hook question...
- Thread starter Karaja
- Start date
silver creek
Well-known member
"Tying the Jock Scott - Fly Angler's Online Volumn 12 week 13"
A turle knot will make a fly with a hook eye skate just like a fly tied on a hook without an eye so I don't think it has to do with how the fly "swims."
I think the flies were developed before they were able to make eyes on hooks but I don't know for sure. HOWEVER, there are hooks with an "eye" formed by the bending the shank back on itself as in the top hook below:
I think some of the Salmon Fly tyers on the BB will have the real answer. I am speculating.
trev
Well-known member
My speculation is they didn't have good way to form an eye, just as they didn't have a good way to make barbless hooks.
But there is also the stress caused by bending the tippet material sharply through the eye and knotting it back on itself. I think most synthetic leader materials lose about 30% strength with that arrangement, and as recent as a hundred years ago the tippets were horse hair or silk worm gut- both being a bit more fragile than modern tippet material. I read that when they did start making eyes that they did not catch on right away, in the late 1800's iirc., so still way before synthetics were first used after WW2.
I imagine a horse hair probably breaks fairly easy when tied in the kind of knots that eyes require.
But there is also the stress caused by bending the tippet material sharply through the eye and knotting it back on itself. I think most synthetic leader materials lose about 30% strength with that arrangement, and as recent as a hundred years ago the tippets were horse hair or silk worm gut- both being a bit more fragile than modern tippet material. I read that when they did start making eyes that they did not catch on right away, in the late 1800's iirc., so still way before synthetics were first used after WW2.
I imagine a horse hair probably breaks fairly easy when tied in the kind of knots that eyes require.
Hooks in the 1800s were for the most part made by hand. The eye was the hardest part of the hook to make..... so to save on cost, a return eye was simply not added. There are some return eye hooks from this time, but are rare.
History | partridge of redditch
As far as benefit to the action or leverage or the like..... there is no advantage. Guys tie blind eye flies today more for nostalgia and aesthetics. I use 30 lb Dacron or braided mono on mine. Some guys use silk gut material, twist their own from mono or real nostalgic tiers will buy horsehair and twist/make gut material from it.
I prefer the durability to Dacron/mono as natural materials will decay and weaken with time. Plus the tensile strength of horsehair gut is like 2 lb.
View attachment 20429
http://www.eclecticangler.com/content/instructions/Horeshair_Fly_Lines_PowerFibers_Issue_36.pdf
Fishing with Guts | MidCurrent
Charles Cotton was an OG. In part II of 'The Compleat Angler', 1653, he boldly states that "Your line in this case should never be less, nor ever exceed two hairs next to the hook; for one (though some I know will pretend to more art than their fellows) is indeed too few, the least accident, with the finest hands being sufficient to break it; but he that cannot kill a trout of twenty inches long with two, in a river clear of wood and weeds, as this and some other of ours are, deserves not the name of an angler."
History | partridge of redditch
As far as benefit to the action or leverage or the like..... there is no advantage. Guys tie blind eye flies today more for nostalgia and aesthetics. I use 30 lb Dacron or braided mono on mine. Some guys use silk gut material, twist their own from mono or real nostalgic tiers will buy horsehair and twist/make gut material from it.
I prefer the durability to Dacron/mono as natural materials will decay and weaken with time. Plus the tensile strength of horsehair gut is like 2 lb.
View attachment 20429
http://www.eclecticangler.com/content/instructions/Horeshair_Fly_Lines_PowerFibers_Issue_36.pdf
Fishing with Guts | MidCurrent
Charles Cotton was an OG. In part II of 'The Compleat Angler', 1653, he boldly states that "Your line in this case should never be less, nor ever exceed two hairs next to the hook; for one (though some I know will pretend to more art than their fellows) is indeed too few, the least accident, with the finest hands being sufficient to break it; but he that cannot kill a trout of twenty inches long with two, in a river clear of wood and weeds, as this and some other of ours are, deserves not the name of an angler."
Last edited:
dillon
Well-known member
I think, because it looks cool...
bumble54
Well-known member
Back in medieval times armourer's made chain mail with tiny riveted links, no problem making the tiny rivet holes.
Watchmakers, jeweller's, the people who made the spinning and weaving machines of the industrial revolution, making an eyed hook would have caused them no problems at all, so why the straight shank?. Perhaps it was because the leader/tippet of the day was considerably thicker than more modern leader/tippet materials and was not so reliable when knotted, whereas a loop to loop connection could prove to be more reliable.
Also worth remembering that old habits die hard and as fishers we tend mostly to stick to what we know has worked before rather than risk the fish of a lifetime by trying something unproven.
Watchmakers, jeweller's, the people who made the spinning and weaving machines of the industrial revolution, making an eyed hook would have caused them no problems at all, so why the straight shank?. Perhaps it was because the leader/tippet of the day was considerably thicker than more modern leader/tippet materials and was not so reliable when knotted, whereas a loop to loop connection could prove to be more reliable.
Also worth remembering that old habits die hard and as fishers we tend mostly to stick to what we know has worked before rather than risk the fish of a lifetime by trying something unproven.
This is an excellent article from the Fall '09 issue of 'the American Fly Fisher' journal that discusses the history of hook development in fly fishing. Tradition, simple market forces, technological advancements with a big splash of bs was the driving force for this simple change to our most basic of tools in this sport.
http://www.amff.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2009-Vol35-No4web.pdf
http://www.amff.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2009-Vol35-No4web.pdf