The Mysterious Mary Orvis Marbury, with Historian Steve Woit

Tom: Hi. Welcome to "The Orvis Fly Fishing Podcast." This is your host, Tom Rosenbauer. And the subject this week is Mary Orvis Marbury. Mary Orvis Marbury was the daughter of Charles Orvis. And she was an [00:00:31.399] important person in the history of American fly tying, but very enigmatic and a bit mysterious. And the great historian, Steve Woit, has recently completed a spectacular book about Mary and her flies and her life as much as he could determine, beautifully illustrated. And so, I have Steve as my guest today on the podcast to talk about the research that he's done and [00:01:00.000] some of the more interesting and little known facts about Mary's life. So, if you're interested in in flies and the history of flies, and the history of American fly fishing, then I think you'll enjoy the podcast today.
And before we do the fly box, just wanted to give you some ideas for your own fly fishing travel in case you were looking to go to a new part of the country and you wanna go [00:01:30.489] with a vetted guide, a guide who is gonna give you a great trip, is going to give you a safe trip, is gonna be nice to you, and is gonna give you the best experience possible. And that's what you get with an Orvis-endorsed guide or lodge or outfitter. So, the first location that I'm gonna tell you about this week is the Driftless Fly Fishing Company. And this is owned and operated by [00:02:00.079] a great guy named Mel Hayner. Mel, he's a veteran guide and fly tyer. He's fished all over North America. And his first love is the driftless streams of Southeastern Minnesota. And when you hear about the Driftless region, you typically hear about Wisconsin, which has some great streams. But Mel concentrates in the Driftless part of Minnesota. And so, it's [00:02:30.115] a kind of a lesser known part of the Driftless, but has great trout streams, Brook Brown and Rainbow Trout. Some of them are on small, very intimate streams, and he also float fishes on larger rivers. So, if you're interested in that part of the world, if you maybe live in Minneapolis or one of the cities in that area, I would definitely look into the Driftless Fly Fishing Company.
Now if you're an East Coaster and [00:03:00.125] you've heard about the great striper fishing on the coast of Maine, I really recommend that you look up Scott Howard. Scott is an Orvis endorsed guide who fishes the Kennebec River Estuary in Casco Bay. And Scott was a commercial fisherman, so he's spent a lot of time on the water. And he's been guiding fly fishers since 1994. So, here's a guy that really, really knows the [00:03:30.004] resource. He knows it intimately. And Maine striper fishing, which has gotten better and better, especially in the past five or six years, you know, could include anything from casting to rocky shorelines that you commonly associate with Maine. But also, they've got some great sight fishing on the flats. And, you know, to rival that, you would see on Long Island or on Cape Cod on Martha's Vineyard. So, [00:04:00.465] if you're interested in stripers on the coast of Maine near Portland, Maine's biggest city, Scott can also give you the opportunity to catch bluefish if conditions are right and the bluefish you're in. And also, if you really wanna challenge yourself and see some of the wildest stuff you'll ever see, he could take you out, and you could try to catch a bluefin tuna on a fly, which is probably the most exciting thing [00:04:30.555] you can do with a fly rod, at least, in my opinion.
And then still in Maine, if you wanna go further down east and visit a classic Maine fishing lodge, classic, historic fishing lodge, Weatherby's is one of the great Maine sporting camps. I've been to Weatherby's. I've filmed there with the New Fly Fisher. And I love the place. It's intimate. It's authentic. And [00:05:00.295] when you're fishing there, the main targets are landlocked salmon and smallmouth bass. We fish smallmouth bass quite early in the spring, pre-spawn, and did really well. And then at the same time, we're able to fish for landlocked salmon. And they're beautiful, beautiful, clear rivers, just a great part of the world. There's also brook trout available. Probably not as abundant as the landlocks and the smallmouths, but [00:05:30.269] there's a chance to catch brook trout. And it's a great lodge. It has great food. It's family owned and run. Most times, you'll have a tribe of springer spaniels to welcome you into the dining room, which I always love.
And as an added bonus at Weatherby's, they catch a lot of pickerel. And pickerel is a great, underrated fly rod fish. And it's always good for when other things aren't biting. The pickerel are almost, always eager [00:06:00.100] to take a fly, and they're really exciting fish. Weatherby's also offers fly fishing schools in the spring. And I can't think of a better place to learn fly fishing than at a historic Maine fishing camp. So, anyway, if you're interested in that experience, I would really advise you to look into Weatherbys. All of these operations that I just talked about, you can find on the Orvis website. And you can find lots and lots of other great [00:06:30.250] places in the Orvis Adventure section that we have vetted and we regularly go to and inspect and highly recommend.
All right. Now, let's do the fly box. And the fly box is where you ask me questions or you pass along a tip. Sometimes you make a comment. I don't always read those on the air, but I do read them and I do take them to heart. But if you want to send me a question or share a [00:07:00.029] tip, you can send it to my email box at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. And you can either just type a question in your email, or you can attach a voice file on your phone if you can figure out how to do that and email it to me, and maybe I'll read it on the air. You'll notice I only have one phone call this week because it's the only one I got that I could use. So, could appreciate maybe a few more phone calls. [00:07:30.850]
And our first question this week is from John from Dana Point, California, "Over Labor Day weekend, some friends and I were fishing Lees Ferry section of the Colorado River. Since we were camped right by the water, we decided to try some night fishing, which leads to my question. We started about an hour after sunset and saw hundreds of fish rising all around us. It was incredible, unlike anything I've ever seen. The problem was we couldn't figure out what they were eating. The river is famous for its prolific [00:08:00.230] midges, so we began with those, lots of parachute atoms, variation in all sizes. To make a long story short, we threw everything we had at them and came up empty. There were no visible bugs on the water, and the only insects we noticed were tiny midges landing on us, maybe at size 26 or 28. My assumption was that the trout couldn't possibly see something that small in the dark, especially since many of the rising fish were in muddy water. So, here's my question, how [00:08:30.279] well can trout see at night? Could they really have been tracking a size 26 midge in those conditions? And what would you have tried in that situation?"
Well, John, it sounds it sounds like a tough one, and I don't know if I would have been any more successful than you in that situation. But it is quite possible that fish can see midges that small in the dark. Because it's not really dark. It looks dark to us, but there is always some skylight or twilight. [00:09:00.360] You didn't say what phase of the moon there was, but if there was any moon at all... You know, there's always some light above the surface, and fish can see things backlit against that light. So, yes, they can see quite well in the dark, particularly brown trout. I think the Lees Ferry is mostly rainbows, but they can see they can see pretty well in the dark as well, not as well as browns.
What I think might have been happening, [00:09:30.669] just a guess, that those fish were eating the pupa stage of the midge just under the surface. And, you know, a good way to tell if they're taking the adults on top or the pupa, pupae in the surface film would be if you see bubbles in the rise form, the fish are probably taking the adults. If you don't see a bubble, but you just see a swirl, the fish are probably taking the [00:10:00.259] emerging part of the midge. So, I suspect they might have been eating just barely subsurface. It looked like a rise, but it wasn't quite a rise. So, in that situation, you know, a nymph or an emerger just under the surface, maybe with a bigger dry. If you could see the dries at all, maybe with a bigger dry and then tying up a smaller, tiny little nymph or a merger behind it. [00:10:30.434]
Another thing that I might do in that situation, although it doesn't sound like it should work, is to fish a really tiny soft tackle and swing it in the dark. You know, midges don't swim much underwater, but the fish are feeding subsurface, and the little tiny wet flies swung in front of them might catch their attention and might get them to eat. But it sounds like a very, very difficult situation. So, I wouldn't worry about [00:11:01.115] not connecting with any of those fish.
Here is an email from Jonathan from Erie, Pennsylvania. "I have a quick question for you about leader grease and saltwater, if that's all right. I understand that mono will float better than fluorocarbon, but when using mono for dry flies, should I be greasing my leader? I'm curious if leader grease will actually put off a fish in low, clear water. Does it leave any [00:11:30.195] residue on the water as a silicone or grease dissipates off the leader? Does it inhibit 6X or 7X from being as soft as it normally would be? And I'm referring to using it on the leader when you're fishing a fly that does not float well like a size 20 CDC merger or something like that versus fishing a hopper off 2X."
Well, Jonathan, I regularly grease my dry fly leaders, and I know that George Daniel and a lot [00:12:00.044] of other good anglers do as well. I don't think a floating leader bothers the fish in the slightest. People are always saying that a floating leader casts a shadow and that's gonna put the fish off, but it doesn't in my experience. The fish see a lot of junk floating in the surface all the time, all day long, stuff that falls in and stuff that's just drifting in the water. And I don't think a floating leader bothers them at all. You get less drag [00:12:30.105] because your leader isn't pulling the fly under and pulling it away. You get a little bit less drag. I don't think it affects the stiffness at all.
And, you know, if you're fishing a lighter, say, a 6X or 7X fluorocarbon, you can also make that float. Fluorocarbon does sink better than nylon, but if you're fishing a tiny dry fly and you wanna use fluorocarbon, you can also grease that. And by greasing it, Jonathan, I just mean putting some fly dressing on it. Just putting a [00:13:00.024] very light coat of any kind of paste or fly floatant. I wouldn't use the liquid fly floatant because that does add a kind of a whitish film to the leader. So, I would use a paste or a grease-type fly float or Mucilin or whatever. You can use nose grease too if you want. All you need to do is add a little bit of grease to a leader, and it'll flow pretty well. So, Jonathan, [00:13:30.304] I don't think it matters. I think that you're better off having a floating tippet and floating leader than a sinking one.
Here is an email from Pat from Lubbock, Texas, "Thanks for a fantastic podcast, one that I've enjoyed since it started. I have three Orvis bamboo rods and I'm steadily reverting to bamboo only in my later years. With that transition, I've begun to seek more classic products for my fly [00:14:00.174] lines like Mucilin. I still have the red Mucilin my grandfather left from 1944, but I suspect it is no longer up to snuff. With that, I want to buy new Mucilin. However, there are now two types, red and green. The red is the classic formula from Bamboo Days, but the green has silicone in it, and carries a warning that it is not safe for the varnish on bamboo rods. So, my question is whether the green silicone formula is safe for Orvis rods with their impregnation [00:14:30.860] rather than varnish. I understand if you cannot answer this, but my dilemma is that I still use some modern graphite rods too, and need to know if I must keep my Mucilin-treated line separate so I don't put a green Mucilin treated line I want on my Orvis bamboo rods."
Well, Pat, that's a really interesting question. And to my knowledge, I had heard this, and I tried to look it up. The red Mucilin, what [00:15:00.289] was or is made from, I thought, deer tallow, although one source said it's made from some kinda plant resins. But anyways, it's more of a natural product. And interestingly enough, I imagine that you're confused because I broke my own rule and I did a little web research on this. And it's funny that the artificial intelligence, part of it, [00:15:30.629] in one paragraph, told me that Mucilin was a fly line dressing. And in the next paragraph, it told me that Mucilin was a secret formula that African Americans used as a way to relieve constipation. It was a secret formula. And that that got quite a few comments in some of the forums, [00:16:00.379] about Mucilin. But anyway, yeah, the green Mucilin is a silicone, more modern formulation. And you know what? You can use the green on your bamboo rods. The only reason that they say not to use the, green Mucilin near a varnished bamboo rod is that, if you ever have to revarnish the bamboo [00:16:30.039] rod, the silicone on the outside of it might keep the varnish from adhering well to the rod. Although, that's easily remedied by cleaning off the rod. And I'm sure that anyone who's refinishing a bamboo rod is gonna clean it off. So, in my opinion and from what I can find, you can use either the red or the green on your Orvis bamboo rods. And since those aren't varnished, you don't have to worry about it a bit, and it's not gonna hurt your bamboo rods, [00:17:00.019] your fiberglass rods, or your graphite rods at all.
Mark: Hey, Tom. Thanks for everything you do. I really look forward to when the new podcast drops every week. I had a question for the fly box. When storing your rod in the sock, is it best to put the butt section handle down or handle up? And the other section, same question, male end down or female end down. I really appreciate your input into this question. And again, thanks for everything.
Tom: So, Mark, I don't know if [00:17:30.069] there's a right or wrong way to store a rod in a rod sock, but here's the way that I learned it. And I actually had to go grab a rod in its sack because I do it so instinctively that I don't know how to describe it to you without doing it myself. So, I've got the rod out of the sack here. And so, on the biggest section [00:18:00.910] of the rod, you put the male ferrule down so that your cork grip is up. And that makes it easier to grab the rod. If you put the reel seat in first, it's hard to grab it. So, you put that in, and then you go to the next biggest section, and I put it, male feral [00:18:30.079] down or the thinner section down. And then I go to the next one and I go again the thinnest section down. So, the thick piece thicker piece or the female ferrule is at the top. And then at the tip section, I put the ferrule down so that the tip top is sticking up. That's the way I do it. That's the way we always did it when I taught in the fishing school where I learned it. [00:19:00.045] And whether that's right or wrong, I don't know. But it seems to make it easier to get it in and out of the sack, and it seems to support each section. So, that's one way of doing it. I'm sure other people have other ways of doing it.
All right. Back to our emails. Here's one from Dave, "Having been on the river for the past seven or eight months, I have to deal with the occasional trout that has completely swallowed my fly. I don't have any [00:19:30.055] problem with removing barbless hooks from the mouth, the lips, and even the intermediate interior of the mouth. But when a fly gets in the throat or deeper, it's a concern. And honestly, I struggle with doing it in a way that makes me feel that the fish will survive. I've used every device and tool. I've heard you say that you would try to use one a little more frequently. But even when using a hook extractor when the hook gets that deep, I notice blood coming out of the gills. And I've even seen the trout go belly up for a short period of time later [00:20:00.454] when I had actually thought I saved it. My question is this, on YouTube, I've seen many anglers say adamantly to leave the fly or the hook in the throat or the gut rather than trying to remove it, making claims that the hook will rust out and ultimately free itself on its own, that there is an even higher chance of survival for the fish rather than trying to remove the hook and making a mess of it. Any follow-up on this? Is it safe to leave the hook in the throat or the gut? Or is it just the lesser [00:20:30.295] of all evils trying to do the best thing for the fish?"
Well, Dave, yeah, a deeply hooked fish, is a problem. And, you know, we try not to do this when we can by striking quickly. But sometimes a fish takes a fly deep and, you know, that fish may die. But the fish has in my opinion, according to the studies I've read, the fish has a better chance of survival if you just [00:21:00.295] cut the leader and leave the hook in the fish, particularly if you're using a barbless hook. The fish is probably gonna get rid of that hook pretty easily. And what I've heard is long before the hook rusts out, the little sore where the hook caught on the fish will fester and then the hook will slip out. So, I would definitely, if I hook a fish that deep and I can't get it out easily with a tool, I will just cut it [00:21:30.115] off and leave it in a fish. And the scientists that that I've talked to say the same thing, you know, scientists who fly fish, they say that the best thing to do is to just cut the hook off and leave it in them. Handling time is what kills fish, you know, keeping the fish out of the water and poking your finger in its mouth and around its gills is a lot more damaging than just cutting off the fly and leaving in the fish. So, I think you're doing the right thing. [00:22:01.765]
Here's an email from Denver, "I'll start with my question, I've been hearing a lot about etiquette, specifically not high holing other anglers. What's your take on this? I'm thinking of a time where I probably did what some would consider high holing while fishing the fall salmon run on the Clyde River where I live here in Northern Vermont. Sometimes the river gets so congested with anglers, it's hard not to be within sight of an angler below you. In this case, I was working my way downstream [00:22:30.575] based on the parking situation and ended up catching a nice salmon in a hole above an angler that was fishing in an upstream direction. Just curious to know your thoughts on this situation.
My tip, if you're fishing a double nymph rig with one nymph on a tag end, carry a small jaw-style hair clip around your rod. You can then use the hair clip to secure your tag end nymph to your rod when moving through brush so you don't get hung up and don't have to cut it off. I [00:23:00.065] learned this tip from a fellow angler on the river. I found that when you disassemble your rod for transport, it can also be used to secure your two rod sections together. Hope someone finds this useful."
Well, Denver, first of all, that's a great idea. I love that tip. And I'm always having trouble when I've got two nymphs on my ring and I wanna walk from one place to the other and I'm always leaving that tag fly hanging. And so, that is a great idea. [00:23:30.384] I wouldn't keep the hair clip on the rod all the time, but keep it in your pocket, and then put it down when you move from place to place. Regarding etiquette, you know, it's just sometimes it's impossible not to. I mean, he was he was working upstream. You probably didn't see him. And you were working downstream, and you hooked the fish, and I don't think you did anything wrong there. It really depends on who's there first. Were you there [00:24:00.230] first and working downstream and he got in below you? Or was he there and you worked on to him? But there's never a right or wrong answer. The easiest way to do it is to find another area of river to fish. And if the whole river is crowded with anglers, I bet you can find some place where you're not gonna get in somebody's way, or go to another river. But, you know, those things are gonna happen, and just try to do the best you can. And, [00:24:30.549] you know, if it happens and afterwards, maybe talk to the angler and say, "God. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were moving upstream, and I'll get out of the river now and get out of your way.
Here's an email from Bruce. First, two pretty unrelated questions for you and your listeners. The other kind of loop control, when tying loop to loop connections and leaders, perfection, surgeons, non-slip loop, what rule of thumb or pinky do you suggest to control the size of the loop so they come [00:25:00.119] out appropriately sized? Second question, are there any orthotics or foot beds that could be adapted to use inside wading boots? I have wide feet and low arches. I must buy wading boots two to three sizes larger than my street size too. A sheer blood circulates in my toes in cold water. But if I wear summer weight socks, that extra width lets my arches widen and flatten sometimes with painful results. Considering how quality waiters are finally available to fit [00:25:30.289] a variety of torsos and legs, I wonder how the market would support with diversity in booties and boots."
Second, a couple tips. In my hands, the brushes in vast sized containers of desiccant powder are too soft and smooth to work the powder into a soap fly. Remembering an old dubbing brush trick, I appropriated an inter interdental toothbrush with nylon bristles and bent the business [00:26:00.049] end into a J shape. I twirl it in the desiccant, position the brush around the hook and rub it fore and aft into the body hackle and wings which separates the fibers and delivers the powder where it can do the most good. Second tip, we should all remember to tell our fishing buddies once in a while that we appreciate them. If you've fallen out of touch, reconnect. If there's a hatchet or two to bury, start digging. You might not have another chance before disease, dementia, and death [00:26:30.029] have their way."
Well, Bruce, first of all, those are two great tips. And, you know, after reading your email, I reconnected with a fishing buddy I hadn't fished with for a few years, and I'm trying to talk him into a fishing trip, a saltwater fishing trip because he doesn't like trout fishing, a saltwater fishing trip, this November. So, I [00:27:00.019] wanna thank you for that tip, and I'm sure other people appreciate being reminded about reconnecting with old friends and fishing buddies. Regarding your two questions, first of all, I don't think there is an appropriate loop size if you're using a loop-to-loop connection. Because I remember the old store manager in the Orvis retail store back in the '70 used to try to make these teeny, teeny, [00:27:30.329] tiny perfection loops to put in the loop-to-loop connection on fly lines for people. But you know what? It doesn't matter how big that perfection loop is because once you make that loop-to-loop connection, they all collapse down to the same diameter. It will give you a little more distance between where the loops connect and where the perfection knot is, and there'll be a couple of little bumps in there. [00:28:00.440] But not really gonna be any different as far as the size of it.
Now, you might get a little more air resistance because you got more of a doubled over section, but I don't think it really matters how big how big those loops are. If you put a loop in your backing to attach fly lines, you do wanna make that big enough so that you can pass your line or your reel through it when you change lines. But as far as the front end on the leader, I don't I don't really think [00:28:30.150] it matters that much.
You're probably not going to see waders or boots with different widths. There are very large minimums in constructing wading boots. And that's only going to double or triple the inventory of that a fly shop has to carry or a manufacturer has to import because none [00:29:00.170] of these boots are made in United States. So, I honestly don't think you're gonna see different widths in wading boots. Certain wading boots, certain brands, and certain models are a little bit wider or narrower than others, but you really have to try those to find out. Regarding orthotics, I remember, this must have been 15, 20 years ago, Orvis sold these custom orthotics that were done by a lab, I believe, in New Jersey, [00:29:30.380] and they were a hard plastic orthotic that you could put inside your wading boots because most of the inserts that you see are foam and you wouldn't wanna get them wet all the time. But you might look into finding a hard plastic orthotic. You may have to go to a podiatrist or something to actually, you know, get these measured and find out. But I'm sure they still make them. And that would be my [00:30:00.315] best suggestion for solving your problem in the waiting boot.
Here's an email from Peter, "Your take on catch and release mortality was a refreshingly honest assessment. My home waters are, basically, all catch and release and I practiced that for forty plus years. But starting last year, I'm fishing more and more often with my hooks clipped off. It's in part to minimize stress on fish, but also, how many more trout do I really need to fight to submission? [00:30:31.055] I don't often even care for the fight anymore. It often feels like an unfortunate interruption to the challenge of good presentation. There are nuances to wear on the bend to clip off a hook depending on hook size style, drive versus nymph, etc., but I usually clip the entire bend off dries as I can see a fish take the dry. With nymphs, since one needs tactile feedback of a fish to determine an eat versus a rock, I clip [00:31:00.154] off about half the hook bend. This allows me to feel a fish for one to two seconds before I give slack if required to disengage with the fish. Some people think fishing like this is insanity, perhaps, but I usually find it enhances my experience as I care about fooling fish, not subduing. Bonus is limited to no stress on the fish and no catch and release moral weirdness.
Well, that's a great idea, Peter, and [00:31:30.625] I'm sure some people are gonna take your suggestion and try that. And finally, here's an email from Brian, "A few questions for the fly box. Fishing a gin clear Vermont Mountain Stream this summer, I was able to observe the behavior of the trout I was targeting very clearly. Upon hooking a brookie and a niff, I noticed a second brookie appeared to be chasing the one which was hooked as the hooked fish raced around before being brought to my net. Do you have [00:32:00.035] any insight on why a second fish would chase after the hooked one? Second question, I wanna compare the Orvis Clearwater 9-foot 6-weight to my current 6-weight from another brand as I love my 4-weight Clearwater. However, there is very little information beyond the narrative description about the rod on the Orvis website. Is there anywhere for me to find such info such as weight of the rod, heaviness that is not line weight, action type, etc.?
And number three, [00:32:31.394] this winter, I tied a few of your eponymous snowshoe rabbit's foot emergers. I've been looking at them in my box all year and struggling to find a time to fish them. When I did tie one on for fun, I found it incredibly difficult to keep track on the water. I thought the Tuft or rabbit fur would float higher and be more visible on the water. Can you talk a little about what circumstances use this pattern and how you rig it under an indicator behind a dry? [00:33:01.839]
So, regarding your first question, Brian, yeah, I see this all the time too with all species of trout. And sometimes a big, brown trout will try to chase a smaller fish that you hook, and that for sure is fish is trying to eat that fish in distress. But often, a fish the same size will chase that fish. And there's a couple things that might be doing. One is that the other fish that's hooked is doing weird things. And the fish [00:33:30.154] that's chasing it might just be trying to get it out of its territory. They don't really like to have other fish close to them unless they're feeding heavily. Also, a fish that's hooked will sometimes spit up food, bits of food, and another fish will follow it trying to eat that food. But it may be just an instinctive reaction. And I don't know exactly why they do it, but you see it quite often. And [00:34:00.240] it's something that just happens, and we may not ever know why they do that.
Regarding your six-weight Clearwater, yeah, you know, we don't put the weight on rods anymore because all the rods are so light. In the old days, it used to make a difference as to how much a rod weighed, but all the rods are so light these days that we don't put the physical weight on the rod. In fact, to find out how much that 9-foot [00:34:30.210] 6-weight, Clearwater weighed, I had to call, Parker McPhee in the rod shop, and he had to go over and weigh a nine 9.06 Clearwater, just because we don't we don't keep record of that anymore. And it was, 3.60 ounces or a 102 grams. So, you know, all the rods are so light that it really doesn't make that much difference. And the Clearwaters [00:35:00.750] in general, the Clearwaters are kind of a moderate, progressive action. I would say it would be more like a Helios F than a Helios D, but they're kinda somewhere in between. So, the things like Clearwaters and Recon, the ones that aren't the Helios, are gonna be just kind of an intermediate, moderate action that's suitable for all kinds of fishing. [00:35:30.599]
And regarding the snowshoe mergers, yeah, there's kind of a misnomer on why I use snowshoe rabbit for these emergers. I don't use it... It floats pretty well because it accepts floatant pretty well, but I more use it because it gives me a good wing profile without a lot of bulk. It gives me a big wing profile, [00:36:00.869] as opposed to deer hair without all that bulk of tying in some deer hair because the rabbit's foot is very fine at the tips. And, yeah, it's not as easy to see as something like deer hair certainly not foam. But it floats pretty well. And if I wanna if I wanna fish it as a dry, I always put fly floating on the wing or on the whole fly. And then if I wanna fish it as an emerger, because sometimes [00:36:30.400] I fish it just under the surface, then I don't put any floating on it at all. But, yeah, the rabbit's foot, unless you put a fairly, big amount of it on a fly, it's tougher to see.
The one thing that makes those rabbit's foot emerges a little bit easier to see is, instead of using the hair from the toe, which is fairly long and thin and coarser, what I do often, particularly for smaller flies, is [00:37:01.610] I take the hair from the heel of the rabbit's foot, and I clip a small bunch from the heel of the rabbit's foot. And then I actually pull out the longer guard hairs and just use the under fur for a wing. That will give you a bulkier wing that floats a little bit better and is easier to see. On the bigger flies, yeah, you can use the hair from the toes. But again, with smaller flies, I like to use it from the heel, [00:37:30.420] and I use the under fur or the fluff underneath the longer guard here. So, hope that helps.
All right. That is the fly box for this week. Let's go talk to Steve Woit about the mysterious Mary Orvis Marbury. Well, my guest today is the great fly fishing historian, Steve Woit. And Steve, you've become one of the premier fly fishing historians. I think [00:38:00.090] you've written two books now, right, on the history and traditions of fly fishing?
Steve: Yeah, I wrote "Fly Fishing Treasures", which was about the history of fly fishing and specifically, the collecting of antique fly fishing tackle. I wrote that in 2019. And then I've been an active collector for a long time. And then I started getting interested in the Orvis family, and specifically, in Mary Orvis Marbury, about three years ago, four years ago [00:38:30.059] now.
Tom: Yeah. And she's always been an interesting but kind of mysterious figure. So, do you wanna tell us a little bit, first, about her life story and why she's so widely respected and known?
Steve: Well, I think, well known, but not well known in many ways. I think her contribution to fly tying and fly fishing in general was to really be a classifier [00:39:00.090] of the different fly patterns. And so, at the time, when she was in the business with Orvis, you know, they started a fly-tying business in the 1870s, specifically to provide flies for their customers, many of the fly patterns were numbered. You know, they were named by numbers, and there was no consistency vendor to vendor, so it was very confusing. And even, [00:39:30.405] flies of the same name, like adenosine, were tied in different patterns. And so, I think one of her great contributions is when she wrote her book in 1892 called "Favorite Flies". And that was really a compilation of letters and information that came from hundreds of correspondents around the country. They literally went out and solicited information from leading fly fishermen and experts and [00:40:00.655] others who have customers around the country about what their favorite flies were and where they came from, how they were named. And in many cases, they ended up naming those flies, in some cases after customers, after famous people, authors, other fly tyers. So, she really kind of put her stamp on American fly fishing and fly tying through the classification process of early American flies.
Tom: [00:40:30.445] Yeah. No. We should mention, she was the daughter of Charles Orvis, the founder of the Orvis company, and...
Steve: Yeah. Basically, yes. Yeah, that's right. So, she was the daughter. She was the eldest. She had two brothers, Robert and Albert. And she was probably the closest of all the siblings to her father. And her father took a real special interest in her and her future. And so, you know, she was born in 1856, and she [00:41:00.005] graduated from Burr and Burton Seminary, which is a very fine school in Manchester, Vermont in 1872. And then she really started working with her parents in their business. At the time, they owned an inn as well. So, she worked in the inn with her mother and father to kinda keep the inn. But then she started working in the business with Charles. And Charles started the Orvis company. Nominally, they say, was started in the 1860s, And [00:41:31.144] he really started making fly rods in the 1870s as far as we can tell. Possibly the very, very end of the 1860s, but 1870s, he certainly was in production. And then he created a very famous reel. It was a patent reel, 1874, and that was introduced in 1876. And so, she really kind of grew up with her father and their family being in the fishing business and, you know, was able to help him [00:42:00.525] really kind of expand his line beyond very fine fly rods and reels to flies and a large selection of flies. And they had a...
Tom: Now, I have to ask you, we're always saying that the Orvis company was founded in 1856. Is that wrong? Did you find out that that's not correct?
Steve: I mean, I think it's possible that that's where when it was incorporated, [00:42:30.045] you know, that he filled out the official paperwork. But of course, you know, they had the intervening civil war 1861 one to '65. And so I think they really didn't get started in earnest, you know, with the, you know, any kind of a scale production of fly rods until the late 1860s or 1870s.
Tom: Interesting.
Steve: And he had been in a number of other business. He was a really kind of a fascinating person in of himself. He was a jack of all trades. He had been [00:43:00.000] the town dentist. He had been the town postmaster for the town, actually in two different over Cleveland administrations because he was an ardent Democrat. And he actually had a very poor relationship with his brother, Franklin. And Franklin Orvis, probably best known as the proprietor of the Equinox House, which is a very fine hotel and resort, which kind of helped put Manchester in the map [00:43:30.130] with tourists and sportsmen coming up from New York and Pennsylvania, other places, and really kind of made it a famous town when the railroad came in.
And so, he... But Charles was always tinkering around with lots of different things. And he actually ran the Equinox House in the early 1860s or late 1850s. And we kind of know that because we have a brochure that we found that had his name as proprietor. [00:44:01.070] In the 1850, I think it was 1858, I think it's signed by him. He was sending out brochures and he was promoting rooms at the Equinox House for $1.5 a day during court. And so, that was one of the things he did for his brother. And then I think, you know, they had a falling out over politics. And Franklin was a very ardent Republican, which most people in Vermont were [00:44:30.110] Republicans at that time. And Charles went his own way always, and he was a Democrat, an ardent one. And so, they would have arguments, just incredible arguments in politics. And it got very ugly between them. And their relationship was actually fairly poor most of their lives and they're grown up.
But he went on to, so Charles went on to also, you know, run an inn, the Orvis Inn. And he had a number of different inns that [00:45:00.090] he founded and built. He built a number of buildings around town. And part of it was just this kind of competition with his brother. And so, they were quite competitive. They were both very eminent, very well known in town. And so, Mary kind of was part of a family where, you know, her father was pretty tough and hard driving entrepreneur and inventor, very inventive, and sort of a tinkerer. And then her brother sort of lived a little bit more in the shadows [00:45:30.219] of her father. And she was able to emerge a little bit from her father's shadow because of the some of the many, many amazing things that she did.
Tom: So, prior to that, there was no, like, a common name for a fly, right? Like, we have common names for plants and fish and flies these days that have specific patterns. Prior to that, there was no consistency, was there?
Steve: Yeah, there was no consistency. [00:46:00.059] So, in England they had started, you know, naming patterns and were good at naming patterns. And there was a little bit of consistency there, but over in America, there were a lot of new patterns. And so, they were using some of the English. It's interesting. They were using some of the British English patterns, and there's a lot of information on that. Some of them were imitators clearly, but most of the American patterns were evolved to really reflect the nature of the fishing in America. [00:46:30.119] And at that time, that was largely brook trout fishing. And so, tractor patterns worked perfectly well for brook trout. Many of these wild trout were not particularly discriminating customers, so they would strike at almost anything. And so, they had a lot of... And this course was the Victorian era too, you know, in its heyday. So, these flies are beautiful and made of beautiful materials and are quite elegant and beautiful in design.
Getting back to your question, there had been no real [00:47:00.190] standard for naming many of these flies. And so, they had the opportunity to really name any of these flies. In fact, there's a famous story about the Royal Coachman, which you may know. So, the Royal Coachman, there had been a British pattern called the Coachman, which had been used successfully in The U.S. for many, many years. And there was a flag tie by the name of, Haley, John Haley. And he was a tie dresser in New York City. And the Orvis family, actually Charles, [00:47:30.304] hired him to come up and teach the Orvis family, himself included, and his daughter Mary how to tie flies. And so, this gentleman, John Haley, came up, and through the years, they got to know him. And he was tying a lot of Coachman's and other patterns for people in New York and Catskills and other places where they were fishing.
And he had one customer who was complaining about his Coachman's because it, you know, has that peacock pearl body would become [00:48:00.144] unwound, you know, when it got attacked by enough, you know, brook trout. And so, that annoyed this fisherman and he said, you know, "What can you do about that? Can you make me another pattern?" So, what he ended up doing is he ended up making a pattern and adding the red silk in the middle of the fly, and a few other enhancements in the tail and, you know, different material in the tail. And so, what happened was that [00:48:30.215] he sent a few of these flies up to the Orvis' years later. And they were sitting around in the veranda of the Equinox House. And her father and her uncle, Levi Church Orvis. And her uncle was in there. They were talking about the whole issue of naming flies. And so, her uncle said, "Well, take this fly that we just got from mister Haley. It looks like a Coachman, but it has this red, beautiful red [00:49:00.184] silk. It's more of a royal Coachman." And so, that's how the Royal Coachman was actually named.
Tom: Wow.
Steve: And so, it was kind of an amazing thing when you think about it. That pattern is probably one of the most consistently sort of tied and imitated and evolved in American fly fishing. And to this day, it's used to this day, and that's how it was named.
Tom: Interesting. I never knew that that the Orvis' [00:49:30.155] had a part in the naming of that.
Steve: Yep. And she tells that story in her book, "Favorite Flies".
Tom: Which I have a copy of, but I guess, I haven't read in a while. And by the way, that book is still in print, right?
Steve: It's still in print. There are still some editions. Although I think the last edition... I can't remember the last edition. I think it's gone through eight or nine editions at Houghton Mifflin. And it was actually a very expensive and beautifully produced book. The [00:50:00.005] prints, of her flies are particularly beautiful. And those were done by the Milton Bradley company. And so, Milton Bradley had just started doing very early chromolithic printing, and that's one of the earliest examples of really high quality, chromolithic printing, color printing in America in that book. And so, her father had actually done his own book called "Fishing with the Fly", which was 1883 earlier, and he [00:50:30.074] had hired Milton Bradley to do a few plates of his flies in that book. And that's how they got the idea of working with Milton Bradley to do these beautiful prints. And they became... So many people know the book really through the prints because they're so beautiful collectible in themselves. So...
Tom: Yeah. And you occasionally see someone in, like, "Fly Tire" magazine, recreating some of those early American patterns.
Steve: Yeah. Actually, so there are a [00:51:00.054] number of fly tyers who really still tie these patterns. And many of the larger patterns are called gaudy wet flies, and they have their own sort of history and, you know, partly British origin, but it's a uniquely American art form, the gaudy fly, you know, for bass and for salmon and for trout. And, you know, they started tying with different types of materials, you know, here. And so, [00:51:30.144] I learned a tremendous amount in this whole journey with my book too, really kind of, learn how these flies were made. I had the opportunity to work with a very fine, master fly tyer, Lee Schechter, who you may know. And Lee is just amazing tyer and very, very precise, and I was able to document all the materials, all the techniques that were used of the original techniques for the original material with the original materials for [00:52:00.150] the original flies in the book, and that was a real contribution. He was an incredible collaborator on this project.
Tom: So, let's talk about those incredible frames that have existed over the years. And you recently found some, unknown ones, right?
Steve: Yeah. So, there are so at the American Museum of Fly Fishing. And Jim Schottenham is curator there. And he gave me access to their entire collection and [00:52:30.610] the photograph and to look around. And so, Jim had all the... And the museum has the frames of the flies. So, these are the original flies that were used in Charles' book, "Fishing with the Fly", 1883, and Mary's book, "Favorite Fly", is 1892. And so, these are literally the original frames of the original flies that the prints were then made from by Milton Bradley. [00:53:00.860] And so, that's one set of frames that are quite beautiful. And I reproduce all those in our book in each page, full page.
But there are two other sets of kind of treasures at the museum that everybody really should have a chance to see. And the first one is a very well-known set of fly panels that Mary did for the World's Fair in 1893. So, that was [00:53:30.110] called the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893. So, it celebrated the discovery of America by Columbus. And she did this beautiful set of 40 panels that are in the museum. It's one of the real treasures there. And so, as you go in the museum section, on your direct left as you enter the museum. And they have them all mounted. And you can look through these panels, and they have not only flies that were tied by Mary and [00:54:00.130] her fly-tying staff, beautiful flies, but they also have beautiful photographs taken by some of the most famous outdoor photographers of the time. So, people like Ingersoll and Stoddard and others that were very well known photographers, you know, in their in their own right. And so, the auto-photography is blended in with the flies and they're really just works of art.
But one of the more unusual things that we found [00:54:30.454] in the research for the book is, I'd seen a photograph of an exhibit that had been done 20 years ago. And Jim Hartman had posted it on Instagram. And I looked at it and I said, you know, "That frame of flies has many more flies on it than anything that's been in one of the book frames." And so, I had real questions about it, and I sent a note to Jim Schottenham. And I said, you know, "Jim, what is this?" And he said, "Well, that's actually, interesting. I'll go and have to look for that." [00:55:01.505] And so, he went and looked in their collection, and I noticed that on that frame, every one of the patterns started with the letter B. So, that got me even more curious. And so, in the end, long story short, when I sent out the photographer up to photograph that frame, they had discovered 26 new frames, entire alphabetical collection [00:55:31.304] that were the sample frames that were used in the fly-tying shop as they were tying flies in the fly-tying operation in Orvis.
Tom: Twenty-six of them?
Steve: Twenty-six.
Tom: Wow.
Steve: It was an entire alphabetical series. And so, we reproduced those in the book, and I I've been getting lots of comments from people who've never seen some of these flies. And the beautiful thing about these artifacts is you can look at the frames. These are the original versions that they were tying from, and you [00:56:00.094] can look at all the little notations and little notes that they attached to each fly. And so, you can see some of the flies came from different vendors that they knew, whether it was Conroy or John Moores and Sons or Chubb. And so, they were very inquisitive in terms of scoping out all the other fly patterns from all the other vendors. And when they would find it, they would [00:56:30.135] tie it, add it to their catalog. So, in the end, they had a catalog of over 600 patterns at one point that you could order for them. And some of them were ordered on demand. And they pay even more if you kind of had a custom pattern you wanted. But so, you know, they were selling these flies. They were selling at the time for anywhere from $1.50 to $2.50 a dozen, which was, you know, good money then to get these flies. And so, it became [00:57:00.065] a big business for Orvis after they started selling.
Tom: And tell people tell people how Mary got this business started. You know, who worked with her, and how did they organize it?
Steve: Yeah. So, she started working with her father and her mother after high school. And then she after she got out of Burr and Burton Seminary. And she then, you know, took an interest in tying. And they had John Haley, as I mentioned, come up to teach her and teach her father how [00:57:30.014] to tie flies. And so, that's how she that was her introduction to fly tying. And it was pretty rigorous. I think, you know, they learned a tremendous amount from Haley. Haley was a Scotsman. He had a great background in, you know, British and Scottish fly tying. Very, very good fly tyer. And he tied in volume. He was a commercial tyer, so he knew how to tie these things in volume.
And so, she then hired many of the local women to work with her. So, at any given time, she had [00:58:00.284] six to eight tyers working for her. They tended to be... I've done a little research in my book about the women in the fly tyers who worked with her. Many of them, two of them were her sister-in-laws. Sort of logical, so it's a family affair. And then we had, I think there were three sets of sisters. One had three sisters within the set, so they worked as a family. And [00:58:31.494] some of them were classmates, or the sisters of classmates from School of Burr and Burton. Some were daughters of local merchants or innkeepers. But they all had, I think, some background in handicrafts. You know, they had done the kind of work you do at home when you're embroidering or bordering or doing other handicrafts. And part [00:59:00.105] of the reason we know that is, a number of her fly tyers had won competitions for handicrafts in, the local Battenkill fair over the years. You'd see their names appear in the paper very proudly saying, you know, for this handicraft, she was, you know, given the silver prize or the gold prize or whatever.
So, she organized this group of women. And they had a real esprit de corps. We found some beautiful cabinet cards of [00:59:30.094] her with her tyers, very elegant. They were all dressed in their finest dress. And there were these formal portraits taken. And photography was fairly expensive, fairly big deal back then. So, these are in the 1880s, 1890s. And a number of them, they also have this little cutout owl appearing in the photograph. And they were collectively known as the owls. And so, I did a lot of research [01:00:00.275] trying to figure out, why were they called the owls. And there's still just a lot of speculation. One of the speculations was that they started tying at night. And that they maybe had other chores during the day, and they took some of the work home and started at home and were working at night by candlelight or something or lantern light or whatever. And others speculated, well, maybe they thought they were very wise and they had very good eyesight. And, you know, so there's a lot of speculation. But they were collectively [01:00:30.184] known as the owls. And one of the cabinet cards that I have in my collection actually is labeled the owls on the back. And so, that got me thinking about, you know, how did they...?
But they had this real esprit de corps. They had this real kinda... They were a tight group and worked really hard together. They produced thousands and thousands of flies. It had to be one of the most profitable things that Orvis had ever done. And these flies were marketed through the catalog and [01:01:00.445] through the mail. So, the fact that Charles was the postmaster was very beneficial to his business. He had one of the first mail order businesses in the country. He was, you know, sending rods and reels all over the country. And then flies were just the perfect thing to send through the mail. And so, it was perfect items to send through.
So, they put them on these beautiful, printed cards. I photographed many of the cards for the book from a lot of private collectors. The other thing that I [01:01:30.869] learned early during this kind of research is that the collectors can be tremendously helpful, because they hold a lot of really valuable things that they found over the years. And they're pretty relentless in sort of scoping out the history and trying to answer questions about all this stuff. And so, collectors like Royce Stearns have done some amazing work on the Orvis family, the Orvis organization, the early rod building, and reel building, reel making. Jerry Gerard has collected a [01:02:00.000] lot of the early catalogs. So, he provided all the ephemera and other brochures and things that I could use to look at over the history of the catalogs, you know, how they had evolved. And then there are many others that have... Mike Deaugay has a great collection of catalogs, but also of both reels and flies on cards. John Shaner has a really rare set of fly cards that were actually labeled by Mary. They have little tags on them that were actually [01:02:30.610] handwritten by Mary. So, we had a photograph of that. And then Art Christian had given me a number of the cards over the years from his collection. So, it's been kind of a joint effort.
But I also got interested in this in part. There was a book that was written called "Forgotten Flies", you probably know about it, years ago. And so, that was Paul Schmookler and Ingrid Sills' book. And they had Paul Rossman [01:03:00.329] tie original versions of all of the Mary Orvis' Marbury flies that they could find in the museum at the time. And then he also included all the fly dressings. So, if you're actually interested in all the recipes, the original recipes, Paul Rossman did his best to try to reproduce the exact recipes that we used. And that "Forgotten Flies" was published in 1999. And that has a complete list of recipes. It's really the only place you can find the original [01:03:30.844] recipes for the flies, for the Mary Orvis' Marbury flies. And some of its conjecture, you know, Paul Rossman had to look at the fly and say, "Okay, what kind of material is that?" And, you know, there's a lot of speculation going on about, you know, whether... Put it this way, there are opinions about the different dressings and what was included in them. It's all pretty intricate and subject to interpretation.
Tom: And that book, if you [01:04:00.054] can find it, is very expensive.
Steve: Yeah. It's become very, very collectible. You know, Paul and Ingrid, you know, Ingrid did all the production and layout for that book, and working with Paul on the photography and everything. And they created these, what I call, just big, beautiful books. And they had their first one, was the "Rare and Unusual Tying Materials" in 1997. That's a two volume set. And that's what really got me excited about big, beautiful books, [01:04:30.175] where you just look at it and you go, wow. You know, you look at the feathers and look at the colors and the beauty of these flies. And they've just been so helpful to me. Over the years, they've been really helpful in encouraging me to do really some big, beautiful books, and that really kind of show off the art and the craft of this kind of thing for flies and fly fishing.
Tom: So, let's get back to Mary. She was kind of a mysterious character, right? [01:05:00.085] There's a lot of lot of questions about Mary and her life. You wanna talk about some of the some of the things that you discovered?
Steve: Yeah. So, one of the big mysteries of her life had to do with the birth of her son, Jack Marbury, so John Morton Marbury. As far as we can tell from all the research we've done, he was actually born in Upstate New York. He was across the river in [01:05:30.679] Greenwich, New York. And I think we think that what happened is that she had met a Mr. Marbury. She'd met William Marbury, and she then was with child and was married relatively quickly. The odd thing is we cannot really find any official announcement of their wedding, their marriage, which is very unusual for the time because, you know, [01:06:00.269] anytime Charles Orvis or anybody in his family did anything, it was in the "Manchester Journal". The "Manchester Journal" was owned by a relative, and so, the editor was a relative, and so they got very good coverage. And so, just no mention of it in any of the "Manchester Journals", no official records that we can find. So, I think it was a very quiet thing when she got married and then gave birth to her son.
And as far as we know, William Marbury, William McCoun Marbury was [01:06:30.070] his name, M, lowercase c, Coun, uppercase C, O-U-N. He was from a very prominent family in New York. So, his father was a Tammany Hall politically connected lawyer, a very famous one, and his mother had been the daughter of a famous judge from New York. And his sister actually was Elizabeth Marbury, very flamboyant, very well-known theatrical agent. She [01:07:00.130] actually represented Oscar Wilde in The U.S. And she had a salon where she'd have people come to her salon in New York City, and it was one of the leading salons at the time. She had a same sex partner who then they lived together for many years. And it was a very famous couple in New York social life.
But anyway, so getting back to Mary. So, I think, as far as we can tell, I was able to find some hotel arrival records [01:07:30.630] from the Equinox House that indicated that the Marbury family, including William and his daughter, and his sister Elizabeth and family had stayed at the Equinox House on several occasions during the 1870s. So, I think, Mary met William during one of those stays. And that's how they got to know each other. But we have no indication that William Marbury ever came back to Manchester [01:08:00.329] after the child was born. He died when he was very young. He died in 1883 at the age of 33, in West Kill, New York. So, we're able to nail that down. He's buried in the same cemetery, in the Bronx that is in New York City that his parents were buried in, and his sister. And so, we kind of know who he is. We don't know a lot about him. His occupation was listed [01:08:30.260] as a clerk when he was in his 20s. And that's about all we really know about him beyond where he died.
But Jack was really the apple of her eyes. Her son was everything to her. And he was a very athletic young man. He was a reporter for some of the local papers, one in Upstate New York and one in Vermont. And quite athletic, quite a cycler and tennis player who [01:09:00.845] liked to run. So, he was in the paper very often because of his athletic prowess. But he died tragically when he was 27. And Mary never really recovered from his death. And so, a lot of the sort of little information about Mary and things around her and her family have come to me in in part through West Hill. So, Wesley Hill, West Hill worked for Orvis for many, many [01:09:30.204] years. He's a multi-generational person from Manchester. His family has been in Manchester for many, many years. He was actually named after Wes Jordan and the incredible rod maker of Artemis. And West spent just years, maybe 30 years, really looking at all the deeds and looking at all the historical records in the town hall and nailing down for each of the members of the Orvis family, all the major life events that were recorded, [01:10:00.154] whether it was, you know, a deed or a business transaction or other things. So, we know a lot of that through West, that he documented very carefully over the years.
But there are many things we don't really know. We know a little bit about her because of a court case that she actually was deposed in. And this was, some of her relatives, two women [01:10:30.135] who were the nieces of a gentleman by the name of Skyler Schatz, I think, something like that. And he had a huge fortune, which I think would have been a $20 million or $30 million fortune. And when he died, they maintained that he was senile, and then he was not in his right mind when he drew his will. And so, they were trying to recover something from his estate, and Mary is called to testify with her father. [01:11:00.625] And it's one of the only times when we see her talk in her own voice about herself. And she says, you know, "I'm the head of the artificial fly department for my father's business. And I knew mister Schatz because he came to stay with us at the Orvis Inn. And he was acting rather strange." And so, she goes on in great detail in her own voice sort of describing this gentleman.
And you can kind of tell from the deposition [01:11:30.500] that she's a very careful and detailed sort of memory, but she was also very respectful of people. Even though this gentleman had been kind of senile and was barely a handful when he showed up at the Orvis Inn, she was really telling the court very clearly what had happened and trying to be very balanced and accurate. So, very precise, but also somebody who knew how to navigate the different levels of society and as this man [01:12:00.170] was a very wealthy person. And she could deal with people like that with huge egos and huge expectations of everyone around them. And then she also was very well liked by people in Manchester and the average person. And she really could relate to the average Vermonter who, you know, came in and wanted a fly tide, you know, or would create a pattern and come in and say, "Gee, could you create this kind of pattern for me," or, "Could you tie this pattern for me?"
You know, she referred [01:12:30.279] to a gentleman at one point, came into their fly-tying shop, and he referred to his fly rod as a pole. And, you know, so he was a local guy, but she was very respectful of him. And what he wanted he wanted a fly created that looked like the fin of a brook trout. It's actually called the fin fly. And he was very precise in what he wanted, and she was very respectful on him and created the flag for him and everything. And I think that was one of her great gifts, is that she kind of [01:13:00.229] was able to navigate all levels of society. And she and her father dealt with very, very famous authors, and whether it was James Alexander Henshaw or, Albert Chaney, who had been, you know, fisheries commissioners and eminent people who were involved in... And Henshaw was involved in visiting, very well-known author who wrote the book of the "Black Pass". Very famous guy in himself, but he was the one who actually helped arrange the [01:13:30.079] angling exhibition at the World's Columbian Exposition. So, he gave them the opportunity to make these fly panels. That was sort of his idea. And so, they were able to really get to know the very famous, you know, sort of very fancy sportsman who came up from the big cities of Vermont, and then also deal with lots of local people involved in their business and making flies and really kinda remarkable.
Tom: [01:14:02.100] And how long did Mary live? What were her later years like?
Steve: So, she died in 1904. She was 58 when she died, so relatively young. There's a reference in her death certificate to cancer. She died so anomaly of pneumonia, but she had had cancer, uterine cancer, I believe. But I guess, her later life, [01:14:30.305] in 1904 when her son died, she left the business, the fly business operation to her sister-in-law, and then became pretty reclusive. There's not a lot of information about her after 1904. There was some illusion. I mean, West Hill had made some illusion to think she had heard about her being moody and maybe having a depression issue. But she kind [01:15:00.385] didn't really... There's not much about her after 1904. And so, her later years, I think, were more challenging, much more challenging for her. She lived with her parents her whole life. Really helped them in many things. And I think they helped her, too. They were a very supportive family. They loved her and wanted her to be successful as well.
Tom: So, you said, when did she die? What year did she die?
Steve: 1904, [01:15:30.359] I believe. Yeah, 1904.
Tom: So, that was the same year that she left the business?
Steve: No, she left the business before, I'm sorry. So, I'm sorry. No, no, I got that wrong. So, she died in 1914. And her son died in 1904. Sorry. Yeah. So, she left the business shortly after he died.
Tom: So, the last 10 years of her life, not much is known. She was pretty recordless here.
Steve: Not much was known. There's one sort of very ghostly-looking [01:16:00.239] photo of her sitting at a table with her parents. It's a famous photo, but it's sort of somebody who's clearly didn't look terribly happy. But those things we don't really know directly. I mean, we hear a lot of these things from other people. But she could be very demanding, and we know that. I think she had a lot of the same drive as her father. She's very entrepreneurial. [01:16:31.234] She became a good writer. She had to get something, she had to work at pretty hard. She had a very good classical education. And there were clearly others who helped her with her writing and with certainly her knowledge of literature, and particularly the British literature of fly fishing. She became quite knowledgeable with that.
She was also... The there was a gentleman by the name of John Harrington Keene, which I'm trying to learn more about. [01:17:00.095] He was the actually, the only gentleman who tied flies with Mary. And so, he's actually on a list. There was a woman by the name of Estella Taylor in the 1930s. She did a great service to us for us, and she put together a list of all the fly tyers who had worked with Mary. And I had this list for years, and I was going down, I was researching all the women fly tyers, and I looked at it probably a 100 times. And then one day, I looked at it with a new set of eyes, and [01:17:30.364] I saw that the third name on the list was Mr. Keane. And so, he actually had been in there. He was a British subject who came here and became an American. He with his wife, he moved to New York, and then to, Manchester with his wife. He was quite an eminent author in his own write. He started writing articles in England when he was very young. He was, somebody who knew [01:18:00.055] a lot of very famous fly fishermen in England. He was actually a professional fisherman who took people fishing and guiding. He guided them fishing.
His father was the royal fisherman at Windsor, the royal family. So, he was the son of the royal fisherman. And so, he knew Francis, very famous name in British history fly fishing. But he started writing articles when he was in his [01:18:32.119] 18 to 20-year-old range. And then in his 20s, he was writing articles. And I think he wrote his first book when he was in his 20s. He wrote a number of books on fly fishing tackle, fly fishing equipment, fly fishing in general. And then he wrote a really interesting book on called "Fly Fishing and Fly Making", which was in the 1880s, and that actually had materials bound into the book. So, I think it's [01:19:00.085] a really beautiful, collectible, little volume. So, he was actually talking about recipes and patterns. He included patterns in his book.
And so, there are some stories about him and Mary. And one of the stories was that he started to take an interest in Mary, and then Charles, her father, didn't appreciate that. And he had a falling out somehow with Charles. And so, John Keane had created these [01:19:30.020] fish scale flies. So, they were literally flies that were made out of fish scales. And that was a very famous creation of his, and he was very proud of it. We actually have a letter in which he was talking about the fish scale flies, includes a lot of the fish scales and the patterns and everything. And he started marketing these through Orvis, very briefly. It only appears in the catalog one or two years. And it was presented as kind of a novelty, "You might wanna try this kind of thing." And he [01:20:00.029] I think the flies did not sell particularly well. And when it came time for Mary to write her book, John Harrington is not mentioned at all in the book. And when she talks about the fish scale flies, she said, "Well, they're very noisy and not particularly effective." And so, I think he...
Tom: Sour grapes.
Steve: ... had a real falling out with Charles over many issues. But part of it may have been that his flies didn't sell terribly well. But he then went moved across to Greenwich in New York, Upstate New [01:20:30.000] York, and started his own business selling flies and tying flies with his wife, Anna. And his wife, Anna, tied. I think she tied for 30 or 40 years after he died. But he paid a major contribution to fly tying and the sort of the knowledge of fly tying in this country. He's largely unsung person because he was British, and people found him really annoying. This is not only kind of an annoying character, but he was also British in telling people what to do, and Americans [01:21:00.300] really didn't want to be told by a bunch of people from England how to fish, and they wanted their own patterns. They wanted to, you know, figure things out on their own.
Tom: Yeah. And I believe that he was fishing dry flies in North America long before Theodore Gordon. I remember reading in Paul Schmookler's book, "American Fly Fishing History", that, you know, 20 years before Theodore Gordon, he was he was fishing dry flies. So...
Steve: He was fishing dry flies and [01:21:30.760] was aware of Halford and certainly introduced Mary to all the entire British tradition of fly fishing literature and fly fishing, like, patterns as well. And I think some of the salmon patterns and, certainly, there's some scale wing flies in the world's exposition panels, World's Columbian Exposition panels that were clearly tied by him. And many of these salmon flies, you can [01:22:00.069] tell, are probably tied by him as well.
Tom: Now...
Steve: So, he did a lot of things for him.
Tom: ...when I saw you in Manchester at the Museum Festival, you showed me something very interesting. There is a picture of Theodore Gordon, that's a famous picture of him fishing with a woman. I think she had a hoop skirt, and they were in a stream. And she has never been [01:22:30.329] identified. But you did some research, and tell people what you suspect.
Steve: Well, this is the interesting thing, so I started to write the book and do research for it, and I was sitting next to Ed Van Put. And Ed Van Put was a really eminent historian and author in the Catskills who wrote some beautiful histories of early American fishing in the Catskills and really very rigorous, very authoritative person. And [01:23:00.104] I mentioned to him that I was starting this. It was actually, he was sitting next to me, and it was the birthday for his mother who was 108 at the time, I think. And Ed, unfortunately, has passed since, but I said, you know, "I'm working on this book on Mary Orvis Marbury." And he looked at me and he said, you know, "I have a theory about Mary. And you know that famous photograph of Thurgood Gordon fishing with a woman," he said, "I [01:23:30.024] think that's Mary Orvis Marbury. In fact, I'm convinced that it is." And I said, "Really?" And so, he was so emphatic. And I was like, "Wow." And Judy, his daughter, Judy said that they actually went up to Manchester and did some research and thinking about it and he was convinced that it was Mary.
And so, what I did is I kind of did some additional research. One of the things we did in the book is I took a profile shot of one of the cabinet cards of the fly fires that included Mary. And I married it up with a profile [01:24:00.375] of the face of the woman on the screen fishing, and they match very nicely. And not only her nose, her chin, her hairstyle, which is not something that women change very much over time because it was hard to do, her ears look the same. And she's very finely dressed and really kind of posed out there in this river. So, I kind of suspected that, well, this is probably [01:24:30.465] something that either she arranged for or her father arranged for. And they were known to pay for good photography, really high quality photography. But back then you really had to pose your shot. And it's one of the... There are actually not that many photographs of people fishing...
Tom: No, no.
Steve: ...in, you know, the nineteenth century. So, and certainly not of women fishing with men. So, it's a quite an unusual photograph. It's been very controversial. Many people for years maintained that it was taken [01:25:00.074] on the Neversink up in the Catskills and, you know. And I kind of posed that to Ed. He said, "No, that doesn't look like the Neversink to me, and doesn't look like a Catskills stream to me or river to me. It looks to me like the Battenkill." So, I've been, since then, actually making quite a study of all the bridge abutments on the Battenkill. Because it was taken near a bridge abutment. You could tell there's some granite kind of stones that are part of a bridge [01:25:30.125] abutment. And there's some birch railings for the bridge above them on the left. And so, I've been... And the best match that I found on the Battenkill is actually on Union Street. So, if you go down Union Street, which would have been right down the street from where the Orvis' had their operation and their factory and everything, rod factory and everything, there is a bridge there. And you can stand on the other side of that bridge and look [01:26:00.210] down into the river and it's almost the same kind of vantage point. Obviously, the trees are different, the rocks are sort of the same, but it's not... I think the abutment is all concrete now, so it doesn't match, but the angle is really correct. And back then, you needed a good angle to take your photograph and set up your equipment. So, I think it matches pretty well. But it's still controversial. I think people still have questions. And I'm open to any interpretation people wanna [01:26:30.489] provide. And it's one of those things where I just consider it kind of a gift from Ed Van Put.
Tom: Yeah. No, I looked at it, and it sure looks like that. I know that spot at Union Street very well, and it does look like it.
Steve: Yeah. And it's also I think, you know, we've had a number of people who have been talking about the tackle that's in the shot. And so, a number of people said, "Well, but that's not an Orvis rod. It's a four-joint rod, and Orvis never made a four-joint rod. And it's [01:27:00.359] not an Orvis reel." And I always point out to people as, well, look at the tackle that that Gordon is using. It's a British rod, and it's a British brass reel. And he is guiding her for the day. And if you're a gentleman taking a woman fishing for the day, you're gonna provide the tackle, and you're not gonna expect them to show up, well, with their, tackle, I don't think. And it was also not something that was ever used though, as far as we can tell, in any kind of promotion. [01:27:31.300] So, had it been like Orvis tackle and stuff, maybe it would have been used in promotion.
But it's interesting. It's curious that Charles never used Mary in any promotion or likeness, photograph, anything. He was he was very much promoting his brand himself a lot, but not really his daughter. So, I think, my theory is that she either had it taken, or her father had it taken as [01:28:00.069] kind of a souvenir. We know that Gordon visited them several times in Manchester. He referred to her in his letters as a delightful woman. And so, we know that they met and knew each other, at least. He had visited there several times. And one of his later letters, 1915, I think it is, he actually talks about going back to the last time when he gets better, which he never recovered, but when he gets better, to go and fish the Neversink, his favorite [01:28:30.670] place in the Neversink, and Dionoondehowee, which is the old, Native American name for the Battenkill.
Tom: Right. Wow. Well, Steve, to sum this up, let's talk just a bit about Mary's new gravestone.
Steve: Yeah. So, basically, you know, one of the things when I first started doing research on the book, I met with Sean Harrington, who's the curator and the head [01:29:00.055] of the Manchester Historical Society, and he mentioned to me, even though he was on the board of Delwood Cemetery, that there was no headstone for Mary, that had been vandalized or been missing for many years. And he thought that was really unfortunate and he'd often thought about having a headstone made. And I said, "Let's do that. Let's have one made." So, long story short, he eventually approached the Perkins family of Orvis, and [01:29:30.465] they agreed to help fund the production of a new headstone for her. And it was recently installed. We had a little installation ceremony. We had a video made of it actually in local access TV and had a great kind of ceremony there for her.
And because she was really transformational, too. And there are many women who are very transformational in the fly-tying business in America. Because there's a through line and narrative [01:30:00.204] there around Mary, but also then with Carrie Frost and Stevens Point, Wisconsin, and many other fly tyers who are, you know, women fly tyers, the couples in the Harry and Elsie Darby and Walt and Winnie Deddy and the Catskills and then Carrie Stevens up in Rangeley, and Elizabeth Newton or Nellie Newton who was at the Percy Tackle Company and Elizabeth Grigg who tied for the Anglo Roost in New York. And [01:30:30.175] these women really kind of created the fly-tying business in America. And Mary was one of the great ones. Sarah McBride before her, and was actually another fascinating, really great fly tyer work with her father John McBride up in Mumford in New York state. And then Elizabeth Staring, Benjamin in Pennsylvania was tying around the Civil War. So, these women really created the whole fly-tying business in America very clearly. And it sort of started off as a cottage industry, but [01:31:00.234] they convinced people in big cities to buy these flies from people in very small towns and small places.
Tom: I think there's another book in there, Steve.
Steve: Yeah. I think, you know, I became interested in that whole history and how things kind of evolved. Because then you got into these very large production organizations where, you know, the English and the Americans like William Mills and others, had huge, you know, Alcock in England had hundreds of the tyers, you know, women tying at [01:31:30.145] the same time. They would just churn these flies out. So, that, eventually, it became mass market. Just like with fly rods where you can get a very fine fly rod, and then you can get one from a much larger company where they have very fine fly rods and very mass market fly rods and they have a whole range of things. That's sort of the way things go. But this Victorian era of very high quality American, early American flies, and how they're made, I really got fascinated with that. And [01:32:00.454] Lee kind of really hit it out of the park in the book with his step-by-step kind of, you know, a primer on how to tie a Mary Orvis Marbury reef fly. He ties the Prouty, which is a famous pattern. And he did all the photography. You can see all the steps of the fly and all the materials and all the tools and everything. So, it's a real craft. It's American craft that we should be really proud of. And these women really kind of brought it to the floor and made it what it what it is today.
Tom: [01:32:30.204] Well, before I let you go, tell people where they can find this book, because I don't think it... They're not gonna find it probably on Amazon, right?
Steve: No. So, I published the book and I sell it from my website, which is just flyfishingtreasures.com. So, flyfishingtreasures.com. That was the name of my first book, "Fly Fishing Treasures". And I unfortunately sold out my first book. But the this book is called "The Mary Orvis Marbury", [01:33:00.215] her Life and Flies. and it comes really kind of in two volumes. There's the main volume, which has 600 photographs, or 600 flies and 300 photographs of full color. And then I have a separate companion volume, which haven't really talked about, but it's the guide to the Mary Orvis Marbury World's Columbian Exposition fly panels. So, you can look at each of the 40 panels in the book and read along with the guide. And I describe every fly and every photograph on each of the panels. [01:33:31.189] And no research had ever been done on those panels, and I just felt they really were worth it. And I spent a lot of time on that. So, you can literally look at the panel and learn about each fly and learn about each photograph. And it's a beautiful way to learn about the history of the fly fishing, fly-tying at the time.
Tom: Yeah. And it is a beautiful, spectacular book.
Steve: Well, thank you. We worked really hard. I [01:34:00.079] mean, I have great design staff. I mean, they make... As they say, that I stand on the shoulders of giants. And, you know, it's like John Barkin and Calvin LaPlante and Yulee Mechler, who did the cover. These are very talented, talented designers. And it's been a privilege working with them.
Tom: Well, congratulations, Steve. I know it was a true labor of love and the amount of research that went into this book and the things you discovered.
Steve: Well, thank you. Thank you for encouraging me too over [01:34:30.149] the years.
Tom: My pleasure. Somebody has to do this stuff.
Steve: Absolutely.
Tom: Anyway, thank you, Steve. Really appreciate it. And that's a great education in the Victorian history of American fly fishing.
Steve: Well, thank you. Thanks for the opportunity. Thanks for having me.
Tom: All right. I will talk to you soon.
Automated Voice: Thanks for listening to "The Orvis Fly Fishing Podcast" with Tom Rosenbauer. You can be a part of the show. Have a question or a comment? Send it to us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. in the body of an email or as a voice attachment. You can find more free fishing tips at howtoflyfish.orvis.com.