Paul, Your comments are well taken,and in the proper light. In my experience with this technique and countless professional tiers I have introduced to it through recent years, the consensus is that it is different enough to be of note. Almost all of the former techniques tout the dubing rope for long fibered dubbings. This technique is doable even with mole fur, and Del is sending me some mouse fur to try. And contrary to the book, my fur does stay in place when roped, as today's threads have much higher strengths than when that book was published, and I rope mine much tighter than they did, which gives the segmentation effect. (Maybe it's just me and my crazy personality, but I'd much rather challenge myself with overcoming difficulties in a technique rather than just dismissing it because an aspect of it seemed inadequate or difficult.) The other techniques have also been somewhat focused in their application, not broad across the whole spectrum of dubbing. And boy do we have a lot of dubbings these days! Dave's 'ball-feed' method does not work well with short fibered dubbings, and tapering and segmentation are much more difficult, and graduated color changes are not possible, and hackle-wrapped dubbing cannot even be approached. Great method, but not the rope-dub as I do it.
A case in point. I was sitting next to a life-time professional tier at the ISE show in Denver. He saw me doing the rope dub and immediately he assumed that it was what he had seen all along- the dubbing noodle. But he didn't watch close enough. Later, during a duscussion he mentioned this, and I invited him to have a go at what I was doing. I handed him my ice dubbing dispenser and a beadhead hook and asked him to tie a tri-colored tapered segmented caddis larva body in less than 60 seconds with no tools or wax or loop. He sat for a moment looking at the hook in his vise and then looked at me and said "I guess what you are doing is different- please show me." He was amazed when I did it for him and I have another convert. So in a way everyone is right to an extent. The method is so close to other methods that it looks the same at first glance. But it's actually about 75% the same. That different and extra 25% is what has opened up possibilities, but it is also the hardest part to actually realize or point out to the public, especially if it is quickly dismissed based on the similarity. So those who only see 75% of the technique are missing the new realm of applications afforded. Those who only use the 75% or less will never really benefit or realize the full potential of this method, which is still being expanded.
