I must have read those lines in Pryce-Tannatt a dozen times, but for some reason this time I really read them:

"Usually a pattern with wings put on in this manner possesses a head very much smaller than it would be possible to produce in the ordinary way." (!!!!)

The words are on page 198 of my 1977 edition at the end of a section called Transferring Wings that describes a process for removing (in one piece) undamaged wings from a damaged fly and refitting them onto a new body.

The process is to slit the underside of the varnished head right down to the gut loop, remove the head and wings together, and then transfer them to a new body, setting them in place, "...in much the same way as a saddle is placed on a horse's back." The wings are then secured with a few turns just back of the old head and then the old head is carefully removed.

Pryce-Tannatt notes the resultant smaller head without much interest, as if it were simply a not unpleasant by-product of having a newly repaired fly. But every tyer wants flies with neat, small heads. If this shrunken head technique works for fly repair, why not use the same technique during initial fly construction?

Common nails in sizes 8p through 16p should be about the same diameter as most salmon fly bodies. Bang the proper nail into a vertical surface, tie on a complete set of wings, finish the head and put the assembly aside so the head can dry and shrink.

The rate of compression of feather material bound down under head thread would seem to be a function of 1) the pressure from the thread, 2) the effect that some lacquers have on organic materials (perhaps similar to the way a magic marker can shrivel a feather) and 3) the amount of time that the original head is in place. The longer the head has been bound, the more it has probably shrunk.

So to tie the small-head fly, construct a body on a hook in the normal way. When it's time for the wings, cut them off the nail and "saddle" them onto the body. If the head on the Canary on Pryce-Tannatt's Plate V is any indication, the shrunken head technique does indeed make very neat, small heads.

So why doesn't this potentially effective technique excite me? Why do I feel like it's somehow "cheating"?

My introspective argument usually goes something like this:

PRO: The technique must be okay because, after all, Pryce-Tannatt himself included it in what has become one of the major books on salmon fly tying instruction.

CON: I don't care who wrote about it, it sounds commercial, like something a production fly tyer would come up with.

PRO: What's wrong with production fly tyers?

CON: Nothing. But full-dress salmon fly tyers aren't manufacturers. They are craftsmen and artists.

PRO: But in art doesn't the end justify the means? This technique allows you to make a better fly, and no one will have to know how you did it.

CON: Then why not forget all the old tying techniques and use super glue to make flies really neat and small?

PRO: Because that's not traditional. If nineteenth century tyers had used super glue, then maybe it would be alright today too.

CON: Your post-industrial revolution attitude cheapens the whole fly tying process. It sacrifices creativity for assembly line predictability.

PRO: You can still be creative - you're just building the wings on a nail instead of directly on the body.

CON: And then assembling the fly with all the artistry of a prefab kit. Do you have Tab A and Slot B too?

And so it goes. The result is always the same. "CON" narrowly wins out for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. But this technique offers some interesting possibilities, and it's there for anyone who wants to use it.

Most practitioners of the art of salmon fly tying would agree that one universal goal we strive for is to tie flies with tiny heads.

Recently I had the opportunity to view a videotape made by a noted salmon fly tyer. The techniques employed allow for a fly with a reduced head.

The fly was tied in a standard fashion - the tag, tail, ostrich herl butt, body and ribbing all preceded the body hackle. Then, instead of tying the throat hackle next, an underwing of tippet feathers set back to back was tied in. But first each tippet feather had its stem cut lengthwise in half to the tie-in point. This simple step allowed for a reduction in bulk from two to one. By removing the inside portion of each underwing feather, a tighter pairing of tippets is also achieved as a consequence. A folded throat hackle is tied in, followed by the main wings, sides and cheeks - each step progressing forward while veiling each previous maneuver. A minimum number of thread wraps were employed to set the topping and horns allowing for the tiny head.

In my readings I discovered that a similar technique was employed by Ernest Crosfield. Not much is known of Crosfield's tying techniques but Eric Taverner in Fly Tying for Salmon notes that Crosfield tied his throat hackles (two or three turns) in the middle of his wings. His wings were built in sections separated by one or two turns of thread. This can only mean that he constantly worked on the bare steel of the hook shank. With his tying steps completed he needed only to make a few turns of thread to create a tiny head. Another Crosfield technique was the use of the silk body floss as the actual tying thread up to tying in the throat.

These two masters each realized that head reduction starts as material reduction. It is the economy of materials combined with the spaced progression of thread that obtains those nice tiny heads we all desire.

Most practitioners of the art of salmon fly tying would agree that one universal goal we strive for is to tie flies with tiny heads.

Recently I had the opportunity to view a videotape made by a noted salmon fly tyer. The techniques employed allow for a fly with a reduced head.