Gary That happens to me all the time. Even with the fancy Maine streamers I love so much. I very seldom tie a pattern out of a book but I can always open up a book and find a fly too close to the one I just tied. Deb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:46 PM Subject: Origination of a pattern ( was Re: [VFB] Favorite FF Mags )
> I think there really is "nothing new under the sun. Countless times, I > have been sitting at my vise messing around with a "new pattern", only to > find it later in a pattern book or on a website somewhere. > > At least when that happens, you have an indication that you are at least > thinking in the right direction. > > - Gary > > At 02:08 PM 12/30/2002, you wrote: > >Bob VanAmburg wrote... > > > >"after reading that article about the Peabody fly > > that Capt. Roger guy Claims > > to have invented...(It's a Bloody Peacock & Brown > >Soft hackle!!!!!!!!)" > > > >This awareness is what will put an end to all the false claims of > >'originality'. > >Feedback from readers to the rag- I mean mag- will force them to validate > >the > >claim - or rescind it. Their reputation is what's at stake, if you make > >that so. > > > >Even with all of the 'Off the wall' stuff I do, I still never claim > >originality, > >although people sometimes affix that to some things I do. > >(So, if they haven't seen it before, it really is 'original' to them, isn't > >it?) > >If the 'art of extremism' is just taking known things to an extreme, so > >is that something new? "Eye-of-the-beholder" may come into play here. > > > >Is a size 32 Royal Coachman "new" or "original". Yes and no. There is a > >Royal Coachman fly, but tied on a 32? Is it new, or just extreme? There > >are a half-dozen 'innovations' I've come up with to do them, but what is > >really 'new'? Maybe someone else did it -or does it- too. > > > >Same with a 19/0 muddler. Known fly, extreme tie. > > > >Are my "Flex-o" flies "new", or just extreme versions of predecessors? > >Are my 22" long marlin flies "new", or just extreme versions of deceivers? > >Am I the first to ever tie a beaver? or a Platypus? I'll never really > >know. Who cares? They're fun anyway! 'Terribly wounded minnow' gets a lot > >of laughs. Is it new? Who cares? > >Saber-toothed rat...new or a variation of a mouse pattern? Who cares? Not > >me. > > > >We can go back to the thread of 'variations on a theme', but is a variation > >of a fly a new fly? > > > >There are at least a half-dozen people out there claiming to have invented > >the humpy and the muddler. Really, only God could know for sure if a person > >was the first 'chronologically' to apply a certain technique to a hook. But > >we can know if a technique had a 'predecessor', especially if it is in > >print. But we still can't know if that one was the first, either. > > > >Easier put- we can know if it's a 2nd, but we really can't know if it's a > >1st. > > > >And any claim is valid until someone disputes it successfully. So, just for > >instance if 'Capt. So&so' is 90 years old and says he invented the brown > >hackle peacock in 1930, who is there to disprove him, other than a published > >work prior to his claim? > > > >Since it's very hard in our field to sign and date our work, other than by > >pictorally publishing it, it is also hard to prove inventorship. > >Co-inventorship is very common- two minds coming up with the same idea. > >Happens all the time. Was there a third- before them? A 4th? > > > >That unknown always makes it difficult to claim originality. > > > >Just my musings and ramblings over lunch...for what they're worth. > >DonO > >
