1. Welcome to Taxidermy.net, Guest!
    We have put together a brief tutorial to help you with the site, click here to access it.

First attempt

Discussion in 'Fish Taxidermy' started by chromepursuit, Oct 7, 2014.

  1. JL

    JL Taxidermist for 64 years

    First of all, let me apologize for the IDIOTS who jumped on you from the second post and dimmed your hopes for a constructive critique of your fist attempt at TAXIDERMY and let me try to answer you in a constructive way.

    First of all your picture is so dark that it hides any layers of color. Take a better picture and repost it. However there are some areas that can be touched on based on what I can see. First, that reproduction should have been returned to the provider as it is a sub-par repro (I don't care who made it...it sucks). This is not your work but it will affect your results, (garbage-in-garbage-out).

    As for the work you did, your paired-fins positions are not naturally placed. The fish appears to be "walking" on it's fins. This is a beginner's problem we see a lot. Purchase some really good reference pictures and learn the anatomy of your fish and it's physiology as it relates to it's action. Fact: paired fins are not always identical in their positions as the fish moves through the water. The juncture of the fins to the body doesn't show a smooth connection as you applied too much epoxy to the leading edge. I can't see the tail fin enough to help you there. As far as the paint goes..I never saw your reference picture to compare with, but overall the paint application seems to be acceptable considering your experience. Join your State Taxidermy Association and go to their conventions. Even if you don't put a fish in competition, follow the fish judge and listen to his or her critiques. This will be invaluable information for you. Good luck in your future mounts. JL
  2. 1fish2fish

    1fish2fish Well-Known Member

    You even recommended a separate thread Doug. I responded to him as well. Topics experience movement. When we really get into the woods we might find out if that tree fell.

    As for carving, either way, you'd be a fish carver, which is the language they use at the "World Championships." I don't know anything about it, but it seems descriptive enough to me.

    Following suit, do you want to tell that person at the party you just met you are a "Fish mounter" because you do both skin mounts and replicas? Yikes!

    Lots of genuine, approved by definition, fish taxidermists make more of their income on reproductions these days. So, by the economics of what their trade has become, are they still taxidermists by profession? Is a hobbyist who dabbles in taxidermy as defined a taxidermist? Once a taxidermist, always a taxidermist?

    All of this can make as much or little sense as you allow it to. Like Kerby said long ago, reality wins......but whose reality?

    Best, Scott

  3. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    Well JL....if you would like to apologise please do so for yourself without your silly name calling.

    No one "jumped on" CP as you say.

    Chromepursuit actually brought up the concept of doing "taxidermy" in his post and then decided against doing a skin mount in favor of doing a replica which he purchased.

    M.T. correctly pointed out that what he was attempting was NOT taxidermy.

    It went on from there.

    chromepursuit actually seemed to enjoy the direction the thread took as he said;

    "Thanks to those who made compliments tips and critique on my post of the steelhead. Greatly appreciated. The rest of you guys keep on arguing it's more entertaining then the garbage that's on the tv in the house. "

    So, JL, your namecalling seems a bit misplaced and mean spirited.

    I think you actually owe the participants an apology for that childish remark.
  4. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    Scott you are just "picking at gnats" as they say. We could go on with this forever since neither accepts the others basic premise.

    I'm usually up for a discussion and difference of opinion, this may have run it's course for me.

    ;D ;)
  5. JL

    JL Taxidermist for 64 years

    Apology!!!!! I don't think so. You purist guys are so far in the BUll#*%t you don't recognize that your comments keep any beginner in the shadows, afraid to make a statement in fear you will apply your childish reasons to legitimize the definition of a word. If you spent as much time helping the beginner as you did bashing his use of the word Taxidermy in his post I might find some value in your existence in this trade. Now go get a tattoo on your forehead "I'm a true taxidermist" lol. What a crock. JL
  6. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    Purist.....that's a crock!

    JL, any beginner should understand the difference in terminology used. It's called language. Words have meaning. The meaning should be understood. There was no "bashing" done in this thread. You are the one who interjected the venom.

    Don't know why you have your undies in a knot but your post is a very sad statement and reflects badly on your character.

    If you spent as much time helping the beginner as you did bashing his use of the word Taxidermy in his post I might find some value in your existence in this trade. Now go get a tattoo on your forehead "I'm a true taxidermist" lol. What a crock. JL

    I don't think you have a clue how much time I spend helping beginners and I could not care less whether or not you find any value in my existence in this trade. My existence in this trade is no thanks to you! LOL!

    I hope you find some way to overcome your misplaced anger. It does nothing to uplift your image. You seem to display an inflated sense of self which has no justification in reality.
  7. Jimmy Lawrence

    Jimmy Lawrence Well-Known Member

    This thread is awesome....
  8. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    Hi Jimmy! ;D
  9. hodx

    hodx Herman Darr

    So if you don't "taxi" a skin, your not a taxidermist, Correct?
  10. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    the art or process of preparing, stuffing, and mounting animal skins so that they have a lifelike appearance

    That's the Webster dictionary definition. Obviously some people disagree with that. ;D

    I don't.

    What's your opinion??
  11. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    Wow, idiots, thank you so much for the enlightenment JL. Makes me wonder, if you can come to the assumption others are idiots without any research, how much effort did you put into research when you came to the conclusion you know what you are talking about. If you knew half of what you thought you did, you'd also know that every single person involved in this conversation has gone above and beyond to help the beginner. Doug, Kerby, Scott and others. I myself have been "helping beginners" as well as experienced taxidermists for quite a few years now. I do teach taxidermy classes here at the studio as well as helping as many as possible annually at our state show. I would also add, too many to count on this very site, Not to mention facebook.

    How about you JL, do you walk the walk, or do you just talk crap.....
  12. 1fish2fish

    1fish2fish Well-Known Member

    Actually, I've accepted the premise that there is a word 'taxidermy' and I actually provided the definition you are clinging to.

    You haven't accepted my observation that language often changes meaning to reflect modern times; nor have you agreed that there is currently no good word to recognize the art or process of taking in an animal, preparing it, molding it, casting it, and painting it to produce a mount that looks as lifelike as possible. Furthermore, you have not accepted that such activity is even in the spirit of taxidermy, nor that the public currently recognize it as such, nor have you accepted that had such a process existed from the beginning maybe the word 'taxi-dermy' would not have been selected to define this trade.

    That is fine too. But I have accepted your basic premis.

    Best, Scott
  13. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    So to the point.

    When making a reproduction for a client, the client is returned "NOTHING" of the original carcass or skin there of. It goes in the trash. The client is then sold an inert piece of plastic or fiber glass.. I don't even think a "LEGAL" argument can be made for reproductions as a taxidermy.

    And Scott, we agree on 99% of things and i know for a fact your knowledge of art and it's mediums are vast. I just think your missing this small point.

    things may be "considered" as such, until they are "evaluated" to meet the criteria and then validified authentic.

    In other words, though they both are "considered" silverware, you can enter a spoon into a fork competition, it still doesn't make it a fork.

    Best, Steve
  14. 1fish2fish

    1fish2fish Well-Known Member

    What about a spork?

    And you are right, we usually are of similar mind. I just find it odd how the taxidermy industry hasn't rejected replicas but they aren't accepted as taxidermy either. A replica may not have skin, but when it could be rendered exactly as a specimen mount with skin and done so there is no obvious difference, why call a spade a spade. There are better ways of preserving specimens for scientific purposes. These mounts aren't to preserve DNA, they are to preserve memories.

    Fur bearers and deer and the like, there is not currently a replication process to or match mounting the hide. Lucky break.

    Best all, Scott
  15. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    Scott, I think I agree with much of what you have said. I just think it is best to be more definitive in the language used.

    nor have you agreed that there is currently no good word to recognize the art or process of taking in an animal, preparing it, molding it, casting it, and painting it to produce a mount that looks as lifelike as possible.

    Maybe not A word but there certainly IS two words that describe a person performing that task.

    A model maker is a professional craftsperson who creates a three-dimensional representation of a design or concept.

    I think that def. explains the replication process much better than the broader [in this case] term of taxidermist.

    If I told someone that I made resin models of fish or whatever, that person would have a much better idea of what I do than telling him I'm a taxidermist.

    To be clear...we are discussing someone who does ONLY fish replicas as fishnart24 queried in his post.

    I like that Steve......
  16. dougp

    dougp Active Member

    Scott, earlier you mentioned Carl Akeley. Akeley took on an understudy named Leon Pray who became a very accomplished taxidermist under the guidance of Akeley. When at the Field Museum Leon did many fish replicas for display. Many of which are still being shown.

    If Leon would have taken a student under his wing and taught him the mold making, casting and finishing of fish replicas only, I very much doubt he would be considered a "taxidermist" or doing "taxidermy" by the Akeley's or Pray's in the museum.

    I see no reason why that process should be redefined today.
  17. Steven Klee

    Steven Klee Steven Klee Studios

    You crack me up sometimes Scott.

    My question to you is this, Can you actually call it a Spork if it does not meet the "criteria" of a spoon. You cannot eat soup, take cough medicine, sip tea or use it as a measure I.E. 1 teaspoon vs one table spoon.

    Keep tryin' bud.
  18. 1fish2fish

    1fish2fish Well-Known Member

    There is no other "silverware" term for the industry. It's just taxidermy. So, if you only consider taxidermy the fork, and replicas the spoon, what is the "silverware" equivalent and why isn't it the whateverthattermis.net?

    Either replicas share a place in the drawer....and skull mounts....etc. or they don't belong and should be somewhere else. OR, the industry needs new language to define it.
    Definitely, model maker doesn't cut it in my book Doug. Tamiya, Revell, etc. these are model makers and what they produce is nothing like a finished fish mount. Even within Scale modeling, the finishing person, who may or may not have been the model maker, is called a scale modeler. While we may mold scales, we aren't scale modelers. They gave their own industry already anyway.
  19. Kerby Ross

    Kerby Ross KSU - Class of '83; U.S. Army - Infantry (83-92)

    So I guess ..............

    So I guess a mount is not 100% taxidermy if it has reproduction fins, reproduction head, reproduction animal noses, reproduction jaw sets, reproduction bird heads/beaks/bill, reproduction feet .... etc.


  20. UFD

    UFD New Member

    " To my knowledge no one has ever won this award for a "reproduction" solely, validating it as both "art" and "Taxidermy".. If anyone knows of anyone who has, please enlighten us. "