Just curious what people would field judge these deer at, they are both 4 1/2 year olds, I have pictures of them at 2 1/2, the narrow deer is drastically smaller in body, but he has always been that way. thanks for the input
Hmmm, just a shot in the dark, but I'm guessing 140s for both of them. They are very similar. Great bucks, hope you can get on them during season.
I would guess low 140's for the narrow one and high 140's for the other one. Both are nice bucks, good luck with them.
Both young deer. Not much mass once velvet gone... 138 Gross on the guy on the left in second pictures and 130 on the guy on the right. Both have potential of 150+ next year. Good Luck!
I think everyone so far is drunk... I'm going: 148 for the smaller one. 165 on the larger one. Yes, I agree they look 4 years old at the time of the pic. My only holdup is I can't guestimate their widths for sure.
You sir must have buck fever or are smoking something tonight. 165"??? Just messing with you.... All seriousness I think all that soft stuff can be rather deceiving. The larger of the two is basically a eight. 165" would be a huge 8 point rack!
Lol, Could be but he's not basically an 8..he's a 10 and I think he has better mass and width than given credit for. The body size of the deer can make a big difference. If the smaller one isn't necissarily "small" then the bigger one is just a big bodied deer and is making his dimensions underestimated. It's a little hard to believe that the smaller one is 4+ and the size of a yearling....so I would be inclined to adjust my mental scale to assume the smaller one is reasonably close to a normal sized deer and the larger one is just big. The effect is the opposite of ground shrinkage due to assumed scale. I have a wall full of deer here in front of me that are officially scored ranging from 136 9 point to a 178+ 16 point with a 10 point main frame and junk. So it's not like I am guessing with no point of reference. Admittedly I could be wrong, scoring from pics is a gamble....I don't think my logic is that flawed though.
I don't think your logic is flawed. I am going to go with he is big enough! Put him on the ground, get a tape on him, and let us know. I would be interested to see more pics after he is hard horned.
so here is a pick demonstrating the size of the larger one compared to a good sized adult doe, they are both the same distance from the camera
The larger of the two is in the 140's. Nice deer, but the tine length is just not there to go any higher.
I agree on the drunk comment. But the other way! I hope you get them and prove me wrong, but I say the smaller one is in the mid 120s, and the bigger one is in the mid 140s. Not being a smart *** by any means, that's just what I see. I thind with the season coming up we are all getting exited!!! I know I am.
Good example. If this doe is a good sized doe and she's still smaller than the smaller of the two bucks..then it's possible the larger buck is just a beastly ginormous deer. If that's the case, then my initial numbers were reasonable. If I'm wrong, the smaller buck is a small freak of nature, if I'm right the larger one is a giant freak of nature and I'm sticking with the latter. Would be cool to see that buck on the ground and measured for sure.
well hopefully the bigger one will hit the dirt then i will check back in, but my guesses are 154 and 131 gross
