Chrud Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Re: 2005 mount I'll be brutally honest. I hate the eyes on yours. To me, a deer's eyes have very little color difference from the pupil to the iris, from a distance it looks like a solid color. I wouldn't say I'm partial to how my mount was done, but most mounts that have eyes similar to mine I think look good. Personally, I would be really upset if I got a whitetail mount back with eyes with color contrast like yours. The red on the mouth is strange also. And the neck in the picture looks a lot bigger. It's not a horrible mount, I've seen worse. But if I were you, I would also not be 100% satisfied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest psefirestormlite Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Re: 2005 mount He looks like he used a head mount that does not have a swollen neck. The head mount looks like what he would look like late summer early fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnf Posted January 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Re: 2005 mount What yo guys have mentioned is pretty much what bothers me. He had been fighting a lot and there are scratches on his shoulder and neck that are in some pictures that I didn't post and the bullet hole wasn't fixed (at my request) So that part doesn't bother me. The bridge of his nose is clearly a lot more pronounced, the goat eyes and the little panzy neck relly just irritate the crap out of me. As for the quality of the work, it's about his average. I just expected the mount tor resemble the buck that I shot, not a 2 1/2 year old year with a good rack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Re: 2005 mount One thing John that I did notice that maybe the taxidermist intended was that the puny neck exaggerates the spread on your deer. Maybe that was his goal? Not that the spread is not already nice, just a thought. The spread on your kill pic does not look as big as the mount, my deer I have taken to the taxidermist are usually right opposite when I get them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisticwhitetails Posted January 12, 2007 Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 Re: 2005 mount You have to keep in mind that neck size always looks bigger after death due to the lack of muscle tone. HOWEVER, the form used for this deer dont do it any justice due to the fact that {a} it's a smaller form, {b} it appears to be a pre-rut form, {c} just a guess but it probably is one of the cheaper form lines from Im guessing Van Dykes. The eyes look like the cheap ones VD sells. The overall mount job dont look too bad, ears and butts look pretty good, eye shape if a little off, too much lip line is showing, finish work could be better. The cheap materials = cheaper price for you = what you received back. The mount was probably dry preserved so at this point all you can really do is find another cape and re-mount. I would go with a a nice Mckenzie full rut form for this buck. Something like this comes to mind. [image][/image] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasDeerHunter Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Re: 2005 mount I have a couple of mounts that I am not satisfied with, but then again I paid about 150 ea for them. My buck at the taxidermist now will cost 500, and is expected to look a whole lot better. I think you got what you paid for. He does not look like the deer in your post kill pics , but it is'nt bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slim Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Re: 2005 mount those eyes looks like their sheep or goat eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.