Duahhhh BBMG ..I know I are not da sharpest knife in da drawer but I'm A think'n dat 178 - 160 is 18 not 10 if my ole math memory ain't fallin me and just seems to me a guy who is a "scorer" and misses one by 18in needs a little more training but hey I could be wrong! ... as for your HO I do appreciate it ..thats what I had asked for BUT not about the size or caliber of the deer ( I am very satisfied and thats all that matters) I know its not the largest buck in the woods....but the quality of the mount ... I guess it takes a Moose to know a Moose ....

Mid 160's to mid 170's is only a 10" differance at most or if you put it into percentiles....he was only off by 6-7% with his guess.....which is excellent given the photos he was going on....and since you want to be rude to me, I will be brutally honest with you.....your deer is not exceptional, nor is the taxidermy. It is a standard deer mount.....one that has been duplicated hundreds of thousands of times. And as far as being in a magazine......they must be desperate. There are HUNDREDS of deer killed EVERY YEAR the size of yours. The more you push this issue.....the more foolish you make yourself look. Get over it and move on....If you want to see an exceptional n/t....here's one....a 210" n/t...now that is a MONSTER BUCK!