I have seen a lot of older taxidermy and I must be honest that most of the older stuff is horrific. Even if you flip through the Trophy Room series of books most of the work in those homes is very bad. Most of the pics look like they were taken in the 70s and 80s. I got thinking about it again while at the Chicago Field museum looking at the animals, most were horrible quality.

I searched long and hard for a quality taxidermist for my recent safari trophies and they turned out wonderful. The interesting thing is that everyone who sees them is shocked and invariably comments on how "life like" they look.

So this all begs the question, when did Taxidermy take things to the next level? What are the key things that make them look so much better today?

Here is an example of a leapard at the field museum



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I think Akeley's elephants are awesome!

There has always been good and bad taxidermy even from the beginning. However if you have to pick a person and a time I would say Carl Akeley and his vision really had a major impact on changing taxidermy for the better. James L. Clark, Robert Rockwell and other museum taxidermists of the time really knew their subject inside and out. They had to in order to produce realistic mounts.

It is a lot easier for taxidermists now to create anatomically accurate mounts as there are lots of good forms available. Some of the old masters really started with nothing and yet produced some really great looking mounts.

To me the difference has always been with those who really study how live animals look and pay attention to the small details. It is really that simple. No matter if you start with the best forms or make everything from scratch, you have to know what the live animal looks like
or the mount is doomed.

Perhaps there is more exposure now with books, forums like this, websites, etc..
so hunters are more keen on noticing the difference betweeen quality and crap. Hunters are demanding realism now and that is good thing.

I think one thing that will never change is that back then and now, the majority of mounts produced are not that great looking when compared to the live animal.

On the other hand, GeoffM24, there is some superb period taxidermy in the Field Museum, and in the American Museum of Natural History and in the Smithsonian.

My sense is that the quality of the taxidermy has always been dependent upon the talents of the particular skinners, tanners and taxidermists who produced it.

Given the use of commercial forms and better technology these days, it is probably easier to produce a great looking mount than ever before.

But even with today's advantages, inept skinners, tanners and taxidermists can still make a mess of things.

I will be interested to hear what the professionals think on this subject.

It must be kept in mind, that many of the older mounts in the field museum are a product of their time. There were no cameras with telephoto lenses that let the researcher/Taxidermist get good close-up references. Without references, one cannot recreate an accurate rendering of the subject at hand.

Carl Ethan Akeley knew this. He invented the Akeley Camera that the Eastman Kodak Co. produced, and this allowed better photographs to be attained than was previously possible. Akeley also knew a thing or to about the importance of sculpting the subjects anatomy correctly to produce accurate representations of the animals taken in for the museums. The others that followed, such as James Lippett Clark, Robert Rockwell, Louis Paul Jonas, Leon Luther Pray, Gardell Christensen, Joseph Nocera, among others followed suite in this pursuit of anatomical and scientific accuracy in the mounted specimens they produced.

The specimens have not changed, but the supplies have. Even with those changes one thing remains the same ... the Taxidermist needs the skills to complete top notch work. Not all our new forms and mannikins are worth the money! Many of them cannot be mounted on without extensive corrections and/or alterations. Some Deer head forms for example, look more like body builders on steroids - some of what I call the "Latest and Greatest" - which I do not use because they are incorrect and inaccurate. And in that respect the Taxidermist must know what they are doing. They must know anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, and have a library of good clear reference photos. I cannot stress enough the last part, because no one "knows" what an animal looks like. Without photographic backup you're just guessing.

Commercial Taxidermy took a real nose dive - quality wise - during the forties, fifties, and sixties, where "good enough" was good enough. There were exceptions, however, like Jonas Brothers Taxidermy. They demanded quality work be produced by their studio, as did their clients. But in general, the state of commercial Taxidermy was a pretty sad affair.

The Renaissance in Taxidermy started in the mid to late seventies when Joe Kish began the Taxidermy Review Magazine, where taking note of the subjects particulars was brought to the forefront of creating quality Taxidermy. Other Taxidermists such as Forest Hart, Tommy Ray, Jim Kosi, Bob Berry, Henry Wichers Inchumuk, and Nico van Royen in Africa just to name a few, were producing high quality work in what had become a pretty dismal looking collection of garbage mounts. They began to emphasize the importance of exact measurements, the use of references, and closer attention to detail than had been previously paid attention to in most commercial work. Joe Kish had a saying ... "Make the mannikin fit the skin, not the other way around ... don't be just another 'skin fitter'!" Words I've lived by after I heard them.

It still holds true, that a quality mount starts in the field with proper care and treatment of the skins. Then those skins need to be properly tanned by a competent, professional commercial Tannery. After that, top of the line supplies must be employed to create the mount, along with good reference material to know it is being done right. All that and the proper time must be given a mount in order to do them justice. These places that crank shit out are producing laughable work. Speed leads to one thing ... mistakes. Just ask any mechanic what they tell their customers when bugged about how long something will take to get done. Usually it something like: "You want it done fast, or you want it done right?"

Another latest and greatest to be aware of are the "big" mounts ... those that are all flash and little substance. Dynamic presentations that have more incorrect anatomy in them than should be allowed, but which are overlooked for these inadequacies because they "impress". It's easy to pass off inferior attention to detail when the piece overpowers and overwhelms the viewer. It's when you "stop and smell the roses" or in this case stop and pay attention to the details that this become apparent.

So no ... not all Taxidermy has gotten "better" ... most of it has gotten better, some of it has gotten different, some of it has remained the same, some has taken a quantum leap backwards, and some of it has stayed the same. It all depends on the talent, lack of talent, ego, and attitude of the Taxidermist that will determine lasting quality. And this is something every Hunter must decide for themselves.

John.

Carl Ackley would be my choice for first, with museum taxidermy. Then Joe Kish and others took it to a second level. I would say Mike Boyce then took it to third level with his action mounts and elaborate displays for commercial work. Boyce came out with a mount of leaping mule deer that swept the awards at SCI, and you still see his work on the back cover of SCI magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by RBHunt:
Carl Ackley would be my choice for first, with museum taxidermy. Then Joe Kish and others took it to a second level. I would say Mike Boyce then took it to third level with his action mounts and elaborate displays for commercial work. Boyce came out with a mount of leaping mule deer that swept the awards at SCI, and you still see his work on the back cover of SCI magazine.

That's because he pays to be there, and has the back page pretty much locked up.

And those action mounts ... Jonas Brothers Taxidermy, Denver was doing action mounts back in the 1940's, and the former Knopp Brothers in Spokane, was doing those mounts in the 1970's.

Like I tell everybody, those mounts are nothing new, or innovative. "What's old is new again!"

John.

As has been said, there has always been good and bad taxidermy and I'll add to that by saying there has always been good and bad taxidermy all over the world.

The Van Ingen Brothers for example were producing some fantastic work in the 1920s or 30s or so until they retired.

Quite a lot of their work came up for auction in London recently and going from the pics, they still looked bloody good and I seem to remember, fetched very good prices as well.

Here's a couple of pics of their home in India that must have been taken (probably) in the 60s or 70s.





Quality of finished taxidermy begins the moment the animal hits the ground. The quality of skinning and time before skinning are important as is the type and quality of salt used, storage and several other factors all contribute to quality of finished work and no matter how good the taxidermist, he can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

One common mistake a lot of hunters make in selecting their taxidermist (and indeed their hunt) is to make price their first criteria and that of course is a big mistake. No matter what you're spending your money on, you cant get top quality at the cheapest price.

Steve,
Taxidermy got "good" when artists and sculptors started doing a great deal of sculpting of forms. Forms determine the overall "base" that the taxidermist starts with. Another aspect is that there are several very high quality taxidermist supply companies that constantly upgrade the detail in the forms. This helps the average taxidermist become very good.

Another aspect is quality photography for use in reference photos. Every taxidermist worth is salt (or borax) has an extensive collection of reference photos to be sure he gets the eyes, ears and facial expressions perfect.

The focus on diarama work helps as well.

Fish are better know also due to better paints, airbrush equipment and the extensive use of replica forms. I have nothing but replicas now - never again will I use the actual fish skin.

In my opinion, the one area needed to continue to improve is the quality of the tannery work. These guys are bulk businesses and still use technology from many years ago.

Another aspect of "good" taxidermy is peer pressure. The guy working out of his garage is sorely pressed to meet the quality expectations of the customer these days. The local guy, without training or peers to look at his work, is rapidly fading.

Competition is good and the type of competitions between taxidermist is and will continue to press them to turn out great work.

Dogcat,

Working on the assumption that "taxidermy got "good" when artists and sculptors started doing a great deal of sculpting of forms" then we can assume that because the world has had good sculptors since the time of the ancient Greeks (the Venus De Milo is a good example) and even before that.

I agree that getting the form right is imperative and even now, we still see mistakes on that front..... one commonly seen fault is African cats on American forms such as mountain lion but even assuming the right form all the other aspects also have to be right and if even one of them is wrong, the the piece will always look wrong.

As you say, photography and also measurements are also a great help and with the advent of digital photography has never been easier to do.

I appreciate and don't disagree with your comment about tanneries but at the end of the day, their work is a chemical process combined with skill of the operators and I don't really see what they can do about improving the chemical process. As far as the skill of the operators is concerned, that really goes back to my point about price. If you want quality, whether it be in a tannery, a taxidermist, hunting outfitter, hunting area, vehicle or firearm, you have to pay the higher price.

All in all, I'd say good taxidermy has been available for close to a century but the same rules apply now as they did then...... you want good work, you gotta pay for it and if you buy cheap, you're gonna get cheap shit.

Your very last comment is the best comment of all.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Your very last comment is the best comment of all.

It always astounds me why so many people who must otherwise be reasonably successful in their businesses and therefore at least reasonably intelligent fail to recognise that simple fact of life when they book a hunting safari that could cost them their very life if they book with the wrong person or company.

Just look at the number of posts where people ask 'what's the best company to book ?????? with?' and then it turns out they mean 'what's the cheapest etc'

Ah well. It ain't gonna change.

Worth looking over if you are in the market for some good taxidermy work..

Some taxidermy is still poor because they are trying to make it look stuffed (vs. alive). Look at what passes for good in Africa against their very best. It's stylized into a certain "look" instead of trying to replicate how the animal actually appears alive.

it continues to get more amazing each day