Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bird Taxidermy' started by Terrys Artistic Taxidermy, Oct 16, 2011.
Anyone hear air leaking somewhere?
Thank you for saying that, James.
The concept behind some of these mounts is definitely praiseworthy but I look at anatomical accuracy and overall composition first.
Glad some one brought that up .
X3 not all that impressed with air mounts.
Hey Mike Vernelson! Show em your stellars eider!!
Can any of you show some photos of regularly mounted birds you did 25 to 30 years ago, so we can see how anatomically correct they are? Have you ever even done a difficult mount?
Why that old? What's the thing with all your old mounts? I'd rather see some modern, good looking mounts instead of ancient stuff.
O.K. Show one of yours.
i dont think so.
I have no dog in this fight, but will say this...
Why the bitching?
If any of you have done any of the air type mounts, you know how much extra work and planning goes into it.
It has a "Wow" factor to most any client, regardless of anatomical perfection.
Terry is asking to see any/all mounts of this type...probably finds it interesting.
I do too....just not the pissing match.
better get me some popcorn daniel
I wasn't trying to start a peeing match. Yes, I realize these were done when I was just a little fellow. Considering the time period and the quality of work that was produced back then, they are good mounts. Terry, I wasn't trying to be critical of your work but rather making a statement about the industry in general. My point was simply what I said...it is rare to see a "modern" air mount that is anatomically accurate and cleanly done. Show me a modern piece like that mallard pair or those shovelers with good anatomy, and I'll be impressed. Otherwise, I think folks should forgo the "air" and instead focus on the anatomy and getting the bird "right". I see this all the time in the competition room. Lots of folks spend hours doing really elaborate pieces with plenty of "wow factor" but it looks like they mounted the bird in the dark and then spent 15 minutes grooming it.
The animal should be the best part of the piece. The habitat and attachment point should compliment the bird, not take the focus away from it. I've seen anatomically accurate mounts with this problem as well. You spend more time looking at the intricacies of the habitat than you do the detail in the bird.
Again, I appreciate the hard work, ingenuity, and creativity in those pieces. I also appreciate the fact that folks who were doing these types of mounts back then were "pushing the envelope". They were really pioneers that helped pave the way for the modern era of taxidermy.
That was well said.
I remember back in the very late 90's we worked on you guessed it, shovelers, doing the air mount. There were three suspended from one another, two drakes and a hen. Even after all the bird mounts over the years I still remember how much a pain it was to not only do but keep the anatomy in check with having to use such thick wires. Just a logistical nightmare with that 3rd one. Cool? Yea, but a thinner piece of driftwood along the back or reeds, etc would have gave the same look with 1/10th the time. I've done a few double air mounts that aren't too bad but don't take pics or post for one very good reason, I don't want anyone to see them so they want their's done that way ;D
Mounted in 1987. Don't even TALK to me about the difficulty of "air" mounts .....
"Hmmmm.....something needs to be said here. Just not sure what it is....."
The reason I posted this topic was because birds spend a lot of time there. It's interesting how some chose to condemn instead of posting a photo of what was asked for. The reason I put in old, technically non-perfect mounts was because I KNOW how difficult this very rare aspect of taxidermy is. So someone willing to TRY a difficult mount won't be intimidated by the perfection demanded by the 'experts', that talk of anatomical accuracy. When I did those mounts, years before Breakthrough Magazine began, the only mounts I saw were of poorly mounted specimens done years earlier. There was no books that I knew of that showed how it was done. (I taught myself how to do bird taxidermy from a 10 page pamphlet published in the 1930's out of Bossier City, Louisiana, which had drawings of birds just standing there.) I find it inconceivable that people will knock someones work, but then not show how it's done better, when the post was asking for photos, not opinions.
To the 5 or 6 people that opined that anatomical accuracy is more important to them than hidden suspension, I'll wager $50 against all and any of you that you can't make a better pheasant suspended on another's wing mount, 30 years later, with all the information and better materials that are available today. I'll give you 3 months to make one like the 2 photos posted. (Don't worry, someone will buy it for at least twice the price of your typical two pheasant mount).
The reason a lot of my mounts are from a while back is because since I moved to Hawaii about 10 years ago, 95% of my work are gameheads. The following pheasant mount was done a few months ago. By just adding the concealed wire and 20 minutes of extra work, another $200 was added to the price of that piece. When people see it, they figure that I'm the best taxidermist around because who remembers the typical stuff? And because I'm very careful about mothproofing, birds that I mounted 30 to 40 years ago are still around.