The mind of W.C. Stewart
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
When you set down at the vice and tie one of the classics, have you ever felt the presence of the one who created it? I do (spooky isn't it?) and I feel like asking over my shoulder, "what in the world were you thinking?"
The spider series of Mr. Stewarts are almost absurd in their simplicity. But, they work! And I am so glad that they do! When I first started fishing them I did not want them to work because there wasn't enough stuff to make them attractive to fish. The great Dave Hughes once claimed that the hackle is where the action is at on a spider (or soft-hackle) and Syl Nemes in one of his famous books challenged us to try a hackle only fly. Well, low and behold, it works too.
If I am not mistaken, the spider series that Mr. Stewart loved was an immitation of diptera. I am just wondering if Stewart had accurately duplicated this natural fly with what amounts to a hackle only fly or if he found out that leaving the body off of an established pattern worked just as good? In other words was he just playing around with an idea and found a killer pattern?
Could anybody swing my interpritations and impressions one way or another on this intruguing subject? What was he thinking anyway?
I have read somewhere recently "how" Stewart fished his famous patterns and to me it is very close to the now popular "Tenkara" system of tying and fishing. Please comment on this too and correct me if this is a bad observation.
Don Nicholson, I have not even started down the happy path toward your fine web-site to look for clues on the above. What do you have for me? I am headed there soon to look around.
Thanks everyone,
Dougsden
When you set down at the vice and tie one of the classics, have you ever felt the presence of the one who created it? I do (spooky isn't it?) and I feel like asking over my shoulder, "what in the world were you thinking?"
The spider series of Mr. Stewarts are almost absurd in their simplicity. But, they work! And I am so glad that they do! When I first started fishing them I did not want them to work because there wasn't enough stuff to make them attractive to fish. The great Dave Hughes once claimed that the hackle is where the action is at on a spider (or soft-hackle) and Syl Nemes in one of his famous books challenged us to try a hackle only fly. Well, low and behold, it works too.
If I am not mistaken, the spider series that Mr. Stewart loved was an immitation of diptera. I am just wondering if Stewart had accurately duplicated this natural fly with what amounts to a hackle only fly or if he found out that leaving the body off of an established pattern worked just as good? In other words was he just playing around with an idea and found a killer pattern?
Could anybody swing my interpritations and impressions one way or another on this intruguing subject? What was he thinking anyway?
I have read somewhere recently "how" Stewart fished his famous patterns and to me it is very close to the now popular "Tenkara" system of tying and fishing. Please comment on this too and correct me if this is a bad observation.
Don Nicholson, I have not even started down the happy path toward your fine web-site to look for clues on the above. What do you have for me? I am headed there soon to look around.
Thanks everyone,
Dougsden