• 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...

Record Barbel

Lets just say Well Done to the chap.

It's highly unlikely to affect our lives and personally I would be very proud if I caught a fish that size.
But. We all know that probably only 4 or 5 rivers have a possible chance of fish to reach that size.
If you fish them, good luck. If you don't.....carry on enjoying your fishing and worry not.
 
Neil Smart said:
How much has this new record beaten the old, an ounce?..This assumes the scales were accurate 100%,, and of course they never are, which sort of make a mockery of any claimed record weights. Of course these big old girls are special, but leave weighing fish to the match boys.
Click to expand...

The rules in claiming clearly state ..........A Weights and Measures Certificate must be produced certifying the accuracy of the scales used and indicating testing at the claimed weight.

((or used to have to be submitted for testing but that this bit may have changed now ))
 
When I witnessed Howard Maddocks Severn record all them years ago, despite having 4 or 5 reputable witnesses (?) my Avons (which I still have) had to be sent to Birmingham weights and measures dept. and they came back bang on, on all weights tested....high, low, pounds, ounces etc.

You must have rules, criteria and discipline, reliable witnesses, photographic evidence and certified scales calibration, if not, it will become a free for all....no witness, no record, no scales check no record .....emphasised more so when the previous record is smashed by 1 ounce.
 
Quality scales are in the main quite accurate. As has been alluded to a 1oz difference could be problematical for the current holder. I made an IGFA record claim 22 years ago for a foreign caught fish. The claim criteria was very strict, with all sorts of rules and regs that those not in the know could fall fowl of. It took 6 months to be ratified. The salter 220 lb scales were verified at the local city council weights and measures as being within 4 oz accuracy if I remember correctly. I still have the calibration certificate in my records.
 
Everything in this respect has a tolerance whether it be a set of scales, a set of vernier callipers, a tape measure.
Nothing is 100% bang on it’s just manufactured to better or worse tolerances.
Scales need to hold a calibration cert to claim the record and in order to hold a calibration cert they need to meet a minimum accuracy tolerance.
I would definitely weigh any fish that I believe to be a special size for the venue. I’ve never caught a record of anything so I honestly don’t know if I’d claim it officially or not. If I catch one I’ll let you know. Tbh my personal target is to bust the 16lb barrier. If I can do that I’ll be more than made up.
 
Maybe I should create a new thread for this but, regarding the question : Did I deserve it?
Not sure if others on here feel the same way (I suspect a few don't!) but I'm more than happy to blank if I know that I've fished well. Conversely, I get a lot less enjoyment out of fish I've caught by sheer luck, than by skill/water craft (observation, an applied strategy, perseverance, 'against the odds', 'working at it' etc, etc).
I value some captures more than others, and weight is only one single factor in this. Hmmmmmm :)
 
Richard Isaacs said:
Everything in this respect has a tolerance whether it be a set of scales, a set of vernier callipers, a tape measure.
Nothing is 100% bang on it’s just manufactured to better or worse tolerances.
Scales need to hold a calibration cert to claim the record and in order to hold a calibration cert they need to meet a minimum accuracy tolerance.
I would definitely weigh any fish that I believe to be a special size for the venue. I’ve never caught a record of anything so I honestly don’t know if I’d claim it officially or not. If I catch one I’ll let you know. Tbh my personal target is to bust the 16lb barrier. If I can do that I’ll be more than made up.
Click to expand...

Actually Richard the way they test scales, or the way the did, was to test at various weights, both low and high measures, so in essence a set of scales could be bang on, or maybe plus or minus one ounce up to a certain weight and then be 3 ounces out above that. My old Avons showed at 16lb 3oz they were spot on, though at much higher weights they were up to 5 ozs adrift, so scales can be spot on, but the need for accuracy is emphasised when you break a record only by an ounce, but inaccuracy can go both ways, scales can weigh under as well as over.
 
Lawrence Breakspear said:
Actually Richard the way they test scales, or the way the did, was to test at various weights, both low and high measures, so in essence a set of scales could be bang on, or maybe plus or minus one ounce up to a certain weight and then be 3 ounces out above that. My old Avons showed at 16lb 3oz they were spot on, though at much higher weights they were up to 5 ozs adrift, so scales can be spot on, but the need for accuracy is emphasised when you break a record only by an ounce, but inaccuracy can go both ways, scales can weigh under as well as over.
Click to expand...
To the nearest ounce they can be bang on Lawrence and to the acceptable criteria they are tested to, they can also be bang on.
But in reality no measuring instrument can be bang on. I’ve used scales at work that will weigh things to 5 decimal places and they are calibrated every year. They are accurate but there still has to be a tolerance.
 
Richard Isaacs said:
To the nearest ounce they can be bang on Lawrence and to the acceptable criteria they are tested to, they can also be bang on.
But in reality no measuring instrument can be bang on. I’ve used scales at work that will weigh things to 5 decimal places and they are calibrated every year. They are accurate but there still has to be a tolerance.
Click to expand...

I agree, i suppose ultimate accuracy is also affected by atmosphere, air temperature and testing methodology ....but what happened to the humble dram..i remember the old gudgeon record being 4oz 4 dram...
 
Terry Simner said:
Conversely, I get a lot less enjoyment out of fish I've caught by sheer luck, than by skill/water craft (observation, an applied strategy, perseverance, 'against the odds', 'working at it' etc, etc).
Click to expand...
Hello mate.
What’s a luck caught fish?
Once someone understands and begin to use watercraft to catch them, I think the luck side becomes a thing of the past.
Well that’s not strictly true. There has been one or two I’ve been lucky to land but every one I hook is down to the fact I’ve cast the right bait in the right place and I’ve done it intentionally.
 
Ìñ
Ady Brayshaw said:
I can see the logic in the assumption that scales are not totally accurate. But in many cases inaccuracy in weighing is down to the procedure used. There are many examples of inaccurate weighing on the Old angling videos by the so called experts. Not zeroing properly, weighing in a sack or sling that has retained water, holding dial scales by the body and not the handle. Quality scales are in the main quite accurate. I have weights and measure certificates from previously used scales to demonstrate my point.
Click to expand...
Yes fine lines, and too many small details that could unwittingly indicate a false weight.
Richard Isaacs said:
Hello mate.
What’s a luck caught fish?
Once someone understands and begin to use watercraft to catch them, I think the luck side becomes a thing of the past.
Well that’s not strictly true. There has been one or two I’ve been lucky to land but every one I hook is down to the fact I’ve cast the right bait in the right place and I’ve done it intentionally.
Click to expand...
I don't know how BFW survived this long without you Richard. ;)
 
Richard Isaacs said:
Hello mate.
What’s a luck caught fish?
Once someone understands and begin to use watercraft to catch them, I think the luck side becomes a thing of the past.
Well that’s not strictly true. There has been one or two I’ve been lucky to land but every one I hook is down to the fact I’ve cast the right bait in the right place and I’ve done it intentionally.
Click to expand...
Ok, well maybe not totally luck** ...but there's times when you think "Well I bloody well deserved that fish" (so the opposite of that would involve an element of luck IMO).
PS... I sat watching a large double barb on the Throop for best part of a week, which didn't want to know. On the Friday night we had rain, so Saturday morning I tried a lobworm for it. 10mins after casting I had a wrap ....which took me 20m upstream through the streamer weed. I didn't see the fish for ~10mins and by that time I'd got an audience of about 8-10 people.
A double barbel? .... no, a bloody big sea trout. Lucky? ....I wasn't best pleased 🤭
 
Fishing is mostly luck. Luck that you have enough time, luck that you fish somewhere good, luck that the right fish picks up your bait, all regardless of what fancy rig/bait you might have. Yes there might be a bit of water craft involved, but you could still drop lucky by chucking your bait in a nondescript bit of river that the fish just happen to like.

As for records, maybe we need to start including length and girth measurements?
 
Rhys Perry said:
Fishing is mostly luck. Luck that you have enough time, luck that you fish somewhere good, luck that the right fish picks up your bait, all regardless of what fancy rig/bait you might have. Yes there might be a bit of water craft involved, but you could still drop lucky by chucking your bait in a nondescript bit of river that the fish just happen to like.

As for records, maybe we need to start including length and girth measurements?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top