Wasn't it in one of his books?

Silver Creek wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 12:40pm:

Caucci & Nastasi's Fly-tyers Color Guide's color chart was really meant to be used with their 4 color, dubbing kit (Yellow, Blue, Red & White).

I've never understood why a standard color system like the Borger system (or any other one) never caught on.  It can take the guesswork out of vague color descriptions.  Just what did Art Flick intend when he described the Hendrickson body to be the color of "urine-burned underbelly fur of a vixen red fox"?  If he had just said a "color about BCS121", we wouldn't be chuckling.  I have notes all over my copy of the BCS booklet to remind me of the color of naturals when they are only distant memories.   --Phil

PhilA wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 4:24pm:



Mostly because it's rather unnecessary and the system numbers don't mean anything.

1. I don't think color matters enough that we need to break it into a couple of hundred hues. Heck, most of the time if you were to give someone a color number to tie a fly by, it wouldn't look very similar once wet anyways.

2. Light olive, medium olive, and dark olive mean a lot more than BCS107, BCS 121, and BCS140. I just made those numbers up but it doesn't matter because to all but about 10 people in the world, the numbers don't really mean much of anything.

That said, I own a Borger Color System book. It's a fine idea, I suppose, but a solution in search of a problem, IMHO.

Silver Creek wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 6:54pm:


I get what you're saying in the rest of the post and it makes a lot of sense but to answer your questions, I don't think it really matters all that much. One is a pale yellow, the other one an orange-yellow. I think that description would catch someone fish about 99.976% of the time. I don't think that if you tied yours as a BCS 50 and I tied mine as a BCS 53 (actual numbers this time...I dug out my book), it would make any difference to the fish.

The BCS has a much finer resolution than I think any fly tier ever needs. I have an awful lot of fly tying materials, but I don't know that I could make dubbing for BCS 50 vs. 53, but I could make something that is orangish-yellow.

Mhnorthshore...I think I've talked myself into trading mine, send me an IM if you'd like it.

Let me say for the record that I'm not a big fan of Gary Borger's contributions to our favorite pastime.  I believe he is a "turbidifier", not a clarifier.  Having said that, I still think a system of color definitions would be useful, such that a subjective text description (e.g. "medium brownish olive") could be more accurately defined.  (In addition to, not instead of, the text words) 

I've convinced myself over time that, of the things that matter in fly imitation (presentation, size, profile, color), color is the LEAST important.  Nevertheless, I've had times when color definitely mattered.  Solving the puzzle is never easy, and color can figure into the equation. 

John, good to see that the Flick Streamside Guide cortical implant is still functioning.  You are of course correct.  Roy Steenrod, who first tied the Hendrickson, never wrote a book, but he is quoted by several author/historians as describing the body as "fawn colored fur from the belly of a red fox".  I guess Steenrod didn't think the sex of the fox was important.  Were Flick's trout more selective?  I doubt it. 

Fawn colored?  Urine burns?  Those are all rather vague terms.  The Hendricksons I see in Wisconsin (I wish I saw more!) most often look about this color (a page from my BCS booklet):



The male Hendrickson (a Red Quill) is elsewhere in the booklet. 

This thread has gotten pretty geeky.  Sorry Mike.   --Phil

LabRat wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 8:04pm: