Parmacheene Belle – Revisited

Here is another Parmacheene Belle wet fly. This dressing is correct according to the original recipe written by the originator, Henry P. Wells, in the 1883 book, Fishing With the Fly, co-authored by Charles F. Orvis and Albert Nelson Cheney.

One of the commenters on my last post of this pattern on classicflytyingforum.com, of several weeks ago now, correctly observed that the hackle was a little full, and perhaps too long. (That fly was posted here a couple-three weeks ago). It may have been, especially a tad long, but generally, in the traditional tying style of the period (19th century), hackles were longer rather than shorter, and they were more full, rather than sparse. Tying styles and preferences can change over time, but I am a firm believer in tying and replicating flies in their original dressings and style if possible.

For example, many tiers use goose shoulder for wet fly wings, particularly married wings. My belief is: you have to use goose shoulder, but only for married wings in patterns that also call for turkey. Technically, this does not change the pattern correctness, but in actuality, goose shoulder was not used much for primary wing construction on commercially-tied wet flies of the 19th and 20th centuries. Otherwise, the Parmacheene Belle, for example, and nearly all other married wing wet fly patterns use goose or duck wing quills for the wing. There were some exceptions, as in a married wing pattern like the Munro, Silver Doctor, Lake Edward, and Ferguson, because these patterns also use turkey, which does not marry well to duck or goose wing quill sections. Hence my comment above about marrying goose shoulder to turkey. This is the Prime Directive of Married Wings – “always maintain uniformity of texture as much as possible.” The 19th century “married” wing, or more correctly named, “mixed wing” version of these patterns was generally tied with a full wing of turkey mounted first, then followed with “splits” of other colors; usually of goose shoulder, laid over the wing.

My thought is this: A Black Prince Lake Fly, for example, is properly tied and historically correct with a wing of goose wing quill. When tied with a wing of black goose shoulder, it may look good, but it (goose shoulder) generally gives the fly a “too-low” wing profile, at least when considering it as an accurate representation or rendition of a 19th century classic pattern. The low-swept wing makes it look more like a contemporary  steelhead or salmon pattern, rather than a 19th century fly, which would have the wing at a sharp upward angle of forty-to-fifty degrees. A quick glance at the color plates of the Lake Flies, Bass Flies, and Trout Flies in Marbuy’s book confirms this.

So in my case, until just a few years ago, my personal representation and tying of wet flies was in the 20th century style, with wing-tips up, melded with the divided wing style (formerly my favorite) preferred by J. Edson Leonard, author of Flies, 1950, and opposing Bergman’s method (and the generally accepted traditional method) of mounting wet fly wings with concave sides together. My 2010 wet fly article in Hatches Magazine presented the four different methods or styles of setting wet fly wings. All are correct in my view. More recently I have been somewhat converted to the older looking, more traditional, and more historically correct method of setting the wings with the tip down, giving the wing a slightly lower profile, and a perhaps more pleasing to the eye, sweeping natural curve that starts right at the base of the wing at the tie-in point. This is the result of my observation and study of the display flies from the 1893 Orvis Exhibition in the American Museum of Fly Fishing in Manchester, Vermont, and my good fortune to have been granted access to, and held (while wearing white cotton gloves), examined, and photographed the “holy grail” of the thirty-one actual fly plates that were used for the artist’s paintings for Mary Orvis Marbury’s 1892 epic book, Favorite Flies and Their Histories. There were thirty-two original plates in Marbury’s book, but Plate Z is missing from the museum collection.

The angle and mounting style of the wings was also different in the 19th century. Nearly all wet flies, whether using single or married quill feather sections, whole “spoon wing” feathers, or tips of gray mallard, barred wood duck, bronze mallard, or quill wings with splits, were all tied “reverse-winged.” That is, with the wing tied down, butt ends to the rear, tips pointing forward over the front of the fly, then pulled back over and lashed in place with a half dozen or so wraps. The bulky head of the fly included the visible folded-over butts of the stems or quill sections. This also gave the wings a higher angle relative to the body. This technique was used on blind-eye and eyed hooks, that became increasingly more popular just one year after Marbury’s book was written. John Betts wrote an article about the reverse-wing method in a 1996 article in The American Flyfisher, the magazine of the American Museum of fly Fishing. Well, I’m getting carried away, or free-lancing my thoughts on this topic…

More of this type information will be in my upcoming book, Favorite Fishing Flies – 1892, which includes all 291 of the patterns published in M. O. Marbury’s Favorite Flies and Their Histories, 1892, plus more than 200 additional patterns from the Orvis archives.

Here is the Parmacheene Belle, original pattern version; this is tied on a  size #2, vintage Mustad 3399 wet fly hook.

Parmacheene Belle -

Parmacheene Belle – this version is tied divided wing, “tip-up.” The yellow rabbit dubbing substituted for the original yellow mohair does a reasonable job of imitating the original material. Some later 20th century commercial versions of the Parmacheene Belle eliminated the silver tinsel tag, and changed the butt to black ostrich herl, and the body to yellow floss.

The only recipe change I made is I used yellow rabbit dubbing in place of Wells’ original yellow mohair specified on the body.

In March of this year, I taught an extended weekend fly tying class for Wilson’s Fly Shop of Toronto and Fergus, at a Bed and Breakfast in the lovely town of Fergus. We covered traditional wet flies, Carrie Stevens streamers using her proprietary methods, and on Sunday morning, flies from Marbury’s book. When the subject of reverse wings came up, it was unanimous that the students wanted to try this. The only problem was that the instructor, yours truly, had never done it. Their desires prevailed against my hesitation, so it was agreed that attempting the reverse-wing tying method would be a learning experience for everyone. We tied at least three patterns using this method, and everyone did fairly well with the process, despite it being a totally new experience for everyone.

One of my Canadian friends, John Hoffmann, of Fergus, tied a few patterns for my book. John works part-time for the Fergus location of Wilson’s, and also guides and does some teaching of fly tying and fly fishing for the shop. Besides the bed and breakfast stay where the class was held, John, his wife Cathy, and their Airedale, Gracie, were my hosts for a few extra days. Thanks John, Cathy, and Gracie!

I intend to make the posting of those patterns, my first effort at reverse-winged flies next on my blog – hopefully later this week. Thanks to everyone for your subscriptions and devotion to my writings!

Advertisements

12 comments on “Parmacheene Belle – Revisited

  1. Don, i’ve seen plenty of pro-tyers who seem to have “discovered” the reverse tied wing and bang on about it being
    ‘new’, along with one who demo’d at my FDG branch who was gushing about not counter-ribbing with wire.
    I never have the heart to tell them these techniques were used as recently as a couple of hundred years ago!
    Great article BTW, I am really enjoying these history lessons:)

    Darrell

  2. Don Bastian says:

    Hi Darrell;
    Thank you for your observations and sharing your thoughts, appreciate it! You’re right, about new things being old, like the dry-dropper rig was “new” in the 1980’s Ray Bergman, as far as I know he was the first person to do that; he wrote about it in Just Fishing in 1932. Thanks again!

  3. Kelly L says:

    Don, this was a fabulous write up today. I enjoyed the history lesson. I also loved that fly…wow.

  4. Don Bastian says:

    Hi Kelly;
    I actually wrote that “from scratch” on the classicflytying forum.com over the weekend, then yesterday decided to post it here as well. I expanded the text even further.
    Thanks for your comment, I’m glad you liked it!

  5. Paul Brew says:

    Hi Don,

    As someone who dabbles a bit in history I’d say that from my short reading on fly history so far the same arguments apply as those you find at Ren Fairs, Civil War re-enactments and many other venues. What exactly is “historical”? To which I’ve always answered that it purely depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If a fly asked for an endangered species tail feather, is it authentic to replace it with a dyed chicken feather? Most of us would answer close enough and not worry about an appraiser challenging our forgery.
    I for one love looking at all the variations and substitutions you have shown us for this fly. “Change over time” is a critical component of understanding history and I’d argue you could make a very good analysis of why people made those changes based on technology, trade patterns and aesthetic trends in the hobby. In fact I would be very interesting to lay them out by date and region.
    Looking forward to reading more and remember the ultimate gauge of authenticity when tying flies, the fish!!!! (which have not been kind to me this week by the way)

    • Don Bastian says:

      Hi Paul;
      You have presented a very unique perspective on fly pattern history and component changes. As you have noted I believe it’s all relative to where we are in the present day, compared to what is original; in the case of the Parmacheene Belle, a fly created in 1876, this fly fortunately had no endangered bird materials. You have raised some interesting points, thanks for your comment!

  6. Will says:

    Don,

    I was recently given a gift by my mother in law that I thought you may be interested in after reading your blog for a few years now. She was cleaning, and found a nice hard bound (like a hard bound book) wallet of wet flies. It was her fathers, and likely from the 30’s or 40’s. The cover of the wallet is embossed with: “Samples of SUPERIOR TROUT FLIES. Manufactured by W. J. Cummins, North of England Works, Bishop Auckland.” On the inside of the wallets cover hand written is “Property of J. N. Clark, Leadville Colo.

    I’m curious if you would be interested in some close up photo’s of the flies that are displayed (all wet’s), but also, if you may have heard of the company or if this would ring any “bells” for you?

    Will

    • Don Bastian says:

      Hello Will;
      Thanks for your comment! I would definitely be interested in photos of those flies! I’d like to post them here on my blog. Maybe some of my readers can help identify them. I have never heard of that fly making company, but I imagine some of my English readers have, and perhaps they can share a little light on that company. Those finds of an old wet fly book are like discovering plutonium by accident! :mrgreen: Please send photos if you can! Thanks again!

      • Will says:

        Don, Great! I’ll send ’em over. Question though… I don’t know if it can be sent through the blog, is that possible, or is there an email that would be better?

  7. Don Bastian says:

    Hi Will; I sent you my direct e-mail, thanks! Look forward to it!

    • Will says:

      Don it looks like your spam filter is returning the messages for some reason – tried from the hotmail account you emailed and my work account. You may have to add my email to your “safe senders” list for the pic’s to come through?

  8. Don Bastian says:

    Hi Will;
    The different address worked…thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s