In the November issue of FF&FT;, Peter Lapsley says that as there is no widely accepted international body to impose change with regard to fly hooks, there is nothing to stop manufacturers from changing the way in which they describe their hooks – by measurement, rather than by arbitrary size. Do you agree? Are you confused by hooks sizes?

I agree with Peter Lapsley,there is no such law and in my opinion there should not be.
  whats wrong with just picturing the insect you want to imitate and pick your hook accor
  dingly,complete standardisation would i think limit your choice adversly. Tiemco have
  changed the hook numbers to approximatly the old redditch scale,but you are still look
  ing at a #12 for the new #13.as our friends over the big puddle say: “if it aint broke
  dont mend it” jimmy 10.

I would tend to agree with Peter there is no way hook manufactures will agree to a standardisation of hook sizes. 
Is there a need for standardisation with hook sizes? ‘No‘.
On the other hand [ Jimmy pardon the pun ] if I was inexperienced and starting out tying my own flies, I could see where a standardisation of the ‘packaging’ would be a big help.

Is there a need for standardisation with the packaging? ‘Yes’
Each manufacturer could easily add some literature to their existing packaging as per Peters suggestion, shape of bend, shank length & width of hook gape, measured in millimetres.
It would take away a lot of the guess work.
Donal Hayes

If you cant tell the approx size and gape type just by looking at a hook theres something very wrong.

Geeky53 - 25 October 2010 12:12 PM

...
So we can avoid confusion.

I think you miss the point - we do NOT avoid confusion.
I have seen cases of forum discussions, particularly related to very small hooks, where everyone is at cross purposes in comparing their tyings, since it is not realized that one brand size 26 can be larger than another brand size 22.

Furthermore, the shank length can vary tremendously. Kamasan B401, a dry fly hook described as ‘normal shank’ is, size for size, as long a shank as the B830 wet long shank hook.
This makes for a much larger fly than a hook with truly normal shank. but the same nominal size.

Good idea to standardise on hook size descriptions, but we need a consistant format and a well thought out key or guide that all hook manufacturers would adhere to.
Sizes, Straight Shank portion and Gape I think should be in mm rather than inches.
But it would be good I think to keep some if not all of the current hook size and information that we have grown to rely on when buying fly hooks e.g.Kamasan B401 #16.(Which we know is std shank, fine wire, down eye, fine barb etc)
We already have hook bend descriptions; Sproat, Limerick, Round bend etc. We also have hook eye orientation, up eye, straight or down eye; and short, standard or long shank together with fine , heavy etc for wire sizes.
It may be a tall order to get this lot together as an abreviated description, but when done, opens the way for a definitive approach and an increased confidence that when we order a particular hook size/configuration, we get exactly what we want.
I wonder whether the ‘Flyfishing and Flytying’ magazine would run a competition to come up with a selection of the best ideas, or whether an interested party such as the Flydressers Guild might not like to take this under their wing as a worthwhile project?
Your thoughts chaps?
doodlebug

Standardisation of hook descriptions
Initially for ‘ordinary’ straight-shank hooks:

Since becoming involved with fly dressing a number of years ago I have formed an increasingly firm opinion that hook measurement and description should be standardised. I have generated a database of 226 actual hook measurements (so far – that is, only a few of those available) according to the following system:

[SEE ATTACHED DIAGRAM]

This is not the hitherto accepted method but I have several good reasons for making this change-
  * Most immediately: Measuring to the outer limits of the wire facilitates placing the hook in a simple right-angled jig which is inscribed with a 1- millimetre square grid.
  * Most importantly: given that in practice the depth as defined above is in almost all cases equal to the gape, the length of the shank which extends forward to ‘overhang’ the gape (‘shank’ as defined above) is therefore a crucial feature of a hook’s design.
  * Further to the above item, measurement of ‘shank’ according to the current accepted method is ill defined due to the simple fact that its limit at the ‘bend end’ is utterly indeterminate. I.e the point at which the shank falls into the bend can not be precisely determined in most cases. Furthermore, in the case of a curved shank the method is meaningless.
  * Again further to the above, the ‘strike angle’ of the hook (to coin a phrase), viz. the angle to the shank made by the line from the eye to the hook point, is a function of the shank/gape ratio (both as defined above).
  * Current convention is to measure the shank from the neck of the eye. The above method is adopted for two reasons: firstly, it offers a more precise location and secondly, the functional length of the shank commences at the point of attachment to the line (again, re the ‘strike angle’).

It is an observable fact that the feature which in reality remains most regular with relation to stated sizes is the gape. This therefore remains the most convenient identifier for the size. However, a wide range of hook brands and types shows a wider than desirable variation, even overlapping ranges, and it would be advantageous to specify range limits for the gape relevant to each nominal size.

The shapes of bends are, I believe, already pretty well defined – round, sproat, crystal, limerick -  a more ‘scientific’ method would, I am sure, be unintelligible. This feature is important in assessing the applicability of the hook pattern to a given fly pattern (e.g. round bend for a beadhead) and in assessing the size of the fly as opposed to the size of the hook, where the body of the dressing is limited to the straight portion of the shank. This is, of course, the current conventional measurement of the shank from the neck of the eye to the supposed start of the bend.

I therefore suggest that the hook description should comprise:
  * size: related to gape, as already established in general but with tighter limits.
  * shank/gape ratio: where it will be found that a short shank gives a ratio of about 1.0, ‘standard’ about 1.5 and long 2.0. The fly size relative to the hook size can thus easily be visualized.
  * weight: according to wire gauge, probably ‘heavy’, ‘medium’ and ‘light’ might be sufficient. The meaningless ‘x’ non-system should be scrapped immediately and wire gauge ranges specified per hook size.
  * bend shape: ‘sproat’ and ‘round’ are likely to be by far the most common.
  * the eye: ‘DE’, ‘UE’, ‘SE’ for down-, up- and straight-eye.

For example Kamasan B175 size 10 would become:  Size 10, 1.4 normal shank, heavy sproat, DE

A compromise:

Peter Lapsley, FF&FT; November 2010, suggests that shank length and gape width should be quoted. The drawback here is that, as already stated, the shank length according to current convention is not clearly definable.

However, given that the ‘depth’ of the bend is almost universally equal to the gape, then the overall length of the hook, which obviously is definable, when compared with the gape will give a true assessment. In fact, a hook with a shank/gape ratio of 1.0 as previously described will have a hook length exactly twice the gape. A shank/gape ratio of 1.5, i.e. a ‘normal’ length, will give a hook length 2.5 times the gape. On the other hand the shank length by the current convention will depend on the shape of the hook. Furthermore I do believe that the convention of hook sizes is too deeply ingrained to be dispensed with.

I suggest therefore that current sizing should be retained but standardised as a limited range of gape measurements related to size. This should then be quoted together with gape and overall hook length.

So Kamasan B175 size 10 would become: Size 10, 15.5 x 6.5, heavy sproat DE

The mathematically inclined will see that the hook length is greater than the gape and so is not a ‘short shank’, but is not as much as gape x 3, which would make it ‘long shank’.

As the importer of MASHAMA HOOKS, see http://www.mashamahooks.com I totally agree! but I think there might be another way to address this issue. How about taking a line between the bottom of the eye and the apex of the bend as a diagonal measurement in millimeters? Thus a Partridge P double size 9 would be a size 24 for example. For ease of explanation to the public Partridge could keep their size 9 staistic but abbreviate the millimeter measurement in brackets so it would be a size 9(24)
The problem with standardisation is getting all the manufacturers to buy into it, for example the AFFTA have an industry standard for the shape and specification of reel feet to ensure that rod manufacturers comply with appropriate reel seats. But somebody needs to tell the rod manufacturers to conform!
Mick

I’ve only been tying for a wee while and i find hooks very confusing and they should go to standardised measurements because you really shouldn’t be measuring the size and the cape, imagine doing that with a grub hook!

bloke - 12 November 2010 06:50 AM

taking a line between the bottom of the eye and the apex of the bend as a diagonal measurement in millimeters?
Mick

I have considered using the apex of the bend in some way but my objection to the above is that it takes length as defining the size of the hook. This means,e.g., that a size 14 (old) long shank would become something like size8 or 10!

I have started a new personal (non-commercial) web site which includes my view of several technical aspects of fly-tying. Please feel free to view. Hooks start on this page:
https://sites.google.com/site/flyonahook/home/fly-tying/hook-comparison

Profly99 - 05 January 2011 06:51 AM

you really shouldn’t be measuring the size and the cape, imagine doing that with a grub hook!

How can the hook size be established without measuring something? Yes, grub hooks and other even weirder shapes do present problems but these can be addressed when a system is established for straight hooks.

Hey thats a good website, thanks!

Hi Mudskipper,
Re your post including “I have started a new personal (non-commercial) web site which includes my view of several technical aspects of fly-tying. Please feel free to view. Hooks start on this page:
https://sites.google.com/site/flyonahook/home/fly-tying/hook-comparison”
Really handy usefull info…well done
I have taken the liberty (hope you don’t mind) of compiling this in the form of a small (25kb) Excel Filtered Chart using any of your headings to filter the data. I’ve tried to upload it to the Forum but receive the message: ” The filetype you are attempting to upload is not allowed!” (apparently only *.jpegs are allowed).
If there is another way to share the filtered chart let me know, otherwise I would be happy to email the filtered chart to anyone who wants it.
Just post a reply to doodlebug.
Once again, great job on the Hook Comparison chart, thanks.

Hello Doodlebug
I don’t mind the info being made more available. I think you would be able to load your file onto Google Documents, where it can be made as public as you want it to be. You can link to it from a forum or anywhere. You need a Google account to do this.

Hi Mudskipper,
Thanks for allowing me to use your Hook Comparison Chart data.
It’s now set up witrh filters and can be found at: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhL1oHKrHKQ4dDAwcDVwOHVyVUNsa3lZSnVDQUsyWWc&hl=en&authkey=CNXmtasO
Under the Google Docs heading, click on ‘View’ then on ‘List View’ to see the filters. To use e.g, select the ‘BRAND’ filter and then select the brand of your choice. The filters should operate and only show your selected data.
It would be good if you or someone else could check it out - it works for me and the link above is shared to ‘everyone’, but it would be good to get confirmation that it works for you

Hello again Doodlebug
Looks good, very readable.
It works ok but for one point - for some reason the ‘Weight by wire’ filter doesn’t work for me. The list goes blank.