Scales

[Jamie Thornton]

Just a thought: How comes some people seem to buy annalogue scales which are near enough the same price as digital scales? I was just wondering when talking to some anglers at my local fishery and they have annalogue scales the same price as my digital pair. Certainly digital scales are much easier to read and you can see clearly what the weight is straight away? Am I missing something here? Are digital not accurate? Whats the catch with digital then??

[Wag]

When I drop my old-fashioned analogue scales in the muddy water at my feet (as I do at least once a season), a quick rinse and squirt with WD40 usually sorts them out. Try that with your hi-falootin digi-widgets and see how long they last.

Also, I can still weigh fish when me battery's flat, or better still next season when it's leaked that vile acid gel all over the terminals and has turned them to green furry mush. :mad:

 

(Actually a new set of digital scales has been on my wish list for a while, but my old ones just seem to go on for ever {a bit like the wife })

 

[ 03. September 2002, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Wag ]

[Jamie Thornton]

I see your point about the batteries and the water - Didnt think of that! However I dont drop them at all (I'm not that clumsy) and Have spare batteries anyway. Plus If I do I have some spare annalogue scales in my tackle box!

[Newt]

The feature with the digital ones that keeps me interested is the ability to put on the weight sling, press a button to have the scale zero again with that weight on it, and then put on fish and sling. No need for math or remembering how much the various slings might weigh.

 

And FWIW, the set I have now are waterproof. And easier to get accurate weights with than any analog ones I've seen.

[Jamie Thornton]

Completely agree with ya!

[davidP]

The one downside I found with digitals is that unless you're rock solid the weight constantly changes making it difficult to get a reading. With analogue scales your eye/brin combination automatically calculates the average of a moving needle and thus you can read it much quicker.

[Tim Kelly]

I recently bought a pair of Rapala 50lb scales and am delighted with them so far. I haven't got them soaking wet, so I have no idea how they will cope with that, but it is certainly much easier to get a more accurate idea of what a fish weighs than with my old Salter spring balance or my ultra confusing Avons!

[Jamie Thornton]

Just a thought: How do you all weigh your fish? Do you have someone hold the scales and then you put the fish inside the sling while it is on zero so the nets weight is taken off? or do you weigh the sling after wards so the water from both the net and sling is taken off then minus it from the fish's weight beforehand? Because I find it hard putting the fish inside the sling when it is hardly open when my freind is holding it. What do you think is best?

[Newt]

Jamie - I just make sure I have a digital scale that will do Tare Weight (where you can put on an item like a sling and press a button to have the scale zero with that weight on it).

 

All but the very cheapest digitals should have a Tare Weight button on them.

[poledark]

I already know the DRY weight and the Wet but clean weight of my net. Dry is 12ounces, soaking wet is 14 ounces, so I simply unscrew net and weigh. I then take off the weight of the net.

 

I is very awkward trying to put a fish in the net after zeroing, specially if they are a good size.

If you weigh the lot (net&fish) and then weigh the net be aware that bream slime is quite heavy.

When I caught my PB bream, the slime on the net weighed 3 ounces! As far as I am concerned the slime is/was part of the fish

 

Den