Would you buy Clarissa if you had the chance ??

In reply to Post #1
Ravioli...

In reply to Post #1
Have you got it then

Reckon someones taking the mick wanting 40k for it.

You're actually buying just the skin if you want to be accurate. The actual body is a cast ( one of 6) and the ‘real' one ( this one) is covered with Clarrisa's skin. Standard fish taxidermist procedure of the day 👍

In reply to Post #1
Nah caught loads bigger than that

In reply to Post #1
No

So when it got caught did dickie bosh it on its head and take it home?

In reply to Post #8
No, it was in London Zoo, until it died. I saw it there.

In reply to Post #9
Does anyone know why it went to London Zoo?
i.e.

For it's own benefit, because it had something wrong with it, or

because it stopped anyone else catching it an ounce or more heavier and breaking his record!?!

...and to answer the initial post, nope, I would not buy it. I'd rather spend the money on some live fish and plop them in local rivers (obviously I can't do that due to law....but just saying)

Umm nope

In reply to Post #9
That's a slight improvement on the previous record which I believe was gaffed and taken home in a hessian sack.

What size did it get to in the zoo? Shame it didn't hang around in the lake for others to catch

In reply to Post #12
Different times..

In reply to Post #10
I've often wondered that? Why did Walker offer it to the Zoo? Maybe it because it was so much bigger than the previous record I believe caught buy Bob Reynolds from Redmire Also. He thought the Zoo would find out why it grew so large if he offered it to them for research.?

But it spent the next 20 plus years swimming around in an Aquarium apparently becoming quite tame. Eventually passing away at a weight of around 27lb.

I think Anglers back then thought these fish would only get caught once. Recapture weren't a thing apparently.

In reply to Post #3
No
Even if someone said you can have for free I'll turn it down

RICHARD WALKERS OWN STORY
LINKY POO

In reply to Post #16

When i saw it in the zoo it had lost alot of weight and did,nt look too well but it went on to live a few more years.
But what a time that must have been . Halcyon days.

In reply to Post #14
I'm sure dick walker caught one exactly the same weight before Clarissa and he don't want to upstage bob

In reply to Post #18
Somewhere in my house I have an original black and white photo of Clarissa, I used to work at a photographic lab in Camden and one of the curators at London Zoo used to come in to get film processed there, he knew I was an angler so asked me if I'd like a photo of it from the archives, this was around the mid 90's so the fish had already died by then but from memory the photo shows the fish coming to the surface vertically, I expect it was fairly tame by then and was expecting to get fed like they do in Koi ponds

In reply to Post #20
Bet that's a great pic

In reply to Post #18
Exactly that

A very, special fish at the time that problem inspired a lot of people

In reply to Post #20
IIRC, there is a photo in 'Stillwater Angling' that show Ravioli/Clarissa being hand fed in the tank.

If you look very closely at the old capture photos of the iconic fish ,you can clearly see top lobal,tail damage and regeneration ...

Typical of otter predation at this time ,today's world..

In reply to Post #19
That other common was 34lb and was caught after the record. It says it the Redmire pool book that Dick walker would have been the only person to have caught the biggest 2 fish of the same species at the time.

In reply to Post #25
Thanks mate just recently bought the book again having left it down south when I split up with my ex,will have to reread the book

In reply to Post #23
If it's the picture I'm thinking of it's Richard Walkers son feeding Clarissa.
When I bought my lake I got a little note from said son wishing me well with the Pool.

In reply to Post #20

In reply to Post #18
Not many. Imagine catching a completely unknown fish weighing 40% more than anything else ever caught in this country. Can you imagine the reactions and thoughts as the fish was banked.

If I had a Time Machine, that's where I'd go.

I was lucky enough to fish redmire 2011 it was winter (after January I think) didn't catch wasn't bothered,as I'd fished the most famous pool in the uk just being there was enough for me,been bought up with redmire and other famous anglers of the time always loved carp fishing.

In reply to Post #30
Ive fished Redmire a total of 12 times although well past its best and its stock tarnished with koi etc. Had the pool to myself twice in those times. Not once did i feel it to be anything other than a lovely farm pond . Some people find it emotional ,special , i never did . But it certainly must have been in those early days as Ashley pool was.

Maybe its jist me, but I have never understood the desire to fish Redmere. Sure its steeped In history, and I'd love to walk round, but seeing grown men with st georges cross coloured delkims and two man Fox frontiers get emotional about catching a 12lb common makes no sense to me.
If dick walker was alive today would he be fishing Redmire? Move on.

In reply to Post #32
If Dick Walker was alive today I'm sure he'd be fishing but I doubt if he'd be carp fishing

To me it was just nice to fish a place I'd been reading about since I was a teenager in senior school in the early to mid 80's I saved hard for that redmire book as a kid,so to fish somewhere I'd read about so many times meant a lot but I didn't get all emotional about it it's just something I always wanted to do

In reply to Post #31
That would about sum it up for me too, if I fished it, though naturally the thought of what had gone before would cross my mind. I do understand others who get emotional about it, I guess it's something modern Carp anglers in this country will never be able to do again, so popular is the hobby.
There are still waters like that, giants maybe, unexplored maybe, but mostly in private hands (I don't mean syndis) and invite only, if not ravaged by Otters already.

In reply to Post #35
A good number of very big fish/waters out there that are unfishable or at least extremely risky if you tried to.

In reply to Post #32
Just that. I don't want to go because I don't want to spoil the image I have in my mind which is the Redmire of the past, full of mystery and uncaught monsters.

In reply to Post #37
I think you're very wise. In some ways I wish I'd never gone.

In reply to Post #32
100%

Savay on the other hand 😍

In reply to Post #39
That's another one I'd like to have fished

Link for those who fancy a bid, catalogue not out yet.

Click Here

In reply to Post #27
Like I say it's somewhere in my house but god knows where, must dig it out sometime, the print I have is from above and you can see the whole flank of the side of the fish as it comes to the surface, it's not the photo you've posted but may have been taken from the same series of photos

In reply to Post #28
I've found the photo but haven't got a clue how to post it as it's been years since I did that, maybe a moderator could help me out?

In reply to Post #43
You'll need to be enrolled on a 6 week computer programming course.

In reply to Post #43
Pm me. I will post your picture.

In reply to Post #39
Definitely! Now that place made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

In reply to Post #46
And foxpool
And the mere
Wrasbury in its prime

In reply to Post #43
Henry,Send me the pic and i will post
M

Just thinking aloud mate, I'd love to see the pic but if it was given for your personal viewing pleasure can it be posted openly on the forum without the originators permission?
It might also have a commercial value...like I said just thinking aloud

In reply to Post #48

In reply to Post #49
I'm not too sure if there would be a restriction on sharing the photo, I doubt the chap that gave it to me would have done so had that been the case, it was given to me around 2000 so there's no way of me checking but I doubt there would be a problem, I would never sell it anyway and doubt if it has any commercial value as it's only a print albeit an original taken from the black and white film

In reply to Post #51

In reply to Post #51

In reply to Post #53
That's a pretty sad picture.
Such a magnificent wild creature now stuck in a fish tank, withering away.

In reply to Post #54
I tend to agree with you, personally I don't think it should ever have been moved but I guess they were different times and none of us can imagine what Richard Walker must have been thinking when he offered it to the Zoo, just imagine that happening now! I visited London Zoo many times in the 70's and 80's as I guess many of us have and probably saw the aquarium it was in but can't remember whether it was a big tank or anything like it was used to but you could never replicate an old estate style weedy lake in that sort of environment, although it's been proven (not sure it applies to fish) that creatures often live longer in Zoo's, I prefer to see any creature in its natural environment, and then of course there is the case that no one else had the chance to catch it themselves so quite a selfish act by a so called renowned angler

In reply to Post #55
Thanks for sharing the pic mate 👍 To me, maybe a illusion of the picture, but it looks like it's in the last of its days, withering looking body, slightly sunken eyes, a fabulous fish in its prime.

I think you have to look at it in the context of angling attitudes of the day. Put it back in the pool and the next person to catch it could possibly gaff it and get it stuffed and mounted in a case

Both were accepted practices of the day

In reply to Post #57
True I guess, like I say they were different times and there's no wrongs or rights here but I think I'd still prefer to have seen it left in its home.

In reply to Post #57
Funny I always thought
it doesn't look a big enough frame to get to 40 lb

In reply to Post #59
I think it's hard to tell in isolation from one photo when there is nothing to gauge it against, also I don't actually know when the photo was taken, it may have been towards the end of its life

In reply to Post #60
Looks even smaller inthe display case on the auction site
Using the 2 adults as the gauge

It always looked fantasticly proportioned in the kneeling grass shots. But other pictures show it looked pretty heavy with spawn, fit to burst, which is a bit of a theme with many of the historical Redmire fish.

In reply to Post #55
I tend to agree with you, personally I don't think it should ever have been moved but I guess they were different times and none of us can imagine what Richard Walker must have been thinking when he offered it to the Zoo

I agree but I also believe it was a completely different era at the at time. No different from putting a lion in a zoo if they have never seen one. A carp of epic proportions in reality at that time, incredible really and testament to where it came from, a fine line and a natural balance of nature to produce such a fish, never fished it and if I am honest I have never been interested but it must have been an incredibly rich water and a perfect balance of stock to grow such fish compared to what else was around

Carp fishing nowadays is becoming pretty meaningless for me, publicised and milked to death. Just another big fish after another. I can understand why it still attracts people, it is a lovely way to pass some time but what we are angling for nowadays as a whole doesn't really tick my box anyway. Each to there own of course

At the time I believe you had to present the body of a fish to claim a new record, which Richard Walker presumably did. Sending it to a zoo was probably the best compromise.
At the time of it's death Clarrisa had dropped in weight considerably, 27lb odd rings a bell, so the set up fish is actually a 27lber that once reached 44lb.

In reply to Post #64
The other thing to bear in mind is that when a fish is set up (stuffed), the skin is dried first, which also shrinks it considerably.

This is one of the reasons why, when viewing fish set up in cases, the weights quoted seem to not be reflected in what is in the case.