Bit of comment would be interesting on this one please. Its nothing to do with what makes a trophy .I'm like most, and treasure the hunt experience as much as the animals.
I also would say I do like record books simple because they can give excellent geographical information on the best places to find quality trophies.
Like most Kiwi's I've grown up with the Douglas Score(DS) system and was indeed fortunate enough to do a Douglas score seminar with Norman Douglas,shows my age!
So without getting into the deep and meaningful about what makes a trophy a trophy, I'd like some thoughts on whether the DS system is a good measure of a trophy.

It seems to me its based to much on symmetry and mother nature does'nt give points for symmetry. We might,but is that good enough?
Does it really matter? We all like goals ,so I have to say it does matter to me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think Red deer heads over about 16 points look ugly,but thats just my view.

Fallow heads start to look nice over about 180DS,the Fallow that come off your block Highlander are what i would call a trohpy.

Tahr are an interesting one,i think the maine is half the trophy,no good having a 14inch head if thats no maine.

Symmetry is what humans and many animals perceive as attractive (beautiful) or at least thats what I saw on a TV show a few years ago.
So as Top Pred said beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I think the Douglas method is good at measuring what I see as attractive in a trophy.

DS is a pain with its penalties for overspread antlers,for frigs sake why does a wide sambar head incur a penalty for that...The ADA here was pushing for a revision of the method a few years ago.

Narrow sambar stag antlers look pox and its the wide ones that look good,why on earth penalise them for it?

All else is fine with old normans system though.

My only doubts about the DS system is the allocating of points for spread on deer antlers and in not always being able to score unique features that make a certain set of antlers desirable. As Gryph said some of those huge overspread heads look great. Alternatively some of the narrow ones have a character of their own and also look great.
It is not easy to have a system that allocates points fairly at both ends of the spectrum. Do overspread heads get more points for more spread? Should they be classed as 'max spread' with points equal to the antler length?
Underspread heads are just another unique form of antler. Are they really deserving of penalties?
I much prefer a unique head with interesting features than a head that is 'perfect'.
What about those antlers that have that amazing pearling all over with great pointy ivory tips. That isnt scored but goes towards making the antlers look so amazing.
Fallow antlers are another one that is difficult. There are so many different types of antler out there that it is impossible to score them all on the same system.

Some people hate 'cleft palms' but I reckon a big set with clefts in both are just another type of fallow head to search for. Have you ever seen photos of cleft antlers that look just like flames? There is a mount in Elks Hunting and Fishing in Albury that looks great and is the 'flame cleft' type.
Some are gnarly, some are smooth, some have huge guard tines, others look complete without guard tines.

In the end it comes down to the owner or those admiring the antlers. Each have their own opinion of what is desirable. The hunter has the added bomus of being able to remember the hunt, the effort, the location, the shot...

My 25 inch sambar antlers nowhere near rate a mention in any record book but I wouldnt swap them for any other head. He is unique, I hunted for a long time to get him, I shot him in some beautiful country, I remember the feeling when I spotted him, I remember the elation when he dropped and the mount will remind me of the hunt whenever I go past.