Hello. I've been looking at some past posts regarding mule deer mannikins trying to get an idea of what you folks like and why. I have been hunting for several years and have been fortunate to take many animals to get work done. I am very familiar with the taxi catalogues so I can pick my own mannikins: McKenzie, Jonas, Coombs, Van Dykes, Precision, and several more.
I was just reading a thread about McKenzie mannikins not being accurate. The thread was just towards the end of April. I'm not a taxidermist but I do take about a dozen photos of my kills to show them to my taxidermist for color, contour, shape, and of course measurements.
Honestly, I have hunted many western states, Colorado included and have killed my fair share of mulies, some big, some medium, some small. I can tell you from a customers point of view that I do not like Buckeye mule deer heads, unless it is very large. I believe (like the other thread mentioned) that the heads are too broad across the nose and a bit blocky without smooth contour. In fact, I've been rather disatisfied with most mulie mannikins EXEPT McKenzie. Yes, in some animals the brisket and chest is somewhat out of proportion, and I think too many of the mannikins are meant for "early" season kills, but the head is overall the closest to matching all of the mulies I've taken. Lancaster has sculpted an accurate head but the chest wall is unappealing.
Ultimately, we've decided to use whitetial mannikins with a change-out mulie head from McKenzie, and I couldn't be happier, especially with the medium sized necks that need swell. The taxidermist just builds up the brisket with foam. These modifications take time and I pay for it but it's worth it. I've heard that Meder uses his own whitetail mannikins for mulie and modifies the brisket, cuts the head off, wedges it in the rear skull to match the real head, and if I recall, broadens the nose bridge slightly. Looks better than most Mule deer mannikins I've seen.
Some of the Jonas mannikins look too flat on the forehead. Coombs faces are too petite.
Is there a way to post pictures here on this site?
Return to Deer Taxidermy Category Menu
?
We just love customers that supply their own catalogs
I never said I supply catalogues...But I do order them. And yes, my taxidermist does "love" me. I refer a ton of business his way. He states that he appreciates it and I have no reason to believe he is dishonest.
What was the ? for?
McKenzie mulies are the absolute worst mulie forms I have ever used!
The profile is way off, it looks like a triangle with eyes. And the chest is not just slightly off, it is enormous! I have measured the circumferance around various forms, and most are around 45", and the McKenzie is 54". That is a nine inch difference which is significant. And the McKenzies are the only ones that are huge like that. I have measured Coombs, Research, Lancaster, Buckeye, and Van Dykes.
Another problem with McKenzie is they don't have a prominent shoulder. The chest is more like a blob with armpits. Mulies have a significant shoulder compared to whitetails.
I just bought a Buckeye form for the first time. I have not had a chance to mount on it yet, but I like the looks. It seems very clean and symmetrical. I compared the measurements between the eyes, overall head length, around muzzle, around head, and it seems to be par with the other brands of forms. I won't have a real opinion of it until I mount on it though and see the final "look".
My favorite form thus far is the Van Dykes "Hi-Country". My least favorite is the Research forms sculpted by Frazier or the McKenzie. It is a toss up between the Lancaster and Coombs.
Of course, everyone has a different opinion on what looks right since we are comparing art. But I have had a lot of experience with mulies having guided, working at a processing plant, and working for various taxidermists, and I can tell you, McKenzie is not right.
What I can tell, as I said before, is that with the mulies I'VE KILLED, the McKenzie matches hands down. The heads were just about perfect.
In terms of shoulder fit, I agree, to an extent. The last 4 mulies I killed did NOT have prominent shoulders, in fact they blended in like a Meder whitetail.
I've killed mulies with HUGE briskets, and some with very mild briskets, almost like a whitetail.
Is there a way to post pictures on this website?
If you are not a taxidermist, then how do you know how well a cape fits a form? As long as the measurements of eye to nose, neck and head length match, the cape will fit the ugliest of forms. The face of a mount has nothing to do with the original specimen, it has everything to do with the shape of the form. And that is up to the original artist to sculpt in.
Hi Country series is the worst I've seen next to some old ones in [a supply company] and Jonas. I've seen several mounted up. May fit well, but very unappealing.
I know how well a cape fits a form because I've watched my taxidermists do their work on my stuff over the years and listened to what they had to say. My brother in law is a taxidermist and I've been with him for hours on end learning.
Your statement: "As long as the measurements of eye to nose, neck and head length match, the cape will fit the ugliest of forms. The face of a mount has nothing to do with the original specimen, it has everything to do with the shape of the form. And that is up to the original artist to sculpt in." ....is exactly right. And I know this. That is why it is so frustrating sometimes finding a good mule deer taxidermist here in the midwest. What I've seen so many times is a range of "Elite taxidermists" to "simple game assemblers." The latter is those who are worried about $$, and just want to "mount it up and get it out." Instead of modifying the Manikin to fit the specimen. Now don't anyone blow a fuse here but I look for artists to do my work and I'm willing to pay. I usually pay my guy around $200-$250 over his regular fee when more modifications are necessary.
Bottom line is, to each his own. The mule deer I had mounted up on a Buckeye manikin sucked. It fit, but looked like crap and the guy that did it is good. I had it redone. I spoke with the sculptor of the McKenzie line and read to him your comments to see what he had to say. He did in fact say that if he had to do it over, he'd lessen the chest a few inches but not by much. He also said that "everyone looks for the big roman nose, but not all mulies have it." This is true as I have yet to kill one like that. Mr. Behn also stated that mulies from Mexico really have prominent Roman noses. Finally, he related to me that "that is what clay is for, take the manikin and modify it to suit you." ...and, "you can't please everyone, but I had hundreds of references to work with before sculpting, using calipers to measure." At the time he came up with that series, it was, in his mind, what looked right, no different than any other sculptor.
i think your a little obsessed! i would certainly take your money though!
Clay can change a form, that is correct, BUT... if the chest area is too big, you would have to cut off the backboard, saw it down smaller, then rasp down the whole form, and also cut a wedge out of the brisket, add larger shoulders etc. That is a full modification. You would be better off buying a change out head from McKenzie and slapping it on a good form. I agree about the Roman nosed forms, that is why the Frazier forms suck so bad, they look like a camel.
What state are you in?
Like I said earlier, because of the infinite supply of whitetail mannikin poses, I prefer to use those, change out the head, and build up the shoulders if necessary.
However, I've seen a few mulies mounted up on whitetail manikins with change out heads and other minor modifications and they looked awsome.
I have roughly 168 photos on my computer of mulies as references from Alberta to Mexico. Most pictures were taken of deer in Arizona and Colorado and New Mexico. One picture was taken from a treestand and it shows the top view of the buck (not a real big one but about 250+lbs, and how prominent the shoulders are from topside.
I would prefer to use a mule deer manikin but I simply haven't found one that "has it all" so to speak.
"Like I said earlier, because of the infinite supply of whitetail mannikin poses, I prefer to use those, change out the head, and build up the shoulders if necessary."
I thought you said that you aren't a taxidermist? Do you mean you have your taxidermist change out the heads and use whitetail forms?
90% of the look of the mount is in the face, so why would you insist on using a whitetal neck and chest area? And when I speak of shoulders, I am refering to the front leg joint, not the shoulder blade. The Hi-Country has the best shoulder are I have found thus far. I am anxious to try the Buckeye for myself to see what kind of look it produces. The only thing I can see that might be different is the Buckeye has a more pronounced brow, and a more distinct bridge on it s muzzle near the eyes.
muley fan I would like to see some of your pics.I have mounted muleys from canada to old mexico and you cant use the same mannikin for both without modifications.I use both McKenzie & bill lancasters forms with good results.sometimes I will change out muledeer heads to other muledeer mannikins to find the right look that I want.Dennis Behn is right about the clay & building up the face on some of the sanoran muleys Ive done on his forms.another thing that makes a muley look good is his cape, a pretty cape makes a pretty mount, an ugly cape makes an ugly mount.
Drew,I have used the big buckeye form many times and its pretty good,but it takes a big buck to fit it.
good luck Roger
You are right about the cape being a factor. I just mounted a mulie this past weekend and he is a very light sandy brown color. Since he is so light, there is not a lot of contrast between his neck, and white patch, and his face is also more sandy than white. He also does not have a very dark band across his eyes. He really is a bland looking mount.
Roger, you really ought to try one of those Van Dykes Hi-Country forms and see what you think. I have only used the semi-sneak so far, but I love them. They have great shoulders and a very nice face. I am trying the Buckeye on my buddy's deer, I will post results. You never know if a form has a crap look or not until it is done so I am crossing my fingers. I can tell you that the Hi-country and the Buckeye look noting alike so I am skeptical.
I might give one a try.I really like the Truefitt Lancaster forms and have quite a few to use up.The face on the Van Dykes form kinda looks like the discontinued muley forms from McKenzie,those were nice.The Truefitt wallped Muley is awsome.
The 2 larger buckey forms are the better of the bunch,mount the hornes kinda high & close to the eyes & add some clay under the jawline and the form looks very lifelike.I went to the NTA in Reno in 90 or 91 and the Eppleys had a muledeer mount at thier booth & it looked as if were alive,one of the best muley mount Ive seen.I also asked theme why it wasnt in the compitition area Because it looked better than any in the show.email me a pic of a mount on a high country form.
Thanks for the tips on the Buckeye form.
I loved the face on the old McKenzie too. The 961 was the form to use for mulies in my area. It had a smaller chest than the newer ones and a different face.
I have wanted to try a Trufitt, but there are so many choices I didn't know where to start. I might try one of their forms for elk. And I have two of my own personal deer mounts to do so maybe I will throw one of them on a Trufitt.
The Hi-Country only looks ok in the catalog, in real life it looks very similar to a Lancaster. I don't have any pics of deer mounted on one yet. I took some but I need to finish up the roll. I will send you some when I get the pics back if you give me your email.
McKenzie is the only for I use. Trufitts forms are off in the eyes and nose and there foam density is very pour