The Classics Posts, What is wanted????

[maharg]

I would like to open this up for a debate/discussion.

It seems that Benlikestofish feels that the thread that he started has been devalued by inferior posts. (see grouse and green)
He states that his original posts were what was wanted and conciderable imput was needed to make this work. I have no problem with this and feel that I have made an effort.
I am not sure as to what the forum members want from this thread.
Do you like the way it is being done or do you accept the comments by Ben that more information needs to be added to each thread?

Is this to be a formal referance section?
Is it to be informal?
Is it to be open to all to add what they want?
Should it be vetted before it reaches the Sticky?

My own thoughts are that for this to work I think members variants should be added.
The problem is that some Classic flies deserve to be included but have no real variants, so the post goes into a dead end.
Look at the Ace of Spades, Appitizer,and red tag as examples.
Genuine Classic flies but no where to go.
I have concidered and rejected flies such as, Partridge and Orange, Snipe and Purple, Olive Dun and Greenwells Glory for that very reason.
Should I post them anyway to let new tiers see these Classic flies????
I would really like your imput in this as I would like to continue this thread but not if it is not up to scratch or is not wanted.
All the best to you and yours.
Graham.

[sweenytodd]

Carry on and just do the best you can IMO . If people want to throw their toys about over it then let them
The forum is open to all and if anyone wants to , or thinks they can do a better job then fine , go ahead . On the flip side of that if people don't want to take part then that's fine also ....
If a pattern in one of the threads doesn't lead the thread into pages and pages of variants so what ????

Anyway at the end of the day this isn't a rewrite of the bible , it is ment to be a bit of fun ......

[A. Fluker]

I am not sure what qualifies as a Classic Fly but I think that those having a go at this very difficult subject are doing a good job.

Me for one would like it to continue and if different guys have a slightly different take on it so be it.

Thanks to all.

[madjoni]

Hi maharg
I would love to see all classics and their variants.And story about them,if there is one.Please,please...

[oakham orange]

Not sure what Ben's comments were, but I for one am enjoying Graham's "Classic" postings.

In a day and age where every fly seems to be a variant of something else or a bob with something like foam added, it's refreshing to be reminded on the proven flies that were so successful before all the modern materials hit the marketplace.

Keep up the good work graham.

[IanG]

I think the answer is - read what you want. The thread will undoubtedly contain details of how to tie the classic and then, the variants come along after that. If you don't want to know about variants, don't read on any further.
I understand that there are numerous books which will contain the dressings of all the classics - a thread which includes a list of variants provides something different.

Ian

[g bigtrout]

Fully enjoying what you have been doing Graham

Nice seeing the original and the info attached and how people add there own variants, certainly good threads keeping the fly tying forum alive. Not all the patterns will get a big response as you say but the ones that do can be explosive.Some smashing variants out there so i say keep them coming.

Geordie.

[greenock]

Yip enjoying them here as well some real nice flies have been posted and the history is good as well.

[mayflyjunky]

It's sad to think of someones posts as being thought of as inferior.

Maybe the problem was, I think I seen where members were asked to contribute to the classics thread. If Benlikestofish had a template then perhaps he should have been the only one posting flies in the classics thread or perhaps posted the name of the flies he thought warranted a place in the classics thread for others to tie and post.

As for variants what about the Invicta, Silver Invicta, White hackled Invicta. All classics and all variants.

One mans dinner and all that.

[midlander]

I think things are fine Graham, yourself and others have been doing an excellent job. The original format by Ben, and I believe the way it should be continued, was perfect: Original dressing, preamble on the history if available then onto the OPs variants if any and finally open to the floor for comments and variants. Simple interesting and informative.

I think a little too much has been made over John's short and sweet introduction to the Grouse and Green. He didn't mention naming convention as part of the history as he probably assumed that others would already know of it. He didn't mention the creator because who created the Grouse+xxx series anyway? We'll probably never know. So what more is there to say? The G+G certainly is a classic and maybe the inclusion of it in the list of classics will encourage more people to give it, or the Mallard and Green a go.

As far as "unvarianted" flies are concerned. If it's a classic then it's got a place.

The thing is that many members may not have a variant of a fly because they've never heard of or used the original. However, seeing a fly photographed can open you up to the use of the pattern or suggest an interesting variant that may be of use on your water. A good, solid grounding of classic flies with a proven track record can only but help you to create something that will itself stand the test of time.