• 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...

Trent Barbel

Steve Banham

Steve Banham

Senior Member
Seems as though the latest video on the over twenty pound barbel in the anglers mail has caused a stir since the captor put it on youtube whats other members thoughts. YouTube
 
Nice fish, but no bigger than 15 lb at best, but probably in the 13-14 lb bracket. I really don't understand why anyone would make sure a claim, its beyond me.

Reminds me of the 'Winthorpe 22'. News
 
If i ever managed to catch a 20lb barbel and other witnesses were present i would have filmed the scales been zeroed then the fish weighed! Job done!!
 
The YouTube clip seems to have been removed.

There a recent photo of a claimed Trent 20lber in the BFW gallery from a couple of days ago. It looks a very big fish...

BFW Gallery

Regards,

Andy
 
It's a shame we haven't got a photo of Grahame King's current British record barbel on our records page. Does anyone have a link to it? It would be interesting to compare the images to see if there's much difference...
 
Andy Frances said:
It's a shame we haven't got a photo of Grahame King's current British record barbel on our records page. Does anyone have a link to it? It would be interesting to compare the images to see if there's much difference...
Click to expand...

There's always the record that never was to compare it to: BFW Gallery

The picture of the Trent fish is not a great angle to be able to judge the size accurately but it looks pretty big to me. Sadly, I fear the likely hood of seeing pictures of such fish and more importantly being able to have dialogue with the captors is becoming less and less likely on BFW. Far too many amongst our ranks ready to shoot down anyone who catches a big un. Remember John Turner's Anker record in 2012? Many doubted that despite the fact it was a known and recognisable fish because the picture wasn't great. Notice how when he broke it again in 2013 with the same fish he held it a lot further forward - no doubt not wanting to make the same mistake twice!
 
Hi men ,

I stood on that spot on the Ouse where that record is being held at the start of this season on a nice warm Sunday lunch time . The only people on the whole od Adams Mill was two EU poachers , breaking out a BBQ ! , sad .


Hatter
 
I agree, it IS a big fish...but the fact that he has held it at arms length means that yet again, it's impossible to even hazard a guess as to how big. Such a shame. Perhaps the only way to get even a vague guess at the weight of a fish is for them to have at least one shot showing it on a mat with a metal tape measure laid alongside it.

Estimating the weight of a fish by measuring the length is not an accurate science, but when backed up by pictures showing whether it is a long lean type, or a short stocky fish, one could at least give a reasonable idea as to the truth of a claim.

Cheers, Dave.
 
Having looked at the video and pic properly on my pc, I take back what I said, it's much bigger than I thought, so my apologies to the captor.

I do agree with Dave about the benefits of taking a pic on the hooking mat next to a tape measure. Something I generally do with roach, perch and chub.
 
Andrew Boyne said:
There's always the record that never was to compare it to: BFW Gallery

The picture of the Trent fish is not a great angle to be able to judge the size accurately but it looks pretty big to me. Sadly, I fear the likely hood of seeing pictures of such fish and more importantly being able to have dialogue with the captors is becoming less and less likely on BFW. Far too many amongst our ranks ready to shoot down anyone who catches a big un. Remember John Turner's Anker record in 2012? Many doubted that despite the fact it was a known and recognisable fish because the picture wasn't great. Notice how when he broke it again in 2013 with the same fish he held it a lot further forward - no doubt not wanting to make the same mistake twice!
Click to expand...

A fair point, well made Andrew. Guilty as charged.
 
they probably pulled it as the only question from the dodgy picture was how wide it was , the answer was not very and it is no way a 20 , elsewhere guys who actually fish the stretch say 17 is biggest possible and to a man they reckon 14 maximum , sad but true the weeklies really are becoming a joke as they accept and give awards to dubious fish , one that was questioned was replied by AT that they could only go on the pic supplied and the weight stated by the angler , no wonder their sales are dropping
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top