Velvet score

[RobbyW]

Saw some where else where a guy posted the score of a velvet buck he killed today. Wouldn't the scores be off in velvet?

 

[Hardwoodmaterials]

I don't think velvet bucks can be officially scored but I have been wrong before. If they can they would get a pretty good bump in mass measurements with the velvet on it.

 

[infoman jr.]

From the P&Y website:

*Velvet entries are accepted. The same minimums apply as for the corresponding hard-horned category.

 

[catman529]

They're not scored by B&C but are by P&Y.

Either way, I just score my own and go by the gross score I came up with. I haven't got in any books yet so I have no need for an official score on my deer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Andy S.]

Boone & Crockett - does not accept velvet entries unless the velvet is removed for scoring and entry.

Pope & Young - does accept velvet entries. On a side note, velvet antlers would have to be stripped to hard horn to ever be considered a world record. In essence, there is no world record typical velvet and world record typical hard horn antler, just the latter. The final P&Y panel that determines world record entries only measures hard horn antlers to guarantee they are comparing apples to apples when scoring two similar animals.

Buckmaster Trophy Records - has separate category for velvet entries.

*** Today's advancements in taxidermy recreating velvet to antler that has been stripped or damaged, like my local taxidermist recommends, affords hunters the option to have their trophies officially scored in hard horn and still mounted in velvet at the end of the day. ***

 

[REM7]

TNdeer members can start our own velvet scoring system. Catman & Andy co-chair it.

 

[tickweed]

I don't think the tn deer registry accepts them either. yet.

 

[fairchaser]

Someone needs to come up with a displacement method for scoring antlers. It's really the only true way to factor in everything the deer has grown. I'm no engineer so I don't know how to do it but with today's technology it shouldn't be that difficult. Frankly I'm surprised there's no app yet. Deer with thick antlers especially the tines would have an advantage. Currently tine thickness is not counted in traditional scoring methods.

 

[Mike Belt]

I'm sort of surprised that there isn't already a category that along with all other measurements, scores the diameter of the tines. The difference between the same length tines, say 10" tines, could be several inches if they were thin on one deer but twice as thick on another.

 

[MickThompson]

Someone needs to come up with a displacement method for scoring antlers. It's really the only true way to factor in everything the deer has grown. I'm no engineer so I don't know how to do it but with today's technology it shouldn't be that difficult. Frankly I'm surprised there's no app yet. Deer with thick antlers especially the tines would have an advantage. Currently tine thickness is not counted in traditional scoring methods.

I think this would be the truest reflection of rack size, but...

How would one measure displacement without possibly damaging the mount?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andy S.]

I think this would be the truest reflection of rack size.....

Me too. Thick tines should get more credit than #2 pencil tines.

How would one measure displacement without possibly damaging the mount?

I would think you could figure displacement of water with antlers only. It would ideally have to come once antlers were taken off the skull, but it could be done.

 

[MickThompson]

It would just be a one time deal though- no measuring racks that are already mounted.

And no velvet bucks either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shooter77]

Someone needs to come up with a displacement method for scoring antlers. It's really the only true way to factor in everything the deer has grown. I'm no engineer so I don't know how to do it but with today's technology it shouldn't be that difficult. Frankly I'm surprised there's no app yet. Deer with thick antlers especially the tines would have an advantage. Currently tine thickness is not counted in traditional scoring methods.

As a engineer, I'm really surprised with the 3D scanning machines that someone can't scan it and put it into the software to get accurate measurements. I take parts that are made, scan them to verify dimensions that are difficult to hard measure. Heck i take stuff all the time, scan it, then reverse engineer it to make CAD models and prints for new things to be made. A 3D scan of the rack could be done, imported into CAD system, then you could do section cuts in CAD and get a true DIA & length of the beams and have real hard data showing where measurements were taken. No need having 3 person panel measure and argue over the final score.

 

[TheLBLman]

Someone needs to come up with a displacement method for scoring antlers. It's really the only true way to factor in everything the deer has grown.
Deer with thick antlers especially the tines would have an advantage.
Currently tine thickness is not counted in traditional scoring methods.

I totally agree with you on this.

This tine "thickness" is one of the main reasons mature bucks have overall more "impressive" antlers,
even when they score the same or even less than a younger buck.

Also, it's not just tine thickness, but also the main beam thickness,
which is under-credited with the traditional B&C scoring method.

Traditional B&C score is most heavily weighted on tine length,
even really skinny unimpressive tines.

We commonly see 130-class mature bucks with overall more "massive", more visible from a distance
than younger 150-class bucks. Often, at a distance over 200 yards (naked eye) the higher scoring younger buck's antlers aren't even noticeable,
while the older buck's lower scoring antlers immediately "stand out" and impress.
This can particularly be the case when an 8-point mainframe 130-class mature one
is standing beside a 10-point mainframe 140-class 3 1/2-yr-old.

 

[infoman jr.]

Someone needs to come up with a displacement method for scoring antlers. It's really the only true way to factor in everything the deer has grown. I'm no engineer so I don't know how to do it but with today's technology it shouldn't be that difficult. Frankly I'm surprised there's no app yet. Deer with thick antlers especially the tines would have an advantage. Currently tine thickness is not counted in traditional scoring methods.

As a engineer, I'm really surprised with the 3D scanning machines that someone can't scan it and put it into the software to get accurate measurements. I take parts that are made, scan them to verify dimensions that are difficult to hard measure. Heck i take stuff all the time, scan it, then reverse engineer it to make CAD models and prints for new things to be made. A 3D scan of the rack could be done, imported into CAD system, then you could do section cuts in CAD and get a true DIA & length of the beams and have real hard data showing where measurements were taken. No need having 3 person panel measure and argue over the final score.

We have some really fancy scanning equipment here at work. It could certainly be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Belt]

Just for grins those of us here on Tndeer that score our bucks (which usually leaves me out for lack of a buck, lol) should develop a scoring system this season based on the typical B&C scoring method and one that includes the tine circumference measurements. Both of those total measurements could be posted side by side for comparison. Just as the main beam measurements are taken half way between each tine the tine circumference could be measured at the midpoint of the tine length. Hey, we might could be on the ground floor of a new measuring system.

 

[TheLBLman]

Just as the main beam measurements are taken half way between each tine the tine circumference could be measured at the midpoint of the tine length. Hey, we might could be on the ground floor of a new measuring system.

Sounds like an improved system.
But, like how circumference measurements add (or fail to add) to score,
this still under-represents the overall "impression", of increased size/mass/displacement of large circumferences.

Tine length still adds the most to score,
which is why "score" means less to me than "mass".

Take a look at TN's #1 Non-Typical buck.
And I don't in any way mean to take away from it being unusual,
a most unique trophy of a lifetime.
But I've seen mainframe 8-pointers which, at least at a distance,
appeared much larger, at least in terms of physical antler weight and air displaced,
yet these massive mature 8-pointers did not make the minimum score for B&C.

More tines, more tine length, runs up the score.
More mass (more circumference) runs up the overall size "wow" more
at least to me.

 

[MUP]

I like the volume displacement method idea. That way every tine, and even kicker points get measured fully and counted.

 

[tree_ghost]

I like the volume displacement method idea. That way every tine, and even kicker points get measured fully and counted.

it without a doubt would be a more accurate representation of how much bone a buck has grown. Where you would have a hard time tying it together is when deductions for symmetry come into play. Not sure how that would work given the two categories of scoring, typical bs nontypical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infoman jr.]

I like the volume displacement method idea. That way every tine, and even kicker points get measured fully and counted.

it without a doubt would be a more accurate representation of how much bone a buck has grown. Where you would have a hard time tying it together is when deductions for symmetry come into play. Not sure how that would work given the two categories of scoring, typical bs nontypical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deducting for lack of symmetry is silly.

 

[tree_ghost]

I like the volume displacement method idea. That way every tine, and even kicker points get measured fully and counted.

it without a doubt would be a more accurate representation of how much bone a buck has grown. Where you would have a hard time tying it together is when deductions for symmetry come into play. Not sure how that would work given the two categories of scoring, typical bs nontypical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deducting for lack of symmetry is silly.

I'm not a fan of deductions myself and I guess it wouldn't handicap the scoring system by doing away with them but I would think there would have to be a way to designate typical vs nontypical racks right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk