• 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...

What do you reckon ?

To be fair the fish could be hollow i had a fish on the trent thats in the "Trent Gallery" on here that looks 15-16lb and it just scraped 13lb as it was empty :(. But truth is the truth and no point in lying as top and bottom is your only kidding yourself if you do :).
 
Yes its an early season fish so is pretty hollow but even so its hard to see it weighing 11lb.

The Trent thread Wayne, the only one i can see is a 13-2 ? which to be honest doesn't look like it could go 16lb if it was full of lead :) Is it another one ?
 
Perhaps your right although the fish had the girth and gut to take on 3lb quite easily imo. Although i may nwver know. But on the otherhand i know someone who has caughtva barbel at 17.6 and also caught it at15lb and someone else i know also caught one at 15.3 and again at 12lb 5oz. So it is possible and barbel can fluctuate a lot in weight .

Cheers Wayne
 
I quite agree Simon, that is a LUMP, empty or not. Usually when we are quibbling about a fish in a photo, it's because it very obviously not as big as claimed. In this instance, I would bet good money that this fish is more than 11.06.

Cheers, Dave.
 
He also looks to be holding the fish out at arms length, this can give the impression of a fish looking bigger than it is on camera.
 
Another possibility could be some phone pics 'compress' the picture and make a fish look a bit more chunky than it really was, but also a bit shorter of course. I'm not suggesting that this was intentional, and have no idea if the pic was taken on a phone or not, but I took a shot of an 11 1/2 lb on my camera and on my old phone and they appeared to be totally different fish.:confused:
 
Bob Watson said:
He also looks to be holding the fish out at arms length, this can give the impression of a fish looking bigger than it is on camera.
Click to expand...

Bob, his elbow is bent so not at arms length ala supposed new Thames record, yes held out slightly but even so it still looks way bigger than 11lb to me.

Look at the fingers of his left hand and how much bulk there is above it, it may be a very flattering pic and i may be wrong but one thing is for sure, i wouldn't mind having that fish in the bottom of my net :)
 
Simon Lush said:
11lb 6oz ? the more i look at this pic the more i think he's got that seriously wrong somehow, that is a big lump of fish.

June Gallery Photo - 11lb 6oz River Derwent Barbel - Dynamite Baits
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one Simon, it does look bigger than 11.6.. Makes a change for a fishes weight to be questiones as to low! I know the Thames is dear to you so what's your take on the 'new' record. It's a stunning fish whatever it's weight and where ever it come from!
 
Sean Heath said:
I'm with you on this one Simon, it does look bigger than 11.6.. Makes a change for a fishes weight to be questiones as to low! I know the Thames is dear to you so what's your take on the 'new' record. It's a stunning fish whatever it's weight and where ever it come from!
Click to expand...

Thats not for me to say Sean, its impossible to get much idea from the pics as its held right out and being shoved down the camera lens !! Its up to the individual whether or not they believe it !
 
Simon Lush said:
Bob, his elbow is bent so not at arms length ala supposed new Thames record, yes held out slightly but even so it still looks way bigger than 11lb to me.

Look at the fingers of his left hand and how much bulk there is above it, it may be a very flattering pic and i may be wrong but one thing is for sure, i wouldn't mind having that fish in the bottom of my net :)
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to knock anything at all, it's a fish of a lifetime for some, my own PB being a long standing 10lb 1 oz, this fish would be a welcome addition to my list of specimens.

I still think he's holding the fish out, his elbows are slightly bent, if you look at the distance between his right shoulder and right hand, and do the same for the other side you'll see that the fish isn't close to his body.

I agree it looks bigger than 11lb in the pic, but I was just offering an explanation (IMO) why it could appear to be.
 
Looks big and to be fair there is no attempt in that picture to 'make' it look bigger !! What we don't know is how big the lad is..........
Tail root in comparison to his hands looks a decent size and that's normally a good indicator.
A lovely fish and a good pic IMHO !!
 
Paul Matthews said:
Looks big and to be fair there is no attempt in that picture to 'make' it look bigger !! What we don't know is how big the lad is..........
Tail root in comparison to his hands looks a decent size and that's normally a good indicator.
A lovely fish and a good pic IMHO !!
Click to expand...


Call me paranoid, I don't post on here much, but I can't help feeling that that statement is directed at me, nothing could be further from the truth. I find myself having to defend an innocent post, if I'm mistaken, I apologise but I feel that I've been misunderstood!
 
Bob Watson said:
Call me paranoid, I don't post on here much, but I can't help feeling that that statement is directed at me, nothing could be further from the truth. I find myself having to defend an innocent post, if I'm mistaken, I apologise but I feel that I've been misunderstood!
Click to expand...

Bob...I think it's big, because when you hold a fish forward to enhance it's size...the size of your fingers grow with it, an unfortunate point that the 'giant hand tribe' never cotton on to :p In this picture...the hands/fingers look to me to be in keeping with the guys body/arm dimensions.

The real point here is that there is absolutely no need to get upset, as you seem to be. We are all passing opinions....that is all...and yours are as valid as those of anyone else. You may be right about this fish Bob, but the fact is...we will never know, because it's back in the river now :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
Bob Watson said:
Call me paranoid, I don't post on here much, but I can't help feeling that that statement is directed at me, nothing could be further from the truth. I find myself having to defend an innocent post, if I'm mistaken, I apologise but I feel that I've been misunderstood!
Click to expand...

Nothing to apologise for Bob, you offered a reason not an accusation...
 
David Gauntlett said:
Bob...I think it's big, because when you hold a fish forward to enhance it's size...the size of your fingers grow with it, an unfortunate point that the 'giant hand tribe' never cotton on to :p In this picture...the hands/fingers look to me to be in keeping with the guys body/arm dimensions.

The real point here is that there is absolutely no need to get upset, as you seem to be. We are all passing opinions....that is all...and yours are as valid as those of anyone else. You may be right about this fish Bob, but the fact is...we will never know, because it's back in the river now :D

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

Not upset, just misunderstood :rolleyes:

I also took into account that he (the captor) seems to be holding his left hand out further than his right, which suggests to me that photographer is on his right hand side and that he's trying to give the photographer a better shot and inadvertently holding the fish further out than normal, but I could be wrong:D

I never once meant to imply that he was trying to make the fish look bigger.

Yours and not upset,

Bob.
 
Bob, not directed at you at all mate, I'm not that kind of poster. I was just saying that IMHO the captor is not purposely trying to enhance its size by the way he is holding the fish. He certainly isn't claiming it at a ridiculous weight.
To me it does look every ounce of its claimed weight and could easily be more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top