When is a Cruncher not a Cruncher?

[stevekale]

So I was playing around with goose biots the other day (some may be able guess why) and I was wondering about the above? For example, if instead of using ribbed PT for the body I wound a goose biot and if instead of feather fibres for the tail I used two biots tied Copper John style, but I still used peacock herl for the thorax and hen for the collar, would you call that a Cruncher variant or is it something new? (Or maybe I've tied something else someone has already invented.)

[Scratch]

Steve, I think that if you tinker with a design that only has 4 components in the first place, then it doesn't take much of change/addition/subtraction for it to become something else... if ye dig my drift? I'd say the use of biot for the body would be a 'legitimate' move... but for the tail aswell? Maybe one tinker too many to consider the resultant pattern a Cruncher?

[stevekale]

Thanks Scratch. Now I have to think of a name for my little goose experiment and give it a swim...

[AndrewMWalker]

Sounds like an interesting fly Steve, any chance of a picture?

Cheers

Andy

[stevekale]

I still need to do a little more tinkering...

BTW did you ever find the book you were looking for?

[AndrewMWalker]

Hi Steve, stop being a perfectionist!

Sadly no joy with the book, I am hopefully going to the bffi show next saturday so will scoure the book stalls for something with lots of tradition wets and good techniques!

Looking forward to see the tinkered with fly in due course!

Cheers

A

[stevekale]

Ok here we go... A little play with goose biots:



The fiery brown biot tail is tied in Copper John/Prince nymph style. The body is a brown olive biot tied notch up. The cheeks are orange biots.

I was thinking of sending it in to the TFF comp.