Guess the weight

[Severn Wolf]

'guesstimate'. (Has that now become a word? unsure.gif ).

 

Its a word with bouncebackability

 

 

I don`t often weigh barbel these days, just a quick estimate of the weight so they don`t have to be taken from the water. If it looks over 8 I`ll get the scales out but thats not very often!

Edited July 18, 2007 by Severn Wolf

[Neil G]

Nice fish there

 

Very different proportion wise compared to my fish in the other thread....look at the length of the fish and shoulders as a reference.

[Gray-Catchpole]

i know exactly what your saying, i had this one on the biblins on the river wye yesterday very deceptive it is, i wont say how big it was but i undrestimated its size.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2007 by Gray-Catchpole

[Neil G]

Great fish Graham....double by any chance?

 

Looks like a long fish

[gozzer]

Ok, I`ve revise my guess to about the same, mid fives.......

 

(happy now john? )

 

Sorry for delay, I had to nip out.

 

Yeh, I'm happy now SW, (just knew I'd persuade you )

 

Looking at your pic, and Anderoos, I'd say his was longer, but yours was fatter. (keep the thread clean please children ) So I don't think I'm far out with my 'guesstimate'. (just run a spell check, and it says my version is ok klonker )

 

John.

[klonker]

..... So I don't think I'm far out with my 'guesstimate'. (just run a spell check, and it says my version is ok klonker )

 

John.

 

Absolutely! You can spell it both ways

[klonker]

OK, I'll throw my hat in the ring 6 - 7 1/2lb. 6 if it's as lean as it looks, but 7 1/2 if it's got width.

 

Are you going to let us know what you think it weighs, or do you actually know what it weighs, did you say?

 

 

Still wondering about the magic figure

[Anderoo]

OK, I now know what it weighed

 

This has been a very interesting topic, thanks to everyone who joined in.

 

What happened was this: I weigh the fish in the net, I weigh the net after the fish goes back, I subtract the weight of the net from the total weight. Nothing strange there. But something was definitely weird when I weighed that dace (a new 'British record' of 2lb 1oz for those who missed it!) so I did a few experiments against some shakespeare dial scales yesterday.

 

Both sets of scales are accurate and agree with each other. However, the digi scales output any weight under 1lb as either 2lb or 2lb 1oz. So with the dace, the weight of the net + fish was under 1lb. The net actually weighs 5oz (it's a small net) so my guess of 8-10oz is probably accurate (total weight of fish + net = 13-15oz).

 

So, the barbel! Clearly, when weighing it we then deducted far too much weight for the net and it's bigger than the 2lb 14oz we made it at the time. Rich Capper and ColinW came closest with their guesses. The final, indisputable weight is....

 

4lb 6oz

 

This little excercise also shows how hard it is to guage a fish's weight from a photo. I've got an old photo of a carp somewhere which I caught on crust when I was about 16. From the photo you'd swear it was a 30! Actual weight was just under 15lb. It works the other way too, especially with tench, I find - the monster you're so proud of looks like a 4lber when the photos come back

[Angly]

Ha, that would have made a very interesting mystery had you fed us one more clue. Interesting indeed. All we really needed were the findings to be read out by Columbo!

 

I'm near to purchasing a set of digital scales from China, which apparently measure down to under 2oz with an accuracy of 0.5oz. Thanks to your findings I'll be sure to give them a throurough testing before deploying them on the battlefield.

 

Almost forgot, anyone want a set of digital vernier calipers and a well thumbed copy of The Complete Book of Fishing?

 

Geoff

[gozzer]

Thanks for that Anderoo, (I think ), I'm going to get some stick from SW on this.

 

All I can say in my defence is.......the fish must have been 'hollow'.

 

John.