One more try.
flytyer, in my original post, I offered to discuss this off board but you didn't take my offer so we are "airing it out" here.
In your last post you said "My scanner added the yellow to the body dubbing, I suspect because of the yellow hackle. The scanner also makes oval tinsel look like flat tinsel and makes gold tinsel look like it is silver (I suspect because it is "seeing" the reflection of the gold as simply light). The scanner also makes it very hard to see ribbing where the hackle is bushier. There are only 5 turns of tinsel on the Kate." Come on now. I have scanned hundreds of flies with a rainbow of colors and photographed even more and have never had the experience of selective image distortion you describe! There is no gold twist on the March Brown and the rib is silver oval. The rib on the Kate is flat tinsel, the spacing of the ribs particularly on the top one would indicate six ribs but I admit that you could have ended the ribs way behind where they would normally end. There are still no horns on the second one (which is a much better looking fly in my opinion).
You go on to say, "The hare's ear dubbing instead of silver monkey fur with orange added to it, is a standard substitute for the silver monkey/orange dubbing mix." Who's standard? With the wrong tinsel and wrong body, I can't tell if that is the right wing, that is not Kelson's March Brown!
You did not follow your rules or the recipes for these three flies yet you continue to offer them as Kelson's dressings. They aren't! This is what gets to me about you and some other traditionalists/purists. You have "rules" that you impose on others who might not be faithful to flies of past yet you do as you will without regard to the same "rules". Emerson (I think) wrote, "do as I say, not as I do". Whoever said that, it fits here.
Paul Ptalis published a great little book called "Century End, A Fly Tying Journey". In this book, Paul presents an array of classic dressings as well as some of his awesome free style flies. After the shock of the colors and patterns when I opened the book, the thing that really impressed me was that after the name of the classic pattern and the originator, he added, "...interpreted by Paul Ptalis". I would suggest that this might be a good thing to do when accomplished Tyers like yourself present a "classic" pattern that is not faithful to the original dressing. This will give the less knowledgeable among us the "heads up" that there has been a bit of artistic license applied to the fly.
Now, do you get it? My point is not to criticize you or your flies. I am NOT judging either. It is simply to help other, less accomplished Tyers understand what it is that they are viewing from more experienced Tyers such as yourself. You can tie your flies any way you like and I can do the same. Neither is better or more right than the other.