Doc....are we looking at the same pictures? Skinny? Both those deer have at least the mass as the one you posted.....but anyhow....doesn't really matter. It does kind of crack me up that you appear to get a little defensive. Is that the biggest deer you have shot? What does it score anyhow?
MHH
P.S. And not to bust chops, but there isn't a deer on this thread that would stand out at a deer show, mine included. To stand out, a deer has to be one of two things, unique, in the sense that it is a true freak of nature, or massive, as in scoring over 200". I am a scorer and I see alot of deer....very very few stand out. Both of our deer are nice, but none are that special.....some day I hope to get one of those true bohemeths though.....some day

My gues would be right around mid 160's gross n/t

Awwwwwwww Moose I was not being "defensive" but objective just like you. I said "thank you" for YOUR objective opinion but if your going to dish it out you have to be able to accept a little to ...thats all I was doing ... and WHAT are you smoking Bro ..there is NO way those deer YOU posted have the same amount of mass unless your seeing double or something. As for what my deer scored, to me score means very little because a "trophy" is in the eye of the beholder BUT in that you asked my deer scored 178 5/8 B&C gross NT ... 185 1/8 BTR composite and 173 5/8 offical not bad for a deer that was aged to be 8 to 9 years old ( only had 4 teeth) and only a 12in inside spread so your "guess" was ONLY about 20in off, I guess thats kinda close for a guy who scores a LOT of deer like you... AND if you get Big Buck magazine you can read about it this Junes edition or in Rack magazines November issue... hemmm seems SOMEONE must think it stands out !

Doc

I agree with you DD, I would take mass over width too. I like a big heavy set of antlers. Mhh there is no way that those two deer you posted have as good of mass as the one dd shot.

Actualy mhh was only 10" off on his guess and I don't see what the big deal is....everything mhh said was right IMHO. It's a nice deer but not great....get over it and move on.

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 ....

Mic thank you for your opinion also ... its obvious to me you know a class animal when you see one ..

DD

You are one of the rudest people I've ever seen on the forum.
Mid 160's would mean 165, at least. So he was off by 13 5/8 based only on photos. I'd say that's pretty darned good.

Well I suppose your right I have been a little rude BUT it was only because I felt ole Moose was a little rude with his remarks ...and thats where my remarks were aimed...if I have offended any other of the users on this forum I do appoligise ..

DD

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!

Well I do have to admit that is a fine deer ... and if your the one who took it my hats off to you and its obvious you know what your talking about ...but if THAT is you then I suggest you change your screename ... and if its not you please show us a few of YOUR deer ...

DD