I told my mate in the Netherlands who recently took up fishing that his latest catch could well be a leather carp. Was I talking ship?
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/959944852697649243/986595066862764042/IMG-20220615-WA0005.jpg?width=380&height=676
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/959944852697649243/986595066862764042/IMG-20220615-WA0005.jpg?width=380&height=676
In reply to Post #1
Sorry fella, I think you may have been. A true leather, from an angling perspective, has no scales hence their rarity, you can see the row of scales on this one along the top of the back. There's no evidence of the punctuated dorsal, or the other characteristics to suggest its a genetic leather 👍
Sorry fella, I think you may have been. A true leather, from an angling perspective, has no scales hence their rarity, you can see the row of scales on this one along the top of the back. There's no evidence of the punctuated dorsal, or the other characteristics to suggest its a genetic leather 👍
In reply to Post #3
I think most people will listen to what Simon Scott has to say on the subject
I think most people will listen to what Simon Scott has to say on the subject
In reply to Post #4
If this is wholly wrong I apologise, however many years ago I was with a bloke who had caught what he thought was a leather carp. When doing the photos Mark Bryant showed up in the swim and when we were discussing whether it was a leather carp or not, he said the one way to be sure was to look at its bum hole, as a true genetic leather has four veins that are around it that travel in to it, under the skin.
Could be BS but I remember him being very adamant at the time....
If this is wholly wrong I apologise, however many years ago I was with a bloke who had caught what he thought was a leather carp. When doing the photos Mark Bryant showed up in the swim and when we were discussing whether it was a leather carp or not, he said the one way to be sure was to look at its bum hole, as a true genetic leather has four veins that are around it that travel in to it, under the skin.
Could be BS but I remember him being very adamant at the time....
In reply to Post #2
Perfectly explained by Simon I had it all wrong, with the total absence of scales 
Won´t catch me looking up a carps bumhole 
Cheers for the link to that snippet
Perfectly explained by Simon
I had it all wrong, with the total absence of scales Won´t catch me looking up a carps bumhole Cheers for the link to that snippet
In reply to Post #5
You need to check the anal fin, not it's a-hole
You're looking for a ray count of 4 or less. Can't recall who showed me that, but it was about 20 years ago. A leather will usually have the odd scale on it, but not many and usually they're near the tail or on the back. I've caught very few that were completely devoid of scales. Once you know what you are looking for, it is easy to identify them. One water I am on at the moment has about one in five leathers, with all three 40's being leathers. I much prefer them to a common, but I'll take a fully scaled mirror all day long for looks. Had one of 39 recently, incredible looking thing. What a privilege it was getting that one, even though it usually goes over 40, I wasn't too unhappy about it. Now looking for a second date with her in the autumn 
You need to check the anal fin, not it's a-hole
You're looking for a ray count of 4 or less. Can't recall who showed me that, but it was about 20 years ago. A leather will usually have the odd scale on it, but not many and usually they're near the tail or on the back. I've caught very few that were completely devoid of scales. Once you know what you are looking for, it is easy to identify them. One water I am on at the moment has about one in five leathers, with all three 40's being leathers. I much prefer them to a common, but I'll take a fully scaled mirror all day long for looks. Had one of 39 recently, incredible looking thing. What a privilege it was getting that one, even though it usually goes over 40, I wasn't too unhappy about it. Now looking for a second date with her in the autumn
In reply to Post #7
Ah. Noted 😂
Ah. Noted 😂
In reply to Post #8
I seem to have forgotten about sexing a carp dirty minds What´s the easiest way, to remember ? Didn´t that have something to do with the shape of the bumhole ?
Wonder if i heard right, but did Simon say, that crossing a fully scale mirror with a zip linear, you get :-
25% fully scales
25% linears
25% leathers
25% commons
So originally, commons are genetically a subspecies of mirrors, and if they continue to successfully spawn, naturally crossing with linears or leathers, then the majority would be either fully scale or commons
So leathers are infact subspecies of mirrors. Seems like leathers have drawn the short straw genetically, having reduced fin generation & and easily susceptable to oxvgen depravation, and lower resistance to fighting off infections. 
I seem to have forgotten about sexing a carp
dirty minds What´s the easiest way, to remember ? Didn´t that have something to do with the shape of the bumhole ?Wonder if i heard right, but did Simon say, that crossing a fully scale mirror with a zip linear, you get :-
25% fully scales
25% linears
25% leathers
25% commons
So originally, commons are genetically a subspecies of mirrors, and if they continue to successfully spawn, naturally crossing with linears or leathers, then the majority would be either fully scale or commons
So leathers are infact subspecies of mirrors. Seems like leathers have drawn the short straw genetically, having reduced fin generation & and easily susceptable to oxvgen depravation, and lower resistance to fighting off infections.
In reply to Post #9
All carp were originally bred from commons, selection for less scales produced mirrors and ultimately a few leathers.
Why it bloody matters to anyone is beyond me. A fish is a fish. Some are prettier to look at than others. That shouldn't make the uglier ones worth less as a capture than any other. Rant over sorry.
All carp were originally bred from commons, selection for less scales produced mirrors and ultimately a few leathers.
Why it bloody matters to anyone is beyond me. A fish is a fish. Some are prettier to look at than others. That shouldn't make the uglier ones worth less as a capture than any other. Rant over sorry.
In reply to Post #10
It mattered because the fewer scales, the easier it was to cook
Must admit I can only recall 2 perfect leathers I have ever caught; a 15lb fish from Taverham, totally scaleless dark leather, and a 24.12 from Ardleigh Reservoir, angry, grey prehistoric looking fish, real special.
It mattered because the fewer scales, the easier it was to cook
Must admit I can only recall 2 perfect leathers I have ever caught; a 15lb fish from Taverham, totally scaleless dark leather, and a 24.12 from Ardleigh Reservoir, angry, grey prehistoric looking fish, real special.