Redmire's Real Monster - The King

This forum is for discussing carp.
User avatar
Julian
Salmon
Posts: 7463
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:42 pm
12
Location: North Buckinghamshire

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by Julian »

You obviously have not yet read much about Redmire.
This is the uncaught huge common carp in Redmire which somewhere around 20 different well known anglers each saw on only one occasion each between the late 1950's and the early 1980's.
It is just possible that it still exists and some believe the ' long common' an exceptionally long , very dark common which first appeared around 2008 and has been seen on a number of occasions since, could be the same, if rather aged and leaner carp.
There is no peace on earth like the peace of fishing in the early mornings

User avatar
Julian
Salmon
Posts: 7463
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:42 pm
12
Location: North Buckinghamshire

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by Julian »

Perhaps I should add , based on all I have read about it, its length is believed to be not less than four feet and possibly nearer five.
Estimates of weight range from well over 60 lbs to nearer 90 lbs.
Most who experienced it viewed it at close range, and some for a period of several minutes.
Of note is that it was seen with other known very large carp and all comparisons indicated it was much much larger than any of them.

Chris Yates gives a full account of his experience of seeing it in his Four Seasons diaries.
There is no peace on earth like the peace of fishing in the early mornings

User avatar
Blunderer
Bleak
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:39 pm
10
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by Blunderer »

Leigh wrote:I have just started reading The Lost Diary by Chris Yates - He comments that he saw the King at Redmire , a fish he had only glimpsed once, yet knew that is was probably the biggest carp in Europe.

Can anyone shed any more light on this leviathan?
Sorry to break the magic, but the problem with the legend of The King is twofold:

All of the big fish in redmire in that era were caught many times, and photographed, weighed and on many occasions named. The pool is tiny and fished very hard by very good anglers, so this is no surprise. But 'the king' was never caught.

Also, in the 1976 drought, the pool dried right up. The entire population of the lake could be seen most days on the top of the pool, and nobody saw or photographed the King.

However, there is a great photograph from the 60s which just could be it, emerging from a weed bed .You never truly know, despite the evidence.

User avatar
Snape
Bailiff
Posts: 9982
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:52 am
12
Location: North Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by Snape »

Blunderer wrote:However, there is a great photograph from the 60s which just could be it, emerging from a weed bed .You never truly know, despite the evidence.
This one taken by Eddie Price
Image

It does seems odd that the huge fish were not seen in 1976 but very reliable witnesses did see some very special fish which were never caught. The King is not the only huge Redmire fish to remain uncaught. There was the rest of Yates's royalty: The black Queen which was a very dark leather carp which he hooked but lost when the hook straightened, the castle, a slate grey mirror and the two knights which were commons. None of these were ever caught. There is currently a mid 40lb linear and the long common which have not been caught. There have been several sightings of the long common by reliable witnesses up to a couple of years ago when St John watched it and had it taking the occasional free offering.

The pool has been netted quite a few times and the largest fish have always evaded the net. The experts who conduct the netting confirm this is the not unusual as they are quite capable of securing safe havens and pushing lesser fish out of the way.
When the pool was first netted none of CY's royalty were captured including the Bishop. The pool has been netted a couple of times recently to removed singles and none of the known fish over 30lbs have been captured. The huge linear which is frequently seen and is certainly well into the 40s was not captured. The sightings of a four foot carp continue and such a fish was watched by Rob the bailiff in June 2007. This is his account:

"Once down the shallows in the cow drink swim it was an incredible sight. As if all the Royalty of Redmire was out on show. I saw a huge Linear of around 30lb plus which swam below me when up the Willow, a Common that came in close which we both thought was at least 35lb. So many fish that looked near and around 25lb.
And then we both saw this shape materialise in the centre of the shallows. Mike said "thats two fish". I said "yes"
Then a few seconds later the dark shape rose a little closer to the surface and it was clearly one fish.
"oh my god!" we both may have said. I can't remember.
The tail was a ridiculous distance from the head. It looked as if it belonged in the sea! We watched it for 20 minutes. The light and angle was such that it remained a black shape. It barely moved and that was what was so strange. It was so different to the other fish which were parading around. It was the only fish that barely moved. It had picked its spot so well that when you climbed the tree it was always behind the leaves. It did turn in a circle a couple of times and but the width was hard to gauge. What did happen though was that the really big common did swim out towards it and then turned about 6ft this side of the fish so that you could compare the length and the big one looked a foot longer!! It was mad. It could have been the Ghost of the King?
If the fish had swam towards us to say hello there may have been discovered two petrified bodies a day or two later. Instead there was a gentle but powerful swirl and it was gone. I vaguely saw a huge shadow making its way damward."
“Fishing is much more than fish. It is the great occasion when we may return to the fine simplicity of our forefathers,” Herbert Hoover.
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸ ><((((º>

User avatar
Snape
Bailiff
Posts: 9982
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:52 am
12
Location: North Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by Snape »

Here is another eye witness account taken from the Redmire forum Monster Myths thread here: http://redmirepool.biz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48

It was August in a year towards the end of the 1970s, the weather was mild, overcast and very still. No rain had fallen for quite a few days so Redmire was gin clear and didn't resemble the red river we had encountered on a previous occasion.
I was in Climos, J was on the dam wall just mooching about and B was in his car (well that's what he called it) getting a few zzzzs.
This was about 4.30pm and although a few fish could be seen towards the middle of the pool, not a lot was happening and no rods were out.
I was face down on the edge of the swim just idly watching the wildlife on the bottom, towards the left was what I though at the time was a large dark sunken log.

Wouldn't have taken any notice, however what I thought was a bright pebble had been caught towards the front of this log. As I moved slightly closer to the edge the pebble disappeared then reappeared, in that brief moment sudden realisation hit me. THIS WAS AN EYE!
Now big fish move with grace (unless hooked) this didn't! It just drifted like something caught in a slow, low ebb tide. Rod H had said "it was as big as a man" well I'm sorry to disappoint but this one wasn't. So was Rods another monster? Food for thought my friends.
It was massive though, 4ft plus of pure "Leney" beauty.

Now before the sceptics start I come from an engineering background and even taking into consideration light refraction, density of water and all the other arguments etc etc, I do know what 4ft looks like.
Dark burnished brown, totally perfect in shape not like the fatties of these days.
Weight wise? taking into consideration its stature no less than 80lbs.
The main problem is it just didn't look right, it looked out of place for its surroundings.
Bit like putting a modern day American aircraft carrier next to its British counterpart, it was just too BIG.
I checked my watch 4.40; do I try and move to get J? The moment was happening too quickly, it was still gently moving now in the direction of the centre channel, it would and shortly was out of sight. Laying there coming to terms with this I suddenly had a thought, how in the name of hell am I going to explain this one.
J remained very quiet about the whole thing, B said something about drink and drugs, but we had known each other for too may years. They knew something had been seen.
On reflection would I have wanted to catch this fish? Initially yes, but on reflection over the years I now know the truth. The size and power would have been immense.
“Fishing is much more than fish. It is the great occasion when we may return to the fine simplicity of our forefathers,” Herbert Hoover.
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸ ><((((º>

User avatar
Julian
Salmon
Posts: 7463
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:42 pm
12
Location: North Buckinghamshire

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by Julian »

Blunderer wrote:
Leigh wrote:I have just started reading The Lost Diary by Chris Yates - He comments that he saw the King at Redmire , a fish he had only glimpsed once, yet knew that is was probably the biggest carp in Europe.

Can anyone shed any more light on this leviathan?
Sorry to break the magic, but the problem with the legend of The King is twofold:

All of the big fish in redmire in that era were caught many times, and photographed, weighed and on many occasions named. The pool is tiny and fished very hard by very good anglers, so this is no surprise. But 'the king' was never caught.


However, there is a great photograph from the 60s which just could be it, emerging from a weed bed .You never truly know, Also, in the 1976 drought, the pool dried right up. The entire population of the lake could be seen most days on the top of the pool, and nobody saw or photographed the King.
despite the evidence.
The magic has not been broken. :Sun:
Your statement starting 'all the big fish in Redmire of that time were caught many times.................' is completely incorrect, and is information put about by anglers who seriously believe that if a water is fished extensively all of the big carp are seen and caught. Just because Redmire is small ( 2.7 acres is not that small) it makes no difference. There are many waters, some as small or smaller than Redmire which contain carp that are never caught and rarely seen. I believe a lot of the belief about all the big fish being caught may stem from comments on the 'Redmire Forever' film, by a few anglers who can't accept not catching or seeing all the big carp in a water.

With regard to the statement that 'in 1976 the pool dried right up' , it just is not true. The level dropped a lot - as did all waters in southern England , and during that period the Bishop was not seen, nor were any of the other giants, but from 1977 onwards they were, and a subsequent netting in 1979? ( I think it was 79) did not produce the Bishop or any carp over 30 lbs, yet in 1980 it was caught at 50lbs.

Snape's posts on this also make it clear that there is a 4ft plus common currently in Redmire that has been seen on occasions over the last seven years but it has not been caught.....................................yet .
There is no peace on earth like the peace of fishing in the early mornings

GazTheAngler

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by GazTheAngler »

Its waiting for SK's next trip!

User avatar
Beresford
Sea Trout
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:26 pm
12

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by Beresford »

To throw another spanner in the works – the big common that is currently seen may or may not be it the same fish that Yates et al saw. Either way the long common has not been caught but only as far as is generally accepted. As was recently pointed out to me: if you fished Redmire and caught it you have some very good reasons for not reporting or publicising the capture…

Jack Hilton is reported to have lost a common about 4 feet long at the net.

I wonder if there might actually be or have been two large commons and that the King is not the same common as that called the 'four feet long' fish. A carp of four feet is believable but by all accounts the King is or was unbelievable.

A fish of 48" may not actually weigh as much as we may think. I've caught a common (twice) 38" long and it only weighed 14.5lbs.

I fish a pool about the size of Redmire and it is very shallow over much of its area. This water holds about 45 to 50 carp up to 30lbs - or at least that's the largest reported to have been caught. There are also a good number of specimen tench and bream along with large perch and a few big pike, however, at best you might see a dozen or so carp on a warmish day so that Redmire can hide its big fish is of no great surprise to me.

Equally when netted this won't reach down into the silt/mud or into the really deep hole that has been located.
Last edited by Beresford on Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Split Cane Splinter Group

User avatar
The Sweetcorn Kid
Wild Carp
Posts: 11787
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:09 pm
12
Location: Portsmouth
Contact:

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by The Sweetcorn Kid »

Got my name all over it... :Wink:


Angling World.....prepare to be once again well and truly rocked!!!!!
SK
The Compleat Tangler

“Imagination is the real magic that exists in this world. Look inwards to see outwards. And capture it in writing.”

Nigel 'Fennel' Hudson



Click here for my Youtube Channel...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeoyLH ... 5H4u8sTDgA

User avatar
Barbulus
Tench
Posts: 2508
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:51 pm
10

Re: Redmire's Real Monster - The King

Post by Barbulus »

SK - I believe I am there before you ? Ha Ha Ha ! Will I report it though ?

Post Reply

Return to “Carp (Cyprinus carpio)”