The article said it was 50" long. However, it has a very long kype, which is actually an extension to its underlying skeleton length (see a fuller explanation here). So, if we subtract 4" of kype growth we have a fish that entered the river at 46" length, for which the measured girth of 33" (much of it depleted stomach flanks) was consistent. When fresh at that length it would have been up to 42 lbs in weight. However, cock fish shed weight faster than hens: by late October a 15lbs cock will have shed anything between 20 and 30% of its body mass; and very big fish, which are better at energy conservation, tend towards the lower end of that scale. So based on the MCX depletion scale rather than Sturdy's, I suggest that the Boleside fish would have tipped the scales at around 34 lbs.
Charlie, many thanks for a superb and very interesting thread. It has been a real education to look carefully at good rectangular photos of specimen fish free of 'nose in the lens' extension: a true reality check. And not a single angler with their rod balanced on the back of their head! Those must have been heady days indeed at Bolstad.
Many thanks for a great thread and some fantastic pictures of truly magnificent salmon from the "golden era". My main conclusion is that when salmon are hung on a rail, many can guess the weight fairly closely (even I fluked one or two). It is much harder to estimate the weight when the fish is placed or held at different angles and with no obvious scale to measure against. Which of course is how the vast majority of modern C & R salmon are photographed.