FLYMPH FORUM

I sincerely hope that I am not annoying Mark now. I want to question the concept of wingless wets. To me, a wingless wet would only have a beard hackle, since I regard the upper portion of the hackle to be (represent) the wing.

What is your take on this semantic issue?

dd

Stefan,

since I regard the upper portion of the hackle to be (represent) the wing.

If a fly is tied 'in the round', how would you define the upper portion?

Cheers,
Hans W

Hans,

If the hook point is below the shank, I think the hackle above the shank is "the upper portion". Just as you already knew. Some authors of old books spoke of the hackle "correctly set", meaning the hackle manipulated to be up and down but not umbrella style, representing wings and legs. Just like the fish, you see what you expect to see. That's why they don't see the hook...

dd

Interesting discussion.

Quite right Mike, not the concept but the idea that it is wingless. But "wingless wets" is a name I am fond of, and I believe most people understand what it means. I was just teasing somewhat and furthermore wanted to highlight what the fish ought to see in the hackle. I have a friend who is a fundamentalist regarding the hackle on "hackles". He can't accept umbrella style and pinches the hackle on the "hackle" between thumb an finger before he offers it to the fish. He is a very skilled and experienced fisherman. I would not say that he is wrong, but sometimes I enjoy tying umbrella style just to watch the beautiful fibers when they are separated and curve nicely.

dd