• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

3 16lbers in one sitting.

Awesome result Nigel - they look like 3 different fish to me. The 2nd daylight fish ( 1st 16 8 ) has a nick at the back of the pelvic fin and damage to the lower tail lobe, the 2nd 16 8 has a bumb at the front of the pelvic and no damage to the tail - the first 16 has none of those features as far as i can see.
 
Nigel/Mark...A barbel can drop that amount of weight 'instantly' (due to shock of capture) if its intestine is/was full at the time. It has been recorded with other large barbel before. It is nothing to do with the mis-weighing or the weighing scales.
 
No way Ray ! they are 3 different fish in my opinion.

Well done again Nigel, a fantastic achievement !!!

Ian.
 
i see what your saying ray but dont agree with it in this case as the order of capture was 16lb-16lb 8oz-16lb 8oz, that would mean the first fish lost 8oz but put it back on half hour later when it was re-captured ?.
 
Mark. Yes you are correct... a bit of muddling with the timing/order of the 3 pics.

Even more/muddling/confusing, is why the main good daylight pic (assuming 16lb) is dated as being caught/taken in 'January 2012' (submitted 5th November 2012), whilst the other 2 are dated as caught/taken and submited in November 2012?

Out of interest, have you got a pic (the other side of the fish) of your 14.3 (in the nene gallery submiited 31st oct 2012), taken in september 2012? Cheers...Ray
 
Last edited:
That definitely looks like 3 different fish to me. Absolutely awesome Nigel.

Can't see that feat ever being repeated!
 
Congrats Nigel, from the photo's in the gallery they certainly look like three different fish but even if there was a recapture a mind blowing result.
 
Well done on the capture and looks like 3 different fish from the pics but the picture quality is not the best for checking identifying features.
Andy
 
ray, i`m not sure as to why the dates are like that but i can assure you theres no jiggory pokery as nigels an honest angler, best bet is to check clothing and lighting etc if in doubt.
not sure if i`ve a photo of my fish from the other side but i have from a different angle as the first pics were under the tree and the shade played havoc, why do you ask ?.

just checked and yes there is one of the other side.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeh,see where i went wrong on the first photo.I didn't fill in the information correctly.I must have missed that box out.I assure you Ray,i don't lie about my catches,i would be cheating myself if i did that.And i doubt i would get the camera in exactly the same place 10 months apart.Plus we had no floods last January and the foliage is exactly the same.I understand that its hard to believe this catch ray it still hasn't sunk in with me either.
 
Really can't understand why it would have to be scrutanered as much as it seems to be by you ray, finding it infact really annoying.
Nigel was clearly where he had to be at the right time, on the bank and not forgetting as he said he'd been to work prior to that, so instead of going home to the warm he went fishing and had a blinder so got my congrats for that.
Top result and yes I've also looked at the pictures and they to me certainly look to be 3 different fish, having said that to me it wouldn't have made a difference if there was a recapture, the fish clearly took the bait.
Shaun
 
It's not hard to believe for me Nigel as I know the score and have seen bunches of large fish travelling around together many times. As all 3 are potential River Nene records, you can now see why that I and others try to keep the river record list as accurate as possible for the barbel orientated fraternity, hence the research into the captures whether a claim is made or not in some cases and depending on free time. If these catches were not scrutinised there would be no point in having a record list at all. They must be checked out thoroughly for the integrity of the list, despite being caught by a known angler or unknown angler.

Mark..Can you put the other side of the 14.3 up in the gallery as I need to confirm if this is one of the current 16’s, that has put on/fluctuated in weight. Best Regards…Ray
 
Mark..Can you put the other side of the 14.3 up in the gallery as I need to confirm if this is one of the current 16’s, that has put on/fluctuated in weight. Best Regards…Ray

Ray, with the best will in the world mate that sounds pretty pompous ! Why not give it a rest eh ?!
 
Nigel - perhaps you can confirm - but looking at the pics i think the 3rd 16 - the 16lb 8oz in darkness is a recapture of your old record of 14lb 15oz back in 2008.
 
Agree with your thoughts and findings Andrew...and probably the same again caught at 16.8 by Justin Simms in June 2012.
 
I know where Justin's fish came out and I'm pretty sure Nigel's is not from that part of the river, they can't travel like on some rivers due to locks and weirs so I have a feeling not the case but I could be wrong, unlikely looking at the picture though.
Shaun
 
ray, its posted so dont know how long it`ll take to appear, its the best one i could find from that angle as the light was **** and i`m still wearing my jacket which made me blend in to the background so i took it off and moved into the sun for the better photo.
but i know theres no chance what so ever of it being one of nigels fish.
 
Last edited:
so where is all this heading?I tell you what.I'll leave it with you ray,i'v got better things to do.I'm off fishing.Bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top