Fly Fishing Forum - View Single Post - 2 For the Critics
View Single Post
Old 01-04-2004, 10:40 AM
Igor Igor is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 100
even more confused!


Let me get this straight. As I see it, Pryce-Tannatt states decidedly ("...after due consideration of the fly-dresser and angler alike.") that horns are indeed an important anatomical and functional element of a fly - for the reasons I indicated in my last post. Kelson and Sir Herbert Maxwell dressed their Kates with horns as well. Yet, you (a 'purist') consider them to be a non-essential part of the dressing.

Am I to understand that the 'rules' in tying, classical or otherwise, are indeed subject to personal interpretation?

FT, I am by no means the tyer or historian you are, so I hope you'll shed some light on some confusing and contradictory points of view.


BTW - I may have missed something, but what WAS the purpose for posting the additional Kate?
Reply With Quote