these were just finished by my taxidermist and hunting buddy. i thought would show some of his work. what's you think.

these were done by rick baber at highlander taxidermy in grottoes,va.

As they say he has the skills to pay the bills!
Those are the best looking mounts I have seen posted on MANY sites. He has done a job well done. If he was close to me he would be my friend too. Then he would be doing some for me.
Ron

Since you asked I see 2 things I don't like about the mounts. 1. The ears are to low. and 2. On the middle deer what are those lines on the lower jaw? I see this with some mounts that the taxidermists do - they add muscle tone that isn't really on real deer. I see it most often on the neck, this is the first time I've seen it on a jaw.

Otherwise they look pretty darn good!

Dogcatcher noted a few of several problems I saw on the mounts. The danger about posting pictures here or on any site is that you're going to invariably run into people who recognize superb work and will scald you when you brag about something of lesser quality. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if you're happy with how they look, then you got more than your money's worth. The quality of the mounts is probably above average as there's some really REALLY bad work out there, but it's far from the quality you'll see at most shows and competitions. Your friend could use a few seminars about anatomy and seems to have talent enough to clean these pieces up into quality animals.

I think this is the type of muscle detail some taxidermist try to get and end up over doing it.

Notice the so called lines in the neck?


[IMG]

srw, the ears ARE low. Anatomically, if lay a straight edge on the upper wing of the nostril opening and cross the iris of the eye, your straight edge will always hit the ear canal. Those earbutts may turn an ear down, but the location of the canal remains the same. Joe Meder's forms don't impress me a lot as I find that single feature along with the shoddy eye sockets make him one of my last choices. Dennis Behn, Buckeye, Research, WASCO, Joe Coombs, Danny Foster, and Ben Mears (now through McKenzie) will always be my choices ahead of Meder's.

srw, why does it have to get personal. A person doesn't have to know how to play the organ in order to tell when the organist screws up. Contrary to your remarks, I love the work of other taxidermists and I'm fortunate enough to know some of the very best in the world. I'm NOT one of them however, and I do commercial work that has its problems as well. I'm just VERY CAREFUL in posting them on a TAXIDERMY FORUM of any type because it only opens one up to criticism. Some people just don't like their work criticized, and as such, probably shouldn't bother to post it. None of that's PERSONAL. It's OBJECTIVE and PROFESSIONAL.

BTW, if you've ever done the big brutes, you'll know that they do quite well in swiveling their ears underneath those beams. They didn't grow their ears AFTER their horns got big. If you look at a world class whitetail, they usually have very thin hair on the back center of their ears for that very reason: rubbing it on the underside of that antler. The antlers are usually polished underneath for that very same reason.

Come on George! Post Up Some Photos!
LOL... SRW wants to see some photos of your work.

SRW...You did ask what we think. So here are a few things from this taxidermist.

1 - For sure He has the skills to pay the bills.
In his part of the world I'm sure He is Awsome but, when you leave collage and go to the Pros if gets a little ruff.
2 - over all I like the mounts.
But,
3 - the lower lids are bad.
4 - the ears are incorrect. It's not that they are to low, They look funny because they do not have big enough ear butts.
5 - What is up with the lines in the hair? Muscle tone will not cause lines in the hair.
6 - Lay off the black paint.The first one looks like he is from China.
7 - Just because Meder made it, doesn't mean it is correct.
8 - from what I can see he had slack in the skin and did not know what to do with it. The skin is not taxied correctly, It shows in the hair patterns.

9 - Apples? Can you compare apples? I think the 3 Deer posted are muture bucks right? A young Deer might have the muscle tone but an old Deer will not.

John, that's some great work you have on your website (but then again, what do I know? LMAO)

Thanks George, It's better then some and worse then others but, I make a living just like all of them.

George!

I have enjoyed your input on Taxidermy.net for years. Welcome to AR!

srw, What did you expect? You came on here asking us what we thought. We told you our honest opinions. If you didn't want our opinions then why did you ask?

If it makes you feel better I'll lie to you and tell you that they are the best mounts I've ever seen. Does that make you feel better?

SRW,
You must understand that EVERY mount has something wrong with it, it is humanly impossible to reproduce something exactly the way God made it. So, from a taxidermist point of view we will always look at a mount and immediately point out what is wrong with it. We have to have the attitude of never being satisfied with a mount so we can continually be upgrading and improving our work. Don't take offense to the critisizm, if we listen to it our work will always improve. Tell your friend the most important thing he can do is use reference pictures of LIVE animals and don't use other mounts or the forms themselves for reference. The muscle lines and veins in face make look kinda cool but, I have never seen the vein show through the hair on a deer that was shot during season, Nov-Jan. Just because it's in the form doesn't necessarily mean it should show through the skin. Your friend is doing very well, if he will keep an open mind he will make a good taxidermist.

Well said Jerry!

Posting photos of mounts and then asking for opinions can cause some grief. As several guys pointed out there is probably something wrong with every mount.

So the bottom line is are you happy with them and proud of them? They are certainly nice mature deer and most hunters would be happy to have a shot at anyone of them.

If you are truely looking for a critique of the work vs an opionion of the trophies E-mail me as I'd never publicly criticise a hunters trophies or a fellow taxidermist work!

Info@mikescustomtaxidermy.com
www.mikescustomtaxidermy.com

Madabula,

I sent you a PM

JDS

Mike, that sounds quite noble, but we both know it's patently untrue. Anyone who's ever entered any taxidermy competition is aware that the resultant ribbon or lack thereof is certain a public critique. If a person wants a private critique, they shouldn't hang a picture out where other practitioners gather. I have a rule I live by. If the truth offends you, you should, by all means, avoid it.

George,
You are being unusually cordial and ameable...and I'm not really used to it

Not that you are incorrect in what you have posted...it is spot-on as far as I am concerned, but I guess I'm more used to the no-bullshit Geo from the T-net.

I agree that when you post a mount on a taxidermy forum, it better be good or it's gonna get creamed. Enough of us know what good work is and isn't, and tricky camera angles and bad lighting are not gonna cut it. Most of us are also competitors (at taxidermy shows) and we have been hammered time and time again. With that, our work has improved, and I suspect that we, as a group, are less tolerant of marginal work than the average man on the street.

I also noticed the problems with these mounts right away, but I usually keep my opinion to myself unless a critique is asked of me. I guess the adage of "praise in public and reprimand in private" are good words to live by, so I'll keep my comments to myself on this one.

I must have missed something. Did srw post some harsh comments, then delete them after he didn't like the way the thread went?

Regardless, if you like the way they look, that is all that counts.

I've shot a fair number of southern deer and I've been to taxidermist's shops while other hunters were present, dropping off bucks they wanted mounted. Many many times I'd hear, "put as MUCH detail in it as you can. I like to see every line, every muscle."

I'm thinking to myself, ok, this guy wants a deer on the wall that looks nothing like reality, but it's his money, and HE's the one that has to look at it. So, many taxidermists oblige, even though some don't want to admit they mounted it because it doesn't look natural.

I can honestly say, that in the last 20 or so years of hunting and filming deer, and the countless hours I've spent with friends that own deer, I've never ever seen jaw line details on the mandible on any live deer. However, I've seen several with striking detailed neck muscles depending on their position. Most of these being southern deer, and early season.

Frankly, some taxidermist add anatomy to the eyes that isn't even present on the live deer. Every year I visit a friend north of me that owns about 15 deer. I've been in the pen, have taken multiple pictures, and each deer has different eyes. About half actually have a detectable eyelid. Any good taxidermist won't let a deer leave his/her shop without a good detailed eye....it is the soul of the mount. But the reality is, many deer don't even have one that shows.

Several of the Does have bulging eyes that would look goofy on a mount but hey, that is how they look naturally. Isn't it funny how something that is alive doesn't look as eye appealing as what a good taxidermist can do?

Some taxidermists overdo the eye detail. I think Joe Meder is a very accomplished taxidermist and has designed a good line of manikins so long as the deer has a good swell to the neck. I do not care for his manikins that have less than a 21" neck. There is too much taper as it meets the topline of the shoulder, as though the neck gets smaller again before it meets the thorax. I've never seen a deer like that, so to me, it looks, well, goofy and very un-natural. Plus, it is my opinion that Mr. Meder has a 'relaxed' look to 90% of the bucks. The eyes all look heavy as though the deer just drank 5 bottles of Nyquil. Plus, he sculpted his well known whitetail head after his buck he owned, Ringo, so they all look like that deer.

I do like the soft rounded "bull" look to the mature 8" whitetail head Meder sculpted (front view). But, Denny Behn gets my vote as the best sculptor overall. Meder manikins also need a bit more work when tucking the liplines, but once you get used to that, it's a breeze. A topview of the shoulders is too soft IMO also. They are not "bulky" enough. I've paid close attention to the Ohio bucks when they walk under my stand, and the McKenzie manikins show that stronger shoulder that I'm used to.

I have had taxidermists use a Meder head on a McKenzie manikin just because that is what the deer looked like when I killed it. Roman nose, head round and soft contoured, not blocky, but the gradual swell taper of the neck as it meets the shoulder line.

Oddly, it is my opinion that whoever sculpted the MULEdeer manikins for Buckeye knows what a good mulie looks like in the face compared to many of the "specialists" out west. They are more attractive, IMO, in addition to the McKenzie manikins, than Jonas, some Research, Van Dykes, etc. Joe Coombs mulies look pretty good when the neck has a degree of swell to it. But honestly, and this is JMO, there are not a whole lot of great mulie manikins out there. Sorry, got off topic.

Want to see some rediculous manikins, take a look at Dan Chase's stuff. Lets see, he adds about, oh, 50 extra muscle lines throughout the neck, that don't even exist on a live buck. Some folks like that, I think it is rediculous.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Damn Doc, tell us how you really feel. LMAO. I agree with all you've said here. Joe's deer forms just leave me wanting.

You are correct in your assumption that srw pulled a comment of his in between where you see two postings of mine. He was a bit testy and I suppose he regretted what he'd said after he posted it.

Well, many of the above comments are correct, you can't ask everyone what they think and not expect some critique on a TAXIDERMY forum.

My guess is the guy thought the deer looked flawless, and exceeded his expectations, and perhaps they did, but ultimately I found many things that didn't appear "correct," with the first being the lack of ear butt muscle.

Honestly, those mounts are far superior to many many many I've seen, and whoever mounted them has all the basics down. If he is open minded and willing to continue to learn, he can certainly be a VERY GOOD taxidermist! But to srw, I'd say to simply encourage you friend and hunting partner to pick up some extra tips here and there from Taxidermy.net, or even go to some shows. He can segway into being a great taxidermist in a short time, but only if he's not offended and has a thick skin.

3 of the past taxidermists I've used all have their own deer in pens, for constant reference. The guy I used in Indiana has a buck in his back yard and I'll just add that having a live reference is worth any amount of effort it takes to keep that animal alive.

Sorry if I sounded like I got off on a tangent srw, but try not to be offended. You asked for thoughts and you got them. I actually thought the guy did pretty damn good in the tear ducts from what I can tell. That is an area that really pisses me off. I used to hate getting a deer back and seeing all that putty or goop or whatever the hell that shit is all stuffed into the tear duct. And then some guys paint that shit BLACK. WTF??

Take a drill and cut out that tear duct from the manikin and use epoxy, resculpt, and ta-da, natural.

Hey George, are my posts really that bad?

Sorry, I'm a real picky bastard!!

Oh, and don't get me wrong, I DO like the larger meder manikins, the offset shoulder semisneak is my favorite of his, but I can pick apart several of the Mckenzie forms I don't care for too. I noticed on some of Denny's recent stuff he sculpted a more petite face on some of the bucks where they'd look better with a stronger head, like a Meder or a Ben Mears.

Mears makes a real pig doesn't he?! My neighbor shot a buck so big that the taxidermist HAD to use a Mears manikin, no one else make one large enough.

What is used in the tear duct now a days? Last visit I made to a the local taxidermist they used beeswax with coloring mixed in the wax.

NOTHING is used "in" the lacrymal glad today. Most of us insure that there's a "puffiness" around the edges by either working the form and pinning the gland to the bottom, OR by placing a small ring of potters clay around it and then taxiing the skin to have it accented.

they are awsome !