View Full Version : Thread Size

Brook Fan
05-04-2009, 11:02 PM
I have noticed alot of different thread sizes. For a beginner what would be a strong thread to start out with?
I have a 210 Denier which never breaks while I'm tying, but I have a 70 which is always breaking.

05-04-2009, 11:50 PM
Uni 6/0 is pretty strong. it's 135 denier.

05-05-2009, 11:47 AM
BF, I'm relatively new to tying as well, but one of the first tenets that most of the beginner's books recommend (and I've got most of 'em) is to mount thread to hook and intentionally break the thread to get the feel of its strength. I tie sizes 12-18 and use 6/0 and 8/0 and that was a good early lesson to learn. Tight Lines! TDS

Brook Fan
05-05-2009, 09:39 PM
Thanks for the information Tedious and ttas67.
I noticed on my thread I used the denier number while you used the 6/0 and 8/0 numbers.

In general discussions should I not use the denier number and stick with the other.

05-05-2009, 11:30 PM
the 6/0 and 8/0 designations are not standardized. so, danville's 6/0 is comparable in denier to Uni's 8/0. UTC simply lists their thread by denier. I generally tie with Uni 8/0. the uni threads are bonded, and do not flatten out like the UTC or the danville's does. this is not necessarily better or worse, as each has it's benefits. personally, I think the Uni thread is much easier to tie with (especially for a beginner). The UTC (which is what I believe you're using) will fray more easily and in my opinion, break more readily, particularly if you are using a cheap bobbin.

which brings me to something else ..... thread breakage can often be due to the bobbin. the best thing you can do is get a ceramic tipped bobbin (if you don't already have one). I highly recommend the griffin supreme ceramic. these aren't too expensive, and are the workhorse of tying bobbins.

as far as general discussions, I generally just call it 8/0, and I think most people know that I'm talking about uni 8/0. I don't know what the denier is on it. I didn't know what the 6/0 was either, I had to look it up to give you a comparison.

05-05-2009, 11:38 PM
I wish I could give you a simple answer, and yes I wish all the manufactures would start using denier rather than the ought system. Thread sizes are most often labeled using an archaic system left over from the days when silk thread was measured in zeros. For example, 000 is 3/0. The more zeros, the thinner the thread.

The trouble is there is no standard in the industry between the thread manufactures. One companies 6/0 might be a smaller denier than some other companies 8/0, and breaking strength varies widely because of the type of construction and materials the thread is made out of. Such as nylon verses polyester, or flat verses bonded construction.

Generally the 210 is good for larger flies or patterns that require lots of pressure to tie in materials, or you want to add bulk to a fly such as bass flies, saltwater flies, and large nymphs. The 210 compares to 3/0 for most companies that use the ought system. The 140 is good for average size trout flies. I tie about 1/2 of all my trout flies with it. It's ideal for tying flies in the size 10-16 range. It would most closely correspond to 6/0 of most thread brands. The 70 denier you are breaking is best suited for small flies and material that takes very little pressure to tie in and you are trying to keep the thread build up to a minimum . On anything size 16 or less it should be fine. It would be the equivalent to most companies 8/0. This is very general information and meant only as a guideline for comparing tread ought sizes to denier thread sizes.

If you are really interested in tying thread and want a more in depth look at the types, sizes, and construction of tying thread, take a look at this article by Scott Sanchez from the archive of Fly Fisherman Magazine. There is a lot more to tying thread than meets the eye, even with experienced tiers.

http://flyfisherman.com/ftb/ssthread/index.html (http://flyfisherman.com/ftb/ssthread/index.html)

Dang I'm out of breath;)

Brook Fan
05-06-2009, 09:05 PM
Thanks for the information and the article. It's a little clearer now and now I can start to understand post in this section.