. The first pattern I came to that kind of resembled the bug was a size 18 Tups. I bit the tail off, put it in line on my nymphing rig, and had some good success with it. I am sure a cream thread midge or Buckskin nymph would have done just as well.

Hook - Size 18 , WFC model 8
Thread - Griffith Shear 14/0 Lt. Yellow
Hackle/Tail - Dark Dun hen
Thorax - Hareline Light Yellow rabbit with Red synthetic dubbing added

Great thread
.... those hooks are excellent , I believe they are the best value on the market as far as current offerings go. You have an excellent tups dubbing there, Nice work with the patterns!!

Dana

Theroe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:58 am
Great thread
.... those hooks are excellent , I believe they are the best value on the market as far as current offerings go. You have an excellent tups dubbing there, Nice work with the patterns!!

Dana

Agreed. I found those hooks when Dai-Riki abruptly pulled out of the hook market. I wish I would have found them before that. If they even existed then. Great hooks, great value. I purchase their beads for my streamers as well.

I am not familiar with "WFC" hooks. What does the initials stand for? Who sells them?

Wayne - In most cases I am not a purist, regarding your question about tying materials. Unless I am trying to match a historic pattern. In those cases, I try to use the same materials prescribed by the patterns original creator. In some cases, I cannot get my hands on the certain components due (typically the hackle of some rare bird). I then do my best to choose a suitable substitute, focusing first on matching the color, size and texture (if known/or if I am trying to match an old photo).

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with substitution. Especially for fishing flies.

Beautiful tups fly, by the way.

letumgo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:27 pm I am not familiar with "WFC" hooks. What does the initials stand for? Who sells them?

http://wholesaleflycompany.com/

Thanks Wayne.

Substituting an easy to source material for a rare or hard to procure one is as as old as fly dressing itself. As far back as Aldam in 1875 fly dressers were substituting the inner covert feathers of the starling for the rare, even at that time, dotterel. I could find and cite many more examples from rare hackle colors to pink fox fur, etc. of exotic materials that have "magic" powers but most of you can surely do the same.

That being said, what has made the Tups Indispensable an icon among trout fly patterns for well over a century was due in great part to the material used in the body and the fact that that material was kept a secret for many years. Whether "real" tups dubbing has the almost mystical fish attracting powers that has been attributed to it is a matter for debate but it does lend an aura of mystery to the pattern and finding the "true" material can be a large part of the fun of tying the pattern. As many of you know I'm something of a materials fanatic and find a great deal of satisfaction in finding rare and obscure materials but I look at that as almost a hobby in itself.

How a fly pattern becomes popular and endures over time can be attributed to how well it catches fish (or fisherman) and to begin to modify that pattern simply to suit either the materials at hand or one's whims sometimes draws us away from the original concept of the fly. We all modify flies as a matter of course, at least if we are tying them to use on the water. I doubt there is a fly dresser who hasn't changed something about some standard pattern in an effort to make the pattern more effective, at least in their mind. Those of you who have looked in my fly boxes have seen few standard pattern flies, almost every fly I carry on the river is very different from what most anglers are familiar with. But nearly every one of these flies is the result of many years of development and I can give you detailed reasons as to just how and why it looks and fishes the way it does. We're talking about fishing flies here and not the attempt to duplicate historical patterns as accurately as possible, which is a very different subject.

I don't want to offend anyone but there is so much random modification today that in all honesty it becomes a little tedious. At least to me. Social media is rife with made up patterns that garner comments like "that should be a killer," "looks great," pretty fly," ad infinitum. (Ad nauseum?) I'm making no judgement on the quality of the dressing or the skill of the dresser but when someone shows me a modified fly pattern I want to know why they felt the modification was needed. Perhaps it was because a hard to get material wasn't available, a very legitimate and understandable reason. Or perhaps the modification was made to suit regional or seasonal conditions, again legitimate and understandable. But simply throwing feathers and fur at a hook in the hopes that the pattern will look nice doesn't really do it for me: I want to know the thought process that was behind the ideas that led to the final product, and if that thought process was simply to make up a pretty fly or something that might work, well you lost me.

A similar thing has been happening in the world of bamboo rods. In the last couple of decades many amateur rod builders have come on the scene and many of them make modifications of established rod tapers in an effort to "improve" them. One constantly hears of something like: "a Payne 197 built by Joe Smoe" or "a modified Paul Young Perfectionist taper." Well, unless it was built by Payne it isn't a Payne and why the hell would you mess with one of the finest of all Young rod tapers? I guess these things shouldn't drive me crazy but they do and that's because such modification causes confusion and in some cases disappointment. More than once I've seen unhappy purchasers getting something very different from what they expected. Just like the finest rod builders, past or present, worked on developing their own tapers and designs, so too did and do the best fly dressers work at creating the most effective flies for the waters they fish. And when I say "best" I don't just mean those who dress the prettiest flies but those who have a deep understanding of how fly design works and how to apply that knowledge to a particular fishing situation. Think of the genius of Frank Sawyer's classic Pheasant Tail Nymph for example. You'll see a thousand modifications of the pattern but the original is still the best of the lot.

Most of you on this Forum probably think of me as someone who primarily ties and fishes historically accurate flies, but nothing could be further from the truth. As much as I love all things associated with fly dressing history I am first and foremost an angler and the vast majority of flies I dress are for fishing purposes and my fishing flies use simple, inexpensive, and easy to find materials of the highest quality I can find. In the end, the trout is the final arbiter of what constitutes a good fly pattern and a fly that continues to produce fish, in the situation(s) it was intended to be used in, over many seasons of use, is in the end the one that really impresses me.

I have to admit, I don't think I have ever fished a tup's nymph as a #18.

I think like most, I enjoy tying the classics as they are described, but my fly box doesn't represent that. There are qualities of some of the classic patterns which cannot be argued against as being very attractive to fish. I personally think the Tups color is one of them. I don't think the fish cares whether you use spaniel, light red fox or hare's poll; red seal or mohair.

Thanks John, a great response and one that tugs affectionately on my shirt tail. For years I have pushed the thought of tying purposefully in my tying classes, at the shows and on my website. Make your modifications, change what you desire on a pattern, come up with your own pattern but do it with a purpose in mind that relates to how you plan to present the pattern on stream. I led a fly fishing 4-H club for many years. Tying was of course a popular and large part of the club activities. My expectations were pretty high. I did not let them just fart around. Newcomers were taken back a bit but quickly enjoyed the fact that I walked around with a razor blade and if I knew the fly was subpar to their skills or they were just throwing things together with no purpose in mind, I would strip the hook bare and let them have another go. It sounds a bit tough handed, but the kids actually had fun with it and many of those kids became excellent tiers who were able, in a chess like manner, think about what they were doing on the vice and how that connected on the stream to the conditions they were going to be fishing. It was great to see them be able to think in this manner while at the vice and carry that idea to the stream with success.

Old Hat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:09 am I have to admit, I don't think I have ever fished a tup's nymph as a #18

It does a bang up job as a PMD .

For me when I sit down to tye a classic fly I want to use the materials that the original calls for. That in itself is where the fun lies, collecting a particular bit of material what it's all about. Searching and then collecting a bit of Tups wool was almost exciting as catching a burglar at 0300hrs. As was noted many of the old materials are not available any longer, just ask any salmon fly tyer.

Recently I was on the hunt for a particular pin tail dick feather for tying a Joe's smelt. Trying to get that feather has almost been an exercise in futility as there are only four perfect feathers per bird. I have been able to obtain some that are close but I'm not there. I will never fish that pattern, it's the search for that piece of material that I enjoy looking for.