Roach Record or Hybrid?

[Neil Maidment]

Well the Roach record may have been beaten, or has it?

Warren (Wol) Gaunt (a fine angler of distinction and occasional contributor to FM) has landed a truly stunning fish. Some say it is a true Roach, others say not.

It's been debated within a close circle elsewhere on the internet for a while and opinion is divided, although everybody is stunned by the quality of the capture. It's now being publicly debated and will be appearing on the newspaper shelves soon.

Either way, Wol, it's a remarkable and beautiful fish, many congratulations.

New roach record? - First pictures! | Coarse Fishing News | Angling Times | Gofishing UK

Roach expert says record is '100% genuine' | Coarse Fishing News | Angling Times | Gofishing UK

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

I got a call from a friend of Wols, I think it was the day after he caught the fish. I saw the picture in the paper today, sadly it's a very poor picture, and with a picture like that, you can't tell if it's a true Roach or not, and no BRFC could say it's a record with such a photo.

With other, better pictures they have, they will get more info.

The BRFC haven't lets say, been over the moon, with the Irish fish the so called experts said was a true Roach, so i wouldn't be so sure what the outcome might be this time round.

Good luck to Wol, what ever happens.

[Neil Maidment]

Wols away at the moment, but I've seen the various images and they are of a truly stunning looking fish. I am definitely no expert in the realms of Roach/Rudd hybrids but my first reaction was, "Wow that is a Roach".

It seems Wol and his mate were both a little unsure at the time of capture and subsequently people like Mike T., Mark W. and Andy N. have some doubts. But a certain Doctor thinks a bit different.

I wasn't aware until recently that the BRFC have two records for Roach:

• DNA Tested - vacant, qualifying weight 4lb
• Photographic Evidence - 4lbs 04oz

[watatoad]

I don't know the angler, not going to make a comment on the fish, but whatever it is Congratulations on a great fish, well done.

[dannytaylor]

congratulations to wol, as that is a stunning fish whichever way you look at it. Agree its difficult to tell from the pic.

However the fact it comes from Holowell (long history of producing hybrids) will stack the odds against him claiming a record.

[Ron The Hat Clay]

I'm just a tad worried about the position of the dorsal fin. It looks a little too far back.

I wish Wol had displayed a photo of the fish layed down flat, on an unhooking mat for example. There is far too much importance made for photos of specimen fish being held by the captor. The anal fin is partially covered up and this is also a dead give away.

But it is a great capture and couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

---------- Post added at 00:28 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 22:48 ----------

And there is something else. There is evidence from the photo of a significant abdominal keel which is partially obscured by Wol's left hand. A sure sign of a roach/rudd hybrid.

[Peter Jacobs]

Isn't it amazing how opinions on the heritage of large 'Roach' can vary?

Whether or not it is a 'true' Roach I think it is a stunningly beautiful fish and one that any real anlger would be more than happy to have on the hook end of his line.

Well done to Wol on its capture.

[Alan Tyler]

"There is evidence from the photo of a significant abdominal keel which is partially obscured by Wol's left hand. "
Isn't that just an effect of the "specimen hunter's grip" to keep as much human hand out of the pic as possible?
Plus the flat lighting from the flash makes it look as if the keel runs right up to its chin!

[Ron The Hat Clay]

Originally Posted by Alan Tyler

"There is evidence from the photo of a significant abdominal keel which is partially obscured by Wol's left hand. "
Isn't that just an effect of the "specimen hunter's grip" to keep as much human hand out of the pic as possible?
Plus the flat lighting from the flash makes it look as if the keel runs right up to its chin!

That's why it's vitally important that with record fish we need photos of the fish laid flat against a contrasting surface with the fins layed out so that ray counts can be conducted accurately. Remember it's the fish we are interested in, not the angler. It's the fish that holds the record, not the angler.

[jack sprat]

It won't be a record unless:
A) It is claimed to be a record,
B) It is accepted by the BRFC as a record.

I can see the hint of a keel that Ron alludes to.

I'm struggling to see 100% proof of it being a roach without more and better photos. Next week's AT will be interesting!