Big Brace from collingham

[Bob Roberts]

Well, I like to think I'm half competent (c'mon guys, be generous!), but I'm guilty of getting my own weighings wrong by significantly more than an ounce or two in the recent past.

I suggest that everyone reads my next article in Coarse Fisherman magazine on this very touchy subject where all will be revealed.

Not only have I published photos of fish where the stated weights are definitely wrong, so have other anglers who I respect. Not once did I or any of the other competent anglers set out to deliberately mislead anyone. However, facts are facts and they may disturb you.

Clearly numbers and statistics matter an awfull lot to the great majority of anglers. Dare I say it has become a national obsession?

The mag will be out in a week or so. I rather hope you'll buy it but if you're too tight, at least go and read it in the newsagents. I'm more than happy to discuss the article and my findings on here. All I ask is that we debate the issues I raise based on having read the article.

One question: What is an acceptable degree of error when we weigh a fish? Is +/- one per cent a reasonable target? (that's less than half an ounce on a one kilo fish)
Or should we say 3 per cent on a kilo - that works out to near enough plus or minus one ounce.

However, don't forget, the same 3 per cent equates to a massive 9.6oz on a twenty pound carp...

What degree of error do you think we should accept as being perfectably acceptable and accurate?

Are you completely satisfied that when you weigh, say a barbel, at 10lb 1oz, that is what it really weighs? It is definitely a double? Are you certain there is no room for error in your weighing process? Would your methodology meet the requirements of ISO9002 for instance?

You may be perturbed after reading the contents of the article.

 

[Fred Bonney]

My first reaction, and I will, read the article Bob.

Is,does it matter for a couple of ounces,if the information is for your own records?
You are only fooling yourself to overstate.
Unless of course your aiming for glorification or a prize!

I have to say, that my own personal worry,has always been, on catching a 6lb14oz chub, a few years ago.That I didn't get a photograph.I just have this nagging doubt now, of did I read the scales right,I am sure I did ,but for me, a photo comparisom, would have put aside my worries,I think.

As for that double barbel, if it was that close, I personally, would want a second opinion,before,in my mind,it would count..

John Ledger called a chub I caught with him the other week, at 5lb,my scales were wavering around that mark,I called it 4lb15ozs!

 

[sash]

How about reposting this article on FM Bob?

I'm not tight with my money but I'm afraid there are only so many pictures of hemp 'n' casters that one can look at in one magazine unless it has changed dramatically in the recent past.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Well, the magazine does have a close relationship with Fishing Magic and I'm sure Graham can work out something with the publisher butobviously the article can't be reprinted until it has been printed.

Without giving too much away, two sets of scales will serve only to add to the confusion rather than resolve it.

The question to address is this, 'Is there such a thing as an accurate set of scales?'

With a supplementary rider, 'What represents accuracy?'

Fred's 4-15 might well have been that. Or more. Or less...

Sorry if this sounds like teasing, the Trent brace capture was simply unfortunate timing and I perhaps shouldn't have added my two-penneth but the guy deserved a bit of support.

Be patient, the truth will out in a week or so.

 

[Coops]

Good observation. Other peoples weights are not that important to me to be honest.

My own personal list is what matters to me, and as that's always done with the same scales and weigh sling I'm happy its a true comparison.

I'm happy my scales are pretty accurate as I've tested them on known weights, so all in all I've done as much as I can to be happy with my own records. At the end of the day that's all that matters to me and I don't suppose too many people care what I've caught except me.

 

[Paul Makings]

Hate to put a spanner in the works about scales but I work for a company called Barry Napper and company,
Please put www.onboardweighing.co.uk into your web browser jobbie, unless calibrated reguarly scales can be well out most scales bought in tackle shops even digital ones can be well out unless they are deamed legal for trade, when they are new they will be set up correctly but most dial scales including digital ones are spring deflection/balance types however when this spring starts to get worn/bent rustie then they are out.
Most common difference of a calibrated Loadcell type scale which is not legal for trade is +/- 1%-5% so 10Lb =upto 8oz either way. (However a loadcell type system will set you back anything from ?500 - ?3000)
This goes up as the spring working parts get worn etc.
which is why only regular checking and recalibration and cleaning of scales will give you a true reading.
I have worked in this job for 6years + now, i know what you are going to say, i should have considered this before starting the post but at least it gives us all somthing to talk about. Plus his scales could have been weighing light! thus making the fish bigger than first recorded.
Ever caught a fish weighed it and thought it must be hollow...maybe you scales are just out.

 

[Coops]

I'm sure you are right Paul and don't doubt your knowledge.

What then doesn't add up is the number of records where the statement 'the scales were subsequently tested by weights and measures and found to be accurate" or words to that effect. I can't remember when a record was last declined because of innacurate scales, or adjusted by more than an ounce or so. Is there a suspicion then on the weights and measures check?

 

[Paul Makings]

I am not saying every scale is out and that the difference is always big, and if you look after your scales they will be as you bought them, i.e calibrated and working i am just bringing to light how scales can become inaccurate and how easy it is to have a mis-reading, obviously the more you spend the better you get, if you have invested the money then they will be ok, if the scales are checked by weights and nmeasures then yes they are accurate because those guys are thorough in their jobs.
There will be a big difference between the cheaper ones and the more exspensive ones the best way is to check the markings on the back of them, i.e kite marks, etc.
If you have a small capacity scale i.e upto 25lb and you keep loading to the max then the mechanism is going to get worn out quicker than if you have a 50lb scale and are only quarter/half loading it.
plese do not take what i say as stone just trying to think why we would get differences etc matey.
One way is that if the hook from the bottom of the scales attached to an arm fouls against the casing that can make you underweigh as the friction is restricting the movement of the force applied, thus making it important that you lift the scles up square.

 

[Bob Roberts]

The article is now out in the current issue of Coarse Fisherman magazine.

Try and read it, if only in WH Smiths or the Supermarket (tight buggers!) and then give me your feedback.

How confident are you of the accuracy of your own scales now?

Has it made you think twice about your PB list?

Does an ounce or two really matter?

How come when a fish is checked on two sets of scales it always weighs the same...?

 

[captain carrott]

Try and read it, if only in WH Smiths or the Supermarket (tight buggers!) and then give me your feedback.

yeah right, finding it would be a mirracle round where i live, aint seen it since i moved in 18 months ago.

 

[honslow]

I have read it Bob and you're right - it blows you away! The fact that you got such a disparity of results using the selection of scales you did (a fair representation of what your average specimen angler might own) will shock everyone.
The only answer is to take great care of your scales and get them re-calibrated twice a season if you want to be sure that they're kosher.
Chucking them in the bottom of the bag and lugging them around for years is asking for trouble.
And how did whoever design Fox's digi scales not think of giving them an on/off switch. Who the Hell needs a set of scales that tell the time, only for them to run out of batteries when you most need them? Shocking design gaff IMHO!

 

[Matt Brown]

Greg, do you remember us weighing that tench at Sywell on 3 sets of scales?

Last night the battery ran out on my Fox scales. I'd taken my spares out of the the bag (doh!) and ended up borrowing some from my headtorch. It's quite difficult tryiong to fit batteries in the dark!

Moral of the story - keep your spare batteries in your bag.

 

[Neil Maidment]

I'm sort of with Fred on this one. Now not too bothered with exact weights for my own personal records.

But well remember a Roach I netted from the Stour. No camera or scales, on my own and had never caught a 2lber. That Roach was huge and I held it in the net for ages wondering what to do. Eventually, reluctantly let it go convinced I'd never see such a fish again.

I did get a Roach a few weeks later that weighed 2lb 14oz, 2lb 11oz and 2lb 09oz on three sets of scales! Very happy taking the 2lb 09oz as a "personal" weight. Although I still have a nagging doubt that the original unweighed Roach was even bigger and that was caught 27 years ago!

 

[Bob Roberts]

Moral of the story - scales don't last forever!

Hate to be in your job Greg. Even those anglers who diligently try their best to be accurate may be sending you false weights...

As for the chancers and guestimators, you don't stand a chance.

Perhaps we should go back to 'nice fish' or 'nice picture' and dish out your awards accordingly.

Matt has bollocked me for criticising those who weigh every fish they catch - as I described it, "Piddling six pound barbel". Maybe I was a bit strong but would we be seen as more caring if we weighed less fish. It's all well and good having handling codes, keepnet witch hunts, insisting on mats, etc, etc and then keeping them out of the water uneccessarily to weigh them on dubious scales.

 

[sash]

I fully agree with the criticism, I see it all the time on river reports - " 4 barbel at 6lb 2oz, 5lb 10oz, 4lb 9oz and 3lb 10oz" etc etc (and not just with barbel).There is absolutely no need to weigh a fish of this size unless it does happen to be a personal best but these guys are usually those that have caught fish well into double figures before. My diary is full of "approx 6lb" or "approx 15lb" - pike not barbel on that one ;o)

"Even those anglers who diligently try their best to be accurate may be sending you false weights..." - prizes lead to chancers having a go wether that is intentional or not.

 

[honslow]

I'd have given you a double Matt!
You'd love my job Bob - I do! As I was reading this thread the lads were debating over the actual size of a pike a punter had sent in. Then again, they've also rudely been questioning the claimed weight of a decent Welland chub I had last night (the bar stewards)!

 

[sash]

6 plus Greg?

 

[honslow]

I wish. Only 5-1. I've waited five years for a 'five' and now I've had two in three nights (other went 5-2). I didn't think there were any 'sixes' in the Welland!!! I've heard of about five in the last ten years!
Reckon a big 'five' is a realistic target for me Sash

 

[sash]

You are right, 6's are like the proverbial rocking horse **** but I do know another localish venue where they may not be quite so rare....

I'll pop you an email across mate.

 

[honslow]

I know exactly where you mean mate! I've had much bigger fish from there and will be on there again from Xmas.
But feel free to point me towards a few good swims! Ha, ha!