FLYMPH FORUM

In the Purple Pennell thread a question was raised, and I was asked to comment. Rather than bury it there, it is perhaps better served with a dedicated thread.

paparex wrote:A question for Hans but would like to hear from all who wish to weigh in on the question. Here it is: How many changes to a pattern make the fly a variant? Follow up question: How many changes result in a new fly?

paparex,

An often debated question and I have yet to see it reach a broad based consensus

Here are some of my thoughts.

If it is one's own pattern, then it is simple. I can name my patterns any way I choose, even when a pattern may undergo a number of revisions changing in subtle or less subtle ways the pattern's look&feel.

I will try to steer clear of duplicating the name of an established pattern, of course, in an attempt to avoid muddying the water - but with millions of tiers whipping up, and naming, many millions of flies, unintentional overlap is hard to avoid.

Things change when tying up another tier's established, published, or otherwise 'known' pattern. There I become much more careful.

Let me stop for a moment, and consider that the pattern I have become aware of, and which I am interested in tying up some for my own use, may have come to my attention in a number of ways. If I have a clear reference - an actual sample to look at in detail, or a good quality image, of an 'original' or a direct conversation with the originator - then I will have a decent understanding what makes a pattern 'tick', and what the tier has intended. If I then tie up a copy, and I remain true to the 'look&feel' of the original, then I will quite happily call it by its original name. Please note the 'look&feel' - I may tie up the pattern with a change in techniques, or I may substitute some of the materials, as long as 'look&feel' remains intact, and if I believe the pattern will behave and fish 'identical' - then the original name is what I will use. A case in point - I tie the Frank Sawyer Pheasant Tail nymph using different techniques from how Frank has documented it, but my result fly is 'look&feel' identical - and I will refer to it, or publish it, as a Sawyer Pheasant Tail nymph.

If I only have second or third hand familiarity with a published or known pattern, such as access to samples or images of the pattern tied by someone other than the originator I will become much more cautious. I will not be able to have a good sense of whether I have captured the 'look&feel' of the original, and will either name it different, or will add Variant or Variation to the name and where able will add a reference note to the originator of the pattern.

I would be interested in how others view the matter, and hope they will share their thoughts.

Cheers,
Hans W

Hans, well said and a good honour code to work by.
Myself- I fall into the catagory of not knowing enough of the original ties or patters that I often believe I have reinvented the wheel and name a fly as an original tie without knowing it is a mere variation of an already known pattern!
Often when trying to duplicate an original recipe I lack the "true" materials or at least one of them and should from now on use the word variation in the title.
A perfect example of this is your own CDC and Elk that I tie with Red Deer hair!

Hans, Mm, this is an interesting topic with good guidelines presented so far, but with few hard rules. For one, traditional patterns passed down, named, published and referred to often vary from publication to publication and from tier to tier, just out of the nature of our preferences, skills and interpretations. So if looking to a reference of a Lawrie soft-hackle, which actually provides a pic with the recipe and calls for a fuller hackle and longer tails, you would have to consider ever other published representation of the pattern and you'll be left with...variations. Hell, Lawrie would have likely tied a particular pattern in a number of densities and proportions. In my mind citing historic patterns, or even contemporary established patterns, there is a lot of wiggle room, which I take full liberty with. Best for me to stay clear in the naming dept and just stick to the materials and hook design.

I guess I tend to treat the historic patterns as less sacred than some although I do take some care to acknowledge more contemporary tiers who achieve something unique. In the end, I'll just stick with a method that helps me remember what the hell is in a pattern when I pick it up and how I can reproduce it when it works.

I'd be interested in hearing from others who take the naming conventions more seriously than I do. It is interesting and will probably flip a few switches as the lights come one.

w

If I change just a color, or sub a material, I don't change the name. If I think I have a unique fly, I name it. Sometimes I present a fly, and hope to see if there is another like it, from people who know that field, better than I do. I have just passed the four year mark in mid Jan, so there is a lot I don't know. I have only been fly fishing for the same amount of time. Prime example...I tied a fly probably two years ago, I wanted something "different". I made what I thought was something totally unique. I named it. Well, someone who has been around a lot longer than me, told me it was a certain style of tying. (from NZ) I had no idea. Even so, my fly was not the same as the ones I found on the internet later. I was all excited about this fly, until I was alerted that the style was not new. It kind of took the wind out of my sails. But, it did open up a new style of tying for me...established patterns in that same area. Most of the flies I've named, have been streamers. As far as I know, they are totally unique to any other around.

I think that we must give the credits to the person who "invented" the fly. If one use the same name as the inventer than it has to be the same fly. If one use the name and make a variation then I think he/she should put var in the name. We all know the exact tying of the Pheasant Tail bij Sawyer and I think we all have tied one in our live but I have only one time seen the correct tying with copper wire and that was by Hans Weilenmann, thank you Hans!

Greeting

Here's the thing: there's no hard and fast rule about what constitutes "the same". For example:

If I change just a color, or sub a material, I don't change the name.

If that were case, then a Partridge and Orange would be exactly the same thing as a Snipe and Purple. In Catskill dries, a Dark Hendrickson would be exactly the same thing as a Light Cahill, etc.

Yet:

I can name my patterns any way I choose,

Suppose I tied a fly on a streamer hook, with a cone head, pink Marabou tail, pink Estaz body with pink hackle palmered through it. Is it "my pattern"? It's at least as different from what Russ Blessing called a "Wooly Bugger" as a Snipe and Purple is from Partridge and Orange, but everyone would call it a pink Wooly Bugger, and view any claim that it was my pattern with scepticism. (For the record -- I would never tie such a fly. Or at least I'd leave off the hackle.)

There's some fine line somewhere, but it's not at all clear where it is.

redietz wrote: In Catskill dries, a Dark Hendrickson would be exactly the same thing as a Light Cahill, etc.

Is this where I will ask what makes "Catskill dry" any different from UK dries from Halford's time?

Hans W
*evil glint in eye*

Hans Weilenmann wrote:

redietz wrote: In Catskill dries, a Dark Hendrickson would be exactly the same thing as a Light Cahill, etc.

Is this where I will ask what makes "Catskill dry" any different from UK dries from Halford's time?

Hans W
*evil glint in eye*

I believe that the difference was not so much in the manner in which they were tied, but the fact that the Catskill patterns were designed to represent, in colors and size, the New World mayflies present in that area. The literature also suggests that they were somewhat more heavily hackled so as to better float in the type of water prevalent in that region vis a vis the relatively placid English chalk streams.

tie2fish wrote:I believe that the difference was not so much in the manner in which they were tied, but the fact that the Catskill patterns were designed to represent, in colors and size, the New World mayflies present in that area. The literature also suggests that they were somewhat more heavily hackled so as to better float in the type of water prevalent in that region vis a vis the relatively placid English chalk streams.

*chuckle*

Chewing on these statements wondering which of the several holes to drive my truck through

Cheers,
Hans W

Drive through, by all means. I simply mentioned a couple of things I have seen in print, and have no evidence to back them up in a debate forum. I am not a very well informed scholar of the history of fly tying and only a mediocre tyer at best, so I should probably not venture my opinions in public.