Free: Contests & Raffles.
Total Members Voted: 97
Smaller than the photo’d buck, mostly because of his short mains and spread credit. Lovely backs. Also a little less mass. Mains are a killer. Upper 160s to 170ish.
Quote from: boneaddict on February 07, 2025, 08:16:46 PMSmaller than the photo’d buck, mostly because of his short mains and spread credit. Lovely backs. Also a little less mass. Mains are a killer. Upper 160s to 170ish. This is clearly bigger than the photo buck. YMMV
Quote from: huntnphool on February 10, 2025, 08:33:37 PMQuote from: boneaddict on February 07, 2025, 08:16:46 PMSmaller than the photo’d buck, mostly because of his short mains and spread credit. Lovely backs. Also a little less mass. Mains are a killer. Upper 160s to 170ish. This is clearly bigger than the photo buck. YMMVApparently, with those numbers. I must be biased because I was standing next to the live animal versus a skeleton on the wall. I would never have guessed his backs to be 19 or his mains to be 21. They look shorter to me. For some reason Although they are similiar I like the other one better.
Oof