Medal heads, SCI vs CIC

Renico

Well-Known Member
What is your opinion? Here in Denmark it gets more and more popular to use the SCI method. Last year I shot a nice sixpointer which scored a 100 CIC but got a silver medal in SCI. It is a very nice looking throphy so it deserved a medal in my book.

And I guess thats the difference. CIC will award medals to the heads that are massive and weights alot. Where SCI will award medals to high or nice looking sixpointers.

I must say that I like SCI best at the moment. I think its more fair to get a medal for a really nice looking symetrical buck(SCI), instead of getting a medal for how heavy it is. (CIC)
 
We have BASC too here ! Just to add to the confusion .personally I'd use cic if I was looking to get something measured
​norma
 
Yea ONE system for it all could be good. I dont really cares for it anyway, but when I get a good throphy I just think its fun too see what it scores.
 
For me its got to be the CIC i have had very tall bucks that have no real substance and i am sure the SCI would have gave them medals but i like to measure mine against the best in the uk and they are normally measured with the CIC system.
 
CIC. Because of the SCI scoring system, for certain species, it rewards trophies of the younger animals which can be detrimental to herd genetics. Cape buffalo is a prime example.
 
Being devils advocate, I can see that the SCI method has some merit.
My friend from Denmark has always measured using CIC measuring. He always says though that the thing that makes UK bucks so good is their density of bone. He reckons that 10 minutes after boiling out (drip dry) that most heads he has then had scored will lose 130gr. This always makes a bit of a nonsense of the 10% deduction rule. On top of this you have to ask is it fair that other countries where perhaps that density does not occur due to the geography is the CIC scoring system therefore fair.
Surely you want a representative Gold/Silver/Bronze from that country?
 
teyhan i can see your reasoning but is it not the best of the best and if a country cannot compete because it dose not have what it take then that would be tough. Scotland produces many many gold roe for its size it would be one of the best places to shoot a medal roe buck in the world. But try and shoot a gold medal stag and its a differnt story. We have many many red stags but lack quality its the way things are.
 
Here is the details of my first roebuck I shot last summer. Almost bronce in CIC and just silver in SCI.

buk.jpgpapir.jpg
 
Here is the details of my first roebuck I shot last summer. Almost bronce in CIC and just silver in SCI.

View attachment 28908View attachment 28909

Unfortunately 100.23 is NOT `almost a CIC bronze` it is a long way off.
The picture below shows a head which was `almost a CIC bronze` and made 104.34 points.
I shot it in 1963/4 and after the late G.Kenneth Whitehead measured it he said that if I had not been so savage with the saw it would have been a bronze.
I have never cut a scull again prior to a CIC evaluation.
HWH.
 
Last edited:
Hehe, yours are certeinly close to a bronze :). Well thats a thing I dont like so much about CIC. Its the person who measures it who decides if the colour should get 2 or 4 point, and if perls should get 3 or 5 point etc. So it can also differ from who measured it. I got 100,23 but if it was another person that measured it, it could also have gotten 98 or 103 points.

So CIC also depends about personal points from the measurer, where SCI gets the same score everywhere. Maybe only with mm differnce.

Still dont know what I prefer though. I think CIC.
 
This one went 104.85 cic / 104.05 basc, close but not close enough shouldn't have cut the skull, by the looks it would make a medal with sci.

 
Well I have to admit I've read this thread with interest. I agree with certain points for both arguments.
Firstly CIC is the most respected body and any head awarded medal status from CIC would I have no doubt deserve it. I don't know what training is given to there apointed assessors to ensure that they all measure in the same way, maybe someone could answer this.
I do however completely understand Renico's point about there being too much enphasis being put on weight and volume and not enough on beauty. I know of two heads shot in the UK (also pictured on here) that will make medal status and one will undoubtedly make Gold and the other I bet only achieves Silver (I hope I'm wrong) but the Silver is unquestionably the nicer/prettier head and the Gold just big, that's all. So I understand Renico viewpoint on this, although I have to admit that CIC is still the most respected body and thus I would only use them.

Paul
 
This one went 104.85 cic / 104.05 basc, close but not close enough shouldn't have cut the skull, by the looks it would make a medal with sci.


Nice shaped heed Bob and as you say with a full skull would probably have made a medal fella.
 
There's a story with it pal, first cic man I took it to scored it just over 95 ! someone said it cant be right so I took it along somewhere else and it went cic 104 + and was confirmed with basc at just over 104
 
There's a story with it pal, first cic man I took it to scored it just over 95 ! someone said it cant be right so I took it along somewhere else and it went cic 104 + and was confirmed with basc at just over 104

Interesting, that's why I ask what training is given to the CIC assessors to assure constant standards. After all we are paying for the service, it's not free, so I'm assuming there is a standard they have to meet before becoming an assessor.
Paul
 
I had a insight into how cic measure trophys when I took a few heads down to chris Rodgers at Euston, Ok there were a few that I thought would make it never did but he explained the process in detail and I felt he was very thorough. DF
 
I'm with SCI.

CIC, Roland Ward and Boone & Crockett are all based upon their own historical reputations.

The SCI scoring encompasses the whole planet's fauna and is less judgemental.

Stan
 
Back
Top