All in friendship, I have to respectfully and strongly disagree with using this as a definition of flymph. It is a wonderful description of a Pete Hidy style flymph ( and you tie the finest examples of such Bill), but I don't know anywhere this specific of a definition is supported in literature. That's like saying you are not really tying any pattern correctly unless you tie it exactly (in material, shape, color and style) as the originator. How boring our craft would be it this was the case! I think such narrow parameters goes against what Leisenring and Hidy were trying to accomplish in their mimicry of a variety of insects.tie2fish wrote: Here's where I get picky: "Flymph" for me is a narrow category that includes only flies tied in the manner of Jim Leisenring and Pete Hidy. This requires the same body shape, the proper color of silk thread, the (usually) fur body, multiple wraps of longish soft hackle wound through the thorax area, and a cone shaped head of thread wraps. Preferably, the body would be spun ahead of the actual tying process between strands of silk thread, either on one's pants leg or on a spinning block; under duress I would concede having the fur spun in a split silk tying thread attached to the hook. A body, fur or not, twist dubbed doth not a flymph make for me.
+ TWOTheroe wrote:+ ONEJohnno wrote:IMHO if it’s got a bead then it ain’t a soft hackle - whatever description that may be.....
....although I wouldn't be opposed to calling it a soft-hackled nymph.