I used two medium sized flat tinsels and started them 180* on the sides of the shank. I think I follow what you mentioned regarding the hackle, note that I used the attached vintage fly from JAJ Munro of Aberlour-on-Spey c1910-1920 see attached photo, it seemed to be the only decent vintage picture I could find. Thank goodness I have another chance at this with a proper iron from Ronn Lucas, these have wavy barbs...This is nicely done.
Two things I'd do differently:
1) I wouldn't wrap the spey hackle completely around the body right in front of the tip as you did. I'd begin wrapping it up the body right up behind and touching the back edge of the tinsel ribbing and then put a turn of thread over it at the front of the body and make 2 more wraps of the spey hackle before tying it off. Doing it this way produces a sleeker, slimmer, more streamlined fly that in my opinion fisher better. Wrapping the spey hackle around the body right in front of the tip changes the way the fly swims because this wrap or two of the spey hackle acts like a tail and also causes turbulence at the end of the body.
2) I'd either use 2 strands of medium flat tinsel that are spaced 180 degrees apart, or one large flat tinsel very widely spaced (as in only 4 turns of tinsel on this large size fly) that has 2 strands of small oval tinsel spaced evenly between them. The traditional, and most common of these would be the two strands of medium flat tinsel spaced 180 degrees apart. This is accomplished simply by tying in one piece of tinsel on the far side of the hook and the other one on the near side. Thus, when wound, you automatically get 180 degrees of separation. (NOTE: The spey hackle only follows one of these two tinsel ribbings)
This one, and two other 3/0 flies are going to Aberdeenshire Scotland to a friend who will fish them on the Spey. Again, my friends I live in Southern California, 8-10 hours from real fish, and even then many that would not be taken on this size fly. Although this red king may work on mako sharks if cast into a chum slick... Lol. It's a gift to my friend so I can live vicariously through him. I just love tying them, and monkey see monkey do when I find a vintage example that excites me.Wow! Nice fly Matt.
I can say it is a near copy of the antique. It does look wound different. Also, you mounted the wing different, but I think yours is more "acceptable." Nice and clean for sure.
I agree though - it a BIG hook. As a fly that I've caught a few on - on a smaller hook (No. 2) and in smaller proportions - I have to wonder what you are casting this at.
I was very elated to have a group of guys who really appreciate my desire to tie them as close to the old style as possible, made (FB) friends and after some conversation I asked if they would fish them for me, they said not only yes but that it would be their honor, I mean, talk about a kick in the pants in the right direction for my inspiration, my take on a fly swimming in the river it was designed for... Ugh I need a real vacation.....:chuckle:.
Nicely done Matt. I also send flies out to anglers, across the U S. But to Scotland? Now - that is impressive. I didn't imagine you would be casting this to the NorCal/S. Oregon half-pounders or steelhead anytime soon. I thought perhaps you'd be chasing down fall Chinook.
Thanks bud, much appreciated.I hear you in each regard. Many of these old patterns, including classic salmon flies, will be large when you tie them exactly as they were originally. I cast speys, old and new, for steelhead more than any other type of fly and in order to do so without the feeling of guilt in myself, I have had to down-size many of the patterns while also staying as true to the style as possible.
Looking forward to see more of your fly-tying.