# AB records



## upwith inverts! (Dec 29, 2008)

I thought it would be neat to find out who owns the largest legspan of what.
I was thinking we would see who on arachnoboards has the (categories listed below) with the largest leg span. The categories are:

Largest overall - Robc 11" Female T. Blondi
NW tarantula - Robc 11" Female T. Blondi
OW tarantula - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum female
Arboreal tarantula
Terrestrial tarantula - Robc 11" Female T. Blondi
Avicularia
Acanthoscurria
Aphonopelma
Brachypelma
Ceratogyrus
Chilobrachys
Chromatopelma Cyaneopubescens
Citharischius Crawshayi
Cyriocosmus
Cyriopagopus
Ephebopus
Euathlus
Eucratoscelus
Grammostola
Haplopelma - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum female
Heteroscodra 
Holothele
Hysterocrates
Lasiodora
Megaphobema
Nhandu
Pamphobeteus
Phormictopus
Poecilotheria
Psalmopoeus
Pterinochlus
Selenocosmia
Stromatopelma Calceatum
Theraphosa - Robc 11" Female T. Blondi
Xenesthis
North American tarantula
Central American tarantula
South American Tarantula - Robc 11" Female T. Blondi
Asian tarantula - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum Female
African Tarantula 
Europian Tarantula
Australian Tarantula
Other
Longest fast - etown 411  G. Rosea fasting since Aug. '07
Most bites (person)

Please put the category in the heading of each post, your Tarantula species, and photographic proof of the size (i.e., with a quarter for reference.) 
thanks


----------



## Warren Bautista (Dec 29, 2008)

I'm pretty sure robc owns a Blondi thats about 11''.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 29, 2008)

The Heartbreak Kid said:


> I'm pretty sure robc owns a Blondi thats about 11''.


And my name is Santa.


----------



## SRirish (Dec 29, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> And my name is Santa.


Aww cmon. Zilla (I think thats robs big blondi) is a big girl


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 29, 2008)

SRirish said:


> Aww cmon. Zilla (I think thats robs big blondi) is a big girl


Seeing is believing, right ladies?


----------



## Kris-wIth-a-K (Dec 29, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Seeing is believing, right ladies?


Somebody's gotta like it ryan.....;P 

I need your address so I can send this bracelet and necklace!!


----------



## Warren Bautista (Dec 29, 2008)

Well, that was random.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 29, 2008)

brachy.P said:


> Somebody's gotta like it ryan.....;P
> 
> I need your address so I can send this bracelet and necklace!!


Ya you lost me with the bracelet and necklace comment............. 
I would think my obscure (not really) reference to guys lying about size would be easy to get, but I don't get what you are talking about.


----------



## Atreyuhero4 (Dec 29, 2008)

im pretty sure rob has videos of his blondi "zilla"


----------



## SRirish (Dec 29, 2008)

Hopefully he can get a good ruler pic sometime...
(Oh, and if his blondi is 11", does that mean I get to call you Santa?)


----------



## Kris-wIth-a-K (Dec 29, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Ya you lost me with the bracelet and necklace comment.............
> I would think my obscure (not really) reference to guys lying about size would be easy to get, but I don't get what you are talking about.




I get that a lot.... wow...

I said I would send you a bracelet and necklace because of the Regalis you sent me......

As for the other one....... It would be pointless to explain but idk how much offense you will take to it so I will hold that one in...

Kris


----------



## fang333999 (Dec 29, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Ya you lost me with the bracelet and necklace comment.............
> I would think my obscure (not really) reference to guys lying about size would be easy to get, but I don't get what you are talking about.


yeah ive seen him measure her on video, and he has her molting documented


----------



## barabootom (Dec 30, 2008)

My largest T's are a lasiodora parahybana female that is close to 9 inches and a Nhandu coloratovillosus female that is 7 inches.  I have a very large sub adult male parahybana that currently measures 7 1/2 inches.  I'm hoping he'll push 10 at his final molt, but it will probably be more like 9.


----------



## Moltar (Dec 30, 2008)

Well I could give a flying hoosefudge about biggest legspan (because I doubt I have any record holders) but I may have a contender for longest fast with a G rosea who hasn't eaten since August of '07. Can we do that record?


----------



## Euronymous (Dec 30, 2008)

etown_411 said:


> Well I could give a flying hoosefudge about biggest legspan (because I doubt I have any record holders) but I may have a contender for longest fast with a G rosea who hasn't eaten since August of '07. Can we do that record?


I agree with the 20" smithi thing. That is crazy about the Rosea! How does she look after fasting that long?


----------



## upwith inverts! (Dec 30, 2008)

I will add the names of the current record holders by their records. Pictures would be great (hint ). To Etown, I will add longest fast up there. I forgot all about longest fast and stuff like that. Just so you know, I was thinking about doing fastest and mostaggressive, but that would disturb the T, and there is no standardized way of measuring that.


----------



## Moltar (Dec 30, 2008)

Euronymous said:


> I agree with the 20" smithi thing. That is crazy about the Rosea! How does she look after fasting that long?


Every bit as plump and juicy as before. It's amazing, i guess it's premolt but the bald spot on her bum hasn't darkened past a medium chocolate brown in that amount of time either. She is SO scruffy.


----------



## Warren Bautista (Dec 30, 2008)

upwith inverts! said:


> Most bites (person)




*COUGH*nb*COUGH*


----------



## Warren Bautista (Dec 30, 2008)

Also most painful U-hair experience! 

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=122808 <look!


----------



## upwith inverts! (Dec 30, 2008)

Hasn't he *only*  been bitten twice?


----------



## CodeWilster (Dec 30, 2008)

*Haplopelma hainanum (OW)*

For OW species, I've got a H. hainanum that might be pushing almost 8". She will hopefully molt in the next few months too. I've got pics, but not really anything that shows off her true size. I'd take more but I don't want to destroy that beautiful hole  Should she come out in the next decade I'll throw a ruler next to her. As for an 11" T. blondi, that's pretty darn big make sure your measuring in inches lol, but I do believe it. My female molted three months ago and her molt measured 9" across, and I know she is bigger now.


----------



## CodeWilster (Dec 30, 2008)

*H. hainanum*

Ok nevermind the last pic. I was able to draw her out of her burrow by tapping the entrance with some tongs. And I lied  , she's about 7". It's hard to see the ruler but she's easily 5" from what you can see, but from tips of opposite legs across she is about 7" exactly.


----------



## Warren Bautista (Dec 30, 2008)

Austin S. has a big AF C. crawshayi, not sure how big though.


----------



## Arachnobrian (Dec 30, 2008)

Hmmm, should there not be a male / female catagory? 

My big ones are,

B.smithi male (unhooked) easily past the 6" mark, older picture in AB somewhere.

N. chromatus female in the 6 1/2" to 7" mark, if she wasn't so nasty I would try to take a ruler shot.

C. cyan GBB female in the 6 1/2" + mark. I have an older ruler shot, but she has moulted since.

How about oldest? I have a rosie in the 20yr or older range.


----------



## Franklin (Dec 30, 2008)

does my 8" Queen baboon win a prize?


----------



## moose35 (Dec 30, 2008)

*big haplo*

this big haplo is well over 7 inches...


enjoy

   moose


----------



## Warren Bautista (Dec 30, 2008)

I knew I should've bought that P. ornata!


----------



## upwith inverts! (Dec 30, 2008)

*To franklin and ottawaherp*

franklin: if you can post photographic proof, or have a couple other members confirm it, then it will probably hold the African tarantula, OW tarantula, and C. Crawshayi title unless/until a tarantula in any category it holds with a greater legspan can be found. Robc's T. Blondi got in because a good number of people confirmed it.
ottawaherp: ditto. I will be waying the pros and cons of the male/female division thing


----------



## upwith inverts! (Dec 30, 2008)

*to moose*

Is that your haplo?


----------



## robc (Dec 30, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> And my name is Santa.


Hi SAINT NICK!!!! she is about to molt and I will get a measurement....rob


----------



## robc (Dec 30, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Ya you lost me with the bracelet and necklace comment.............
> I would think my obscure (not really) reference to guys lying about size would be easy to get, but I don't get what you are talking about.


Why are you attacking me!!! DO NOT call me a liar....that is uncalled for Ryan!!!


----------



## Arachnobrian (Dec 30, 2008)

B. smithi male (unhooked).

Still working on the others.


----------



## robc (Dec 30, 2008)

fang333999 said:


> yeah ive seen him measure her on video, and he has her molting documented


That is the smaller blondi "Sammy".....zilla is about to molt....she has a black booty!!


----------



## Atreyuhero4 (Dec 30, 2008)

i havent seen ya post in a while rob thought maybe another pokie got you or maybe zilla did ;P

P.S. rob you should also post your big lasiodora parahybana


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 30, 2008)

robc said:


> Why are you attacking me!!! DO NOT call me a liar....that is uncalled for Ryan!!!


Umm maybe you better go re read my comments. The comment you quoted was not directed at you. And my only comment about an 11" blondi is I will believe it when I see it.


----------



## Arachnobrian (Dec 30, 2008)

I think pictures should be posted before taking any title.


hint hint, It may help.


----------



## upwith inverts! (Dec 30, 2008)

I am going to put down the B smithi at 6.25".


----------



## upwith inverts! (Dec 30, 2008)

won't let me edit the OP anymore. I'll try again tomorrow.


----------



## Arachnobrian (Dec 30, 2008)

upwith inverts! said:


> I am going to put down the B smithi at 6.25".


Don't forget to mention (unhooked male), he's still eating and growing.


----------



## moose35 (Dec 30, 2008)

upwith inverts! said:


> Is that your haplo?


yea its mine
its a Haplopelma schmiditi


----------



## bliss (Dec 30, 2008)

upwith inverts! said:


> I am going to put down the B smithi at 6.25".



someone in the UK has a 7" smithi.   her username is Gem, and she has a very very old smithi named Betsy.    she's hardly on here, but if i can get in touch with her, i'll see if i can get a pic beside a ruler  


peace,


----------



## Euronymous (Dec 30, 2008)

So Robc, she (the Blondi) is about to molt, if I am not mistaking you for someone else. Does that mean she is close to 11" maybe 10" now? Or is she 11" now and growing?


----------



## UrbanJungles (Dec 30, 2008)

moose35 said:


> yea its mine
> its a Haplopelma schmiditi


Moose is only 4'9.  I've met him in person...bleh! small Haplo!


----------



## tarantulaholic (Dec 30, 2008)

all these massive T's sizes are irrelevant without a tape measure of somesort beside the T. Even a quarter will beside a T will give us a very good idea how big the T in question is.
just my 2c


----------



## tarantulaholic (Dec 30, 2008)

Ottawaherp said:


> I think pictures should be posted before taking any title.
> 
> 
> hint hint, It may help.


Pictures of T and a tape measure of somesort, or using a quarter for size comparison. Also the angle of pic must be straight up !!!


----------



## Arachnobrian (Dec 30, 2008)

tarantulaholic said:


> Pictures of T and a tape measure of somesort, or using a quarter for size comparison. Also the angle of pic must be straight up !!!


While were picking judging criteria, perhaps also being the actual owner of the said beast. Therefore obtaining a recent photo would not be an issue, time stamped photos would be best.

Just to keep it fair.


----------



## Warren Bautista (Dec 30, 2008)

UrbanJungles said:


> Moose is only 4'9.  I've met him in person...bleh! small Haplo!



_Ooooookkkkkaaayyy!_ And I saw you're avic exhibit at LSC, nad I was not impressed! LOL just sticking up for moose!


----------



## robc (Dec 30, 2008)

tarantulaholic said:


> all these massive T's sizes are irrelevant without a tape measure of somesort beside the T. Even a quarter will beside a T will give us a very good idea how big the T in question is.
> just my 2c


Here is a pic of my big girl next to a quarter (I think everyone's seen it but here it is again. LOL)...


----------



## robc (Dec 30, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Umm maybe you better go re read my comments. The comment you quoted was not directed at you. And my only comment about an 11" blondi is I will believe it when I see it.


Ohhh...okay, sorry about that - thought it was directed at me. Never mind then...ignore me. LOL


----------



## robc (Dec 30, 2008)

Euronymous said:


> So Robc, she (the Blondi) is about to molt, if I am not mistaking you for someone else. Does that mean she is close to 11" maybe 10" now? Or is she 11" now and growing?


She is right at about 11" now and about to molt...this molt has me very worried since she's so big...crossing my fingers she makes it through it okay.  Rob


----------



## codykrr (Dec 30, 2008)

ahhh, rob, just keep her tank humid....im sure she will do fine, she did get this big didnt she


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 30, 2008)

When I see a ruler picture then I become a believer. 
This gal is not even 7" but she looks big.


----------



## tarantulaholic (Dec 31, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> When I see a ruler picture then I become a believer.
> This gal is not even 7" but she looks big.


Very good point, ruler has to be based of measurement.


----------



## CodeWilster (Dec 31, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> When I see a ruler picture then I become a believer.
> This gal is not even 7" but she looks big.


Just thought I'd say that dude you shouldn't feed your Ts tennis balls.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 31, 2008)

CodeWilster said:


> Just thought I'd say that dude you shouldn't feed your T's tennis balls.


Aww but she likes them!


----------



## Atreyuhero4 (Dec 31, 2008)

dude those blondis are scaring the crap out of me there effing massive! i would hate to have one of those kick at me


----------



## robc (Dec 31, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> When I see a ruler picture then I become a believer.
> This gal is not even 7" but she looks big.


That is a big looking girl you got there...and I'll have a nice ruler shot of the molt as soon as she does it. But, I do have to say that if you notice the quarter on your girl, compared to her head - she is much smaller than my girl. I get what you're saying though and that ruler pic will be coming just as soon as she molts - which is hopefully soon! She's taking forever! LOL


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 31, 2008)

Yes of course my blondi's carapace is smaller she is not even 7".


----------



## CodeWilster (Dec 31, 2008)

Don't say I didn't warn you...


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 31, 2008)

LOL. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## CodeWilster (Dec 31, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> LOL. :clap: :clap: :clap:


Lol thanks. Oh and in case you or anybody is wondering, YES, I do have a life


----------



## Warren Bautista (Dec 31, 2008)

Sure  about that? JK, JK


----------



## barabootom (Dec 31, 2008)

Did anyone say the T had to be alive?  Here is a mounted 8 1/2 in male Pamphobeteus antinous.  I heard they get to be 10 in but I've never seen one that big.


----------



## moose35 (Dec 31, 2008)

UrbanJungles said:


> Moose is only 4'9.  I've met him in person...bleh! small Haplo!


damn...well if i'm 4'9"
you can't be more then 3'0"    




come on people.....
  i can't wait to see this 15" blondi i've been hearing so much about.



        moose


----------



## UrbanJungles (Dec 31, 2008)

moose35 said:


> damn...well if i'm 4'9"
> you can't be more then 3'0"     moose


I'm pushing 3'2" these days...you need to be more observant.


If you guys really want to do this...you need one of those grids that are in 1 inch increments...I think I've seen TravisK post a pic of his spder on one.  This way, the spider can be measured from all angles.

You need to have a uniform method of measurement.


----------



## moose35 (Dec 31, 2008)

thats an excellent idea sir....:clap: 


           moose


----------



## barabootom (Jan 3, 2009)

Did everyone's interest dissipate so quickly?  I expected everyone to be anxious to show off their largest T's of each specie.  I guess a lot of what I hear about size is a fantasy.  :?


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 3, 2009)

barabootom said:


> Did everyone's interest dissipate so quickly?  I expected everyone to be anxious to show off their largest T's of each specie.  I guess a lot of what I hear about size is a fantasy.  :?


they are. Ill be really shock if someone post a T thats over 10" (with tape measure of course).


----------



## Thompson08 (Jan 3, 2009)

I wouldn't be suprised, I thought robc's ornata was 10"?


----------



## CodeWilster (Jan 3, 2009)

When I get the chance I'll get a pic of my Avicularia braunshauseni female with a ruler. I got her from KTBG and he had her listed as 7". I have pics but none with a ruler/tape measure yet. Anybody else have an Avic this size or larger?


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

tarantulaholic said:


> they are. Ill be really shock if someone post a T thats over 10" (with tape measure of course).


Well be prepared to be shocked! My female blondi, Zilla, molted today (the one pictured earlier in this thread) and her molt measures 10" - she's 11" or more now. Obviously I can't get a measurement of her now but I will sometime in the next few weeks when she's stretched and hardened up. But I have a measurement pic of her molt in the molt sequence I just posted - here's a link:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?p=1308441#post1308441

Rob


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

Thompson08 said:


> I wouldn't be suprised, I thought robc's ornata was 10"?


Yeah, she is 10" (as confirmed by Reptist - who I got her from) but I don't have a measurement pic of her as of yet...I will hopefully be able to get one after I pull her sac. Hopefully she molts after she's done with the sac and makes it easy on me to get a measurment! LOL


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 3, 2009)

I just had my B. boehmei molt. She is more than likely just over 7" now.


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> I just had my B. boehmei molt. She is more than likely just over 7" now.


And I'm Santa Claus!!


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 3, 2009)

robc said:


> And I'm Santa Claus!!


Unlike you I learned early on in life you be honest about size. ;P

Molt picture coming after my football game is over.


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Unlike you I learned early on in life you be honest about size. ;P
> 
> Molt picture coming after my football game is over.


ude don't measure it for proof until it hardens!!! That is the biggest B.Bohemi I have ever heard of, congrats!!! Hey go see my blondi mot thread, I was only off by 3/4".....but know she is over 11 or 11.....I promise you that!!!


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 3, 2009)

Oh and do take note of the fact that I am not touching or stretching my molt like you were with your blondi.


----------



## CodeWilster (Jan 3, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Oh and do take note of the fact that I am not touching or stretching my molt like you were with your blondi.


HOLY CRAP!!! Ok now take a pic stretching it!!!!!!!!!


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 3, 2009)

CodeWilster said:


> HOLY CRAP!!! Ok now take a pic stretching it!!!!!!!!!


I second this comment.:clap:


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Oh and do take note of the fact that I am not touching or stretching my molt like you were with your blondi.


Please take I was not either....I was mearly putting the legs in postion....if I stretched it it would have been well over 10"


----------



## Franklin (Jan 3, 2009)

only here at AB


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

Franklin said:


> only here at AB


I am just messing with Ryan....he knows that....rob


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 3, 2009)

robc said:


> Please take I was not either....I was mearly putting the legs in postion....if I stretched it it would have been well over 10"


Yes just like it was 11" before the molt.


----------



## kryptix (Jan 3, 2009)

I'm pretty new to T's but I thought Blondi's were supposed to get to the 12" mark :?  After reading this thread though I'm guessing that's just a selling point?


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Yes just like it was 11" before the molt.


I actualy admitted I was wrong in the video, personaly to you!!!  I realy did think she was....I measured her once, but I must have mis measured her.....it is hard to measure a T like her....she is quite mean LOL :razz:


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 3, 2009)

*A teaser picture of what is to come.*

She is on fire!


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

kryptix said:


> I'm pretty new to T's but I thought Blondi's were supposed to get to the 12" mark :?  After reading this thread though I'm guessing that's just a selling point?


VERY, Very very Rare


----------



## robc (Jan 3, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> She is on fire!


Photo shop does wonders....just kidding....she is absolutely stunning!!!


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 3, 2009)

robc said:


> VERY, Very very Rare


If by your definition of " VERY, Very very rare" you mean never then I agree


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> If by your definition of " VERY, Very very rare" you mean never then I agree


Maybe in the middle of south america isolated from everything except prey...LOL


----------



## Drachenjager (Jan 4, 2009)

i have a P ornata that is over 8", i cant tell she never stretches out pokie stance where i can get a ruler near her. But one day she was on the glass with her legs sort of pulled in and was a solid 8" id be afraid to try to guess how she would measure up stretched out .
my T blondi is about 9" or so. She is in the breeding project now. And i had an A. anax that was close to 7". now deceased. got a female thats 6" or better.


----------



## gbbgirl (Jan 4, 2009)

etown_411 said:


> Every bit as plump and juicy as before. It's amazing, i guess it's premolt but the bald spot on her bum hasn't darkened past a medium chocolate brown in that amount of time either. She is SO scruffy.


Rosies are sooooo weird.  I have a sling that I watched hatch out Dec. 15 07, and have raised ever since.  It is only 1.5" or so now, but it's been marked as "pre molt" (b/c it's been refusing food)  since October 15th.  It FINALLY molted December 30th.  2 and a half months not eating, and it's totally fine.  I've never seen such craziness.  With all the time spent in pre-molt, the Stinker has been refusing food for about half it's life!  

I'll get some mesurments up of my adults, when I have time off work.  My GBB female is probably btwn 5.5"-6", and my H. lividum seems to be bigger than thats, she's WC and the person who gave her to me has had her for 5-6 years...so she's pretty old.


----------



## CodeWilster (Jan 4, 2009)

*A. braunshauseni, C. cyaneopubescens, G. rosea*

Alright so I got some pics. I got the big Avic out and ooooooo she's so cose to 7". I'm going to say probably 6 3/4" across but not quite at 7" (rounded up she is  ). Won't know for sure till she molts. For kicks, I checked out my C. cyaneopubescens too. She's just over 5" probably 5 1/4 or 5 1/2" measured across. For more kicks, I whipped out my old male G. rosea. I'm sure somebody could beat this guy in a heartbeat with a Chaco or something but he is pretty big for a mature G. rosea male. He's over 5" also. (keep in mind the Ts should be measured diagnolly) Enjoy!


----------



## barabootom (Jan 4, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> If by your definition of " VERY, Very very rare" you mean never then I agree


I've seen a nearly 12 in male blondi in French Guiana.  I know they exist.  It was mounted in a store selling stuffed monkeys, caiman, parrots and 15 ft snake skins.  (It's been 20 years.  I imagine those stores no longer exist.)  I also saw some in the wild that were, without measuring them, nearly a foot.  They used to wonder into camp attracted to my light.


----------



## barabootom (Jan 4, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Oh and do take note of the fact that I am not touching or stretching my molt like you were with your blondi.


I have never seen or heard of a B. boehmei that big.  Congrats Ryan.


----------



## MizM (Jan 4, 2009)

*Longest fast*

One of my G. rosea went off food for 2 years, but that was about 5 years ago. Not sure how I could attach proof of _that_ tho!!


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 4, 2009)

I think to be fare is to have a "live" and recent T taken with tape measure beside it, and pic must be taken straight up, not angled. Basically if the live T's legs not fully stretch we can easily add 1/4 of an inch or 1/2" of an inch or more to compensate for relax posed. 
Anyone can take pic of molt and make it way bigger than it really is and another thing why molt pics wont meant a crap is the T is bigger than the recent molt, so whats the sense of taking molt pics other than for sexing the T? imo

btw: I got this one female Sing. blue thats really huge, im sure over 8" relax post. But I wont waste time taking pic of her untill some of the T's got title without real proof of there actual live size pics. I also have a King Baboon female that pretty big.


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 4, 2009)

I agree with the fact that a hand on a molt in a pic only signifies a stretching or pulling of the molt which I believe gives an inaccurate reading. 

I do think that a molt pic such as ryan's and ottawaherp's are acceptable.


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

tarantulaholic said:


> I think to be fare is to have a "live" and recent T taken with tape measure beside it, and pic must be taken straight up, not angled. Basically if the live T's legs not fully stretch we can easily add 1/4 of an inch or 1/2" of an inch or more to compensate for relax posed.
> Anyone can take pic of molt and make it way bigger than it really is and another thing why molt pics wont meant a crap is the T is bigger than the recent molt, so whats the sense of taking molt pics other than for sexing the T? imo
> 
> btw: I got this one female Sing. blue thats really huge, im sure over 8" relax post. But I wont waste time taking pic of her untill some of the T's got title without real proof of there actual live size pics. I also have a King Baboon female that pretty big.


Keep in mind that a molt will also shrink once it is hardened....I do agree with a the relaxed pose though......I posted a pic of my big female "zillas" molt to show her size before the molt....I won't be able to get a good measurement for a few weeks until she hardens!!!


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

forensics said:


> I agree with the fact that a hand on a molt in a pic only signifies a stretching or pulling of the molt which I believe gives an inaccurate reading.
> 
> I do think that a molt pic such as ryan's and ottawaherp's are acceptable.


A hand on it does not mean stretching....I did that to get the legs in position.....I would never pull on a molt....it would tear!!!


----------



## barabootom (Jan 4, 2009)

forensics said:


> I agree with the fact that a hand on a molt in a pic only signifies a stretching or pulling of the molt which I believe gives an inaccurate reading.
> 
> I do think that a molt pic such as ryan's and ottawaherp's are acceptable.


You can't stretch a molt without it breaking.  You can straighten out a molt and let it dry in an outstretched position, and in my opinion, that would be equal to "stretching" a molt by hand.  Ryan could have straightened his boehmei skin a little further before drying it and I think it would still be accurate, just a little bigger.    RobC using his hand to straighten his T's molt is still accurate in my opinion.  I've never heard of a measurement being considered accurate based only on a relaxed position verses a straightened position.  In the mounted insect collectors arena, I think everything's always been measured by straightened position.


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

barabootom said:


> You can't stretch a molt without it breaking.  You can straighten out a molt and let it dry in an outstretched position, and in my opinion, that would be equal to "stretching" a molt by hand.  Ryan could have straightened his boehmei skin a little further before drying it and I think it would still be accurate, just a little bigger.    RobC using his hand to straighten his T's molt is still accurate in my opinion.  I've never heard of a measurement being considered accurate based only on a relaxed position verses a straightened position.  In the mounted insect collectors arena, I think everything's always been measured by straightened position.


I agree!! If you look at the pic....I could have pressed down and got easily  1/2" more....rob


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 4, 2009)

I don't mean actually stretching the molt. I was referring to stretching the leg to be fully extended and flat. This is not a natural pose or position. Since it is just a molt there is no reason you would have to maintain you hands on it.


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

forensics said:


> I don't mean actually stretching the molt. I was referring to stretching the leg to be fully extended and flat. This is not a natural pose or position. Since it is just a molt there is no reason you would have to maintain you hands on it.


My molt was not flat....still had a lot of space under it!!


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 4, 2009)

[/QUOTE]
Ah, That's flat man.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/attachment.php?attachmentid=75227&stc=1&d=1230683684
This is an example of the natural curve still being in the molt.

If I told you I was 6'2" and 6'10" standing on my tip-toes, how tall am I?


----------



## moose35 (Jan 4, 2009)

why do they not have a smiley with a shovel?

this 1 has got to be a record.

p. fortis molt pic. she has got to be a little bigger now.

i promise i didn't strech the molt.


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

> Ah, That's flat man.
> 
> This is an example of the natural curve still being in the molt.
> 
> If I told you I was 6'2" and 6'10" standing on my tip-toes, how tall am I?


No example needed   If I was standing slumped over at 6 foot 2....but stood straight like a Marine and was 6 foot 5, how tall am I!!!


----------



## barabootom (Jan 4, 2009)

moose35 said:


> why do they not have a smiley with a shovel?
> 
> i think that would be appropriate.
> 
> ...


I got my start in insects and tarantulas from a friend who was a long time insect dealer.  A quarter inch in length could equal an extra $300 for some insects.  Believe me, when shipments came in and I helped measure, the flatter the better, and even museums would pay a premium for anything that even appraoched a record size, measured flat.  Take a look at a professional insect collection.  Not much of anything larger in size is ever mounted in a natural pose.


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 4, 2009)

robc said:


> No example needed   If I was standing slumped over at 6 foot 2....but stood straight like a Marine and was 6 foot 5, how tall am I!!!


6' 5". But then I'll add in the robc measurement factor...6" 2"

All I was saying if others are measuring one way and you're measuring another, it isn't very accurate. If everyone comes to a consensus that this is the standard way of measuring, I have no problem with that either.


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 4, 2009)

moose35 said:


> why do they not have a smiley with a shovel?
> 
> this 1 has got to be a record.
> 
> ...


OMG !!!!!!!!!      I laugh my arse off.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 4, 2009)

Oh man that is some FUNNY CRAP!   :clap: 



moose35 said:


> why do they not have a smiley with a shovel?
> 
> this 1 has got to be a record.
> 
> ...


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

forensics said:


> 6' 5". But then I'll add in the robc measurement factor...6" 2"
> 
> All I was saying if others are measuring one way and you're measuring another, it isn't very accurate. If everyone comes to a consensus that this is the standard way of measuring, I have no problem with that either.


Well i will ge her live measurement and that can't be flattened and stretched and it will be a lot bigger than the molt!!


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 4, 2009)

robc said:


> Well i will ge her live measurement and that can't be flattened and stretched and it will be a lot bigger than the molt!!


You seem to be forgetting they slow down when they get older. It is not going to be even remotely  common for a large T like that to gain an inch+ from the molt. 
My boehmei molt was right at 7" and I am saying she is only barely above 7" now and I know that is more than likely the case. 
With your blondi being RIGHT at 10" stretched on a rack, I bet she is 10.5" ish at best. But over 11"? I guess you can dream.


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 4, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> You seem to be forgetting they slow down when they get older. It is not going to be even remotely  common for a large T like that to gain an inch+ from the molt.


very good point, it makes sense.


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 4, 2009)

Is this the T. Blondi Zilla in question being 10"+?






on the bottom pic, I use the quarter as reference being really closed to an 1". Im not sure how recent the top pic is taken, but this T. is not even closed to 10", even if I was trying to compensate for relaxed posed.


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> You seem to be forgetting they slow down when they get older. It is not going to be even remotely  common for a large T like that to gain an inch+ from the molt.
> My boehmei molt was right at 7" and I am saying she is only barely above 7" now and I know that is more than likely the case.
> With your blondi being RIGHT at 10" stretched on a rack, I bet she is 10.5" ish at best. But over 11"? I guess you can dream.


You may have a very valid point there...and we'll know for sure when we get a measurement in a few weeks. I know she gained some substantial size with this molt - we could see the size difference in the head, legs (width) and the chelicerae...if you look at the molt photos, they are all WAY bigger now. But if I measure her and she's "only" 10.5", I have no problem with that...that's still a HUGE blondi - I know we can agree on that!


----------



## robc (Jan 4, 2009)

tarantulaholic said:


> Is this the T. Blondi Zilla in question being 10"+?
> 
> on the bottom pic, I use the quarter as reference being really closed to an 1". Im not sure how recent the top pic is taken, but this T. is not even closed to 10", even if I was trying to compensate for relaxed posed.


Yeah that is her...and she's not really 'relaxed' there, her legs are pulled in. I measured the molt and it was 10"...could be the angle of the pic, I don't know. The pic was taken from above...a few feet above so it would throw off the measurement they way you did it. I'll get a measurement when she's ready and we'll know then - I don't really care how big she is...she's big enough for me! LOL


----------



## MizM (Jan 4, 2009)

God forbid someone should win by a millimeter or two!:}


----------



## IrishPolishman (Jan 4, 2009)

that is a very very large t.  I don't know if my rommate could handle the idea of having a t that size in the house. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 4, 2009)

IrishPolishman said:


> that is a very very large t.  I don't know if my rommate could handle the idea of having a t that size in the house. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.


Tarantulas are weird, its the little spiders that scares people more. But the large ones there more intrique about it, almost mammalian looking< cuddly.


----------



## IrishPolishman (Jan 4, 2009)

I actually think the exact same way.  But i'm also the guy that gets bored fishing and starts catching the other local wildlife instead.  My roommate will leave a landscaping job site if there is a small snake found anywhere close.  The funniest part is that the roommate looks like an overgrown lumberjack who shouldn't be scared of anything.


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 4, 2009)

forensics said:


> I agree with the fact that a hand on a molt in a pic only signifies a stretching or pulling of the molt which I believe gives an inaccurate reading.
> 
> I do think that a molt pic such as ryan's and ottawaherp's are acceptable.


For the record, my smithi's skin was posed months ago for mounting in a shadowbox frame. Therefore the skin was dry and certainly not flattened to make appear larger than it is.

Crap, I read that wrong. D'oh!


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 4, 2009)

If one must pose the live spider on a measured grid for a photo to be valid. 

Good luck getting photos of some of the more faster defensive ones.

I certainly won't be submiting any. lol


----------



## DreadLobster (Jan 4, 2009)

The debate about rob's blondi is kinda pointless... because whether his measurement is accurate down to the quarter inch or even down to the inch, I haven't seen anyone else post a picture of one even close... and this is a post about records... so he still wins.

I could see people debating if there was another big blondi competing for the spot... but unless I missed something...


----------



## UrbanJungles (Jan 4, 2009)

DreadLobster said:


> The debate about rob's blondi is kinda pointless... because whether his measurement is accurate down to the quarter inch or even down to the inch, I haven't seen anyone else post a picture of one even close... and this is a post about records... so he still wins.
> 
> I could see people debating if there was another big blondi competing for the spot... but unless I missed something...


You missed the fact that you need an accurate method of measuring.  So far, I'm in agreement with Moose that we need a smiley with a shovel.


----------



## jeepinwu2 (Jan 4, 2009)

DreadLobster said:


> The debate about rob's blondi is kinda pointless... because whether his measurement is accurate down to the quarter inch or even down to the inch, I haven't seen anyone else post a picture of one even close... and this is a post about records... so he still wins.
> 
> I could see people debating if there was another big blondi competing for the spot... but unless I missed something...


Exactly, If the molt was 9.5" or 10" stretched and it's new size is 10.5" or 11" stretched it's still one of the biggest T's I'll never own. F them all Rob, I wouldn't disturb her just to prove something to the *envious*.


----------



## UrbanJungles (Jan 4, 2009)

moose35 said:


> i promise i didn't strech the molt.


I want to make this my avatar...
:clap:   :clap:   :clap:


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 4, 2009)

DreadLobster said:


> The debate about rob's blondi is kinda pointless... because whether his measurement is accurate down to the quarter inch or even down to the inch, I haven't seen anyone else post a picture of one even close... and this is a post about records... so he still wins.


You cant honestly say this title are judge fairly.
Below got the 7" title? 





and Blondi got the 11" title? a quarter is sitting right beside that T, and pic is taken from top, not angled. I cant see this T, over 10" imo. (i could be wrong).






I think thats reason you dont see some good size T's entering for the title. I know I wont waste time, till its judge fairly. None of this questionable sizes.
just my 2c about this contest.


----------



## DreadLobster (Jan 4, 2009)

tarantulaholic said:


> I think thats reason you dont see some good size T's entering for the title. I know I wont waste time, till its judge fairly. None of this questionable sizes.
> just my 2c about this contest.


I think the reason people aren't entering is that there is no prize for winning aside from bragging rights, or that they don't have a digital camera. And I never said anything was fair, especially about the 7" one... I didn't see anyone really arguing about it though for whatever reason.



UrbanJungles said:


> You missed the fact that you need an accurate method of measuring.  So far, I'm in agreement with Moose that we need a smiley with a shovel.


I didn't miss anything.

Again, no one has even posted anything remotely close to what rob's was, and the picture of the molt with the tape measure on it clearly was right around the 10" mark... so if you don't consider that accurate, then you're just being really really picky about a contest with nothing at stake. Anyone got a blondi above 10"? If not, I'm still sticking to my point that this debate is irrelevant. 

Its a contest for fun, why argue about it?


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 5, 2009)

DreadLobster said:


> Again, no one has even posted anything remotely close to what rob's was, and the picture of the molt with the tape measure on it clearly was right around the 10" mark... so if you don't consider that accurate, then you're just being really really picky about a contest with nothing at stake. Anyone got a blondi above 10"? If not, I'm still sticking to my point that this debate is irrelevant.


The title he got is 11" Blondi, not 10" or did I missed something?


----------



## gbbgirl (Jan 5, 2009)

moose35 said:


> why do they not have a smiley with a shovel?
> 
> this 1 has got to be a record.
> 
> ...



LOL

I love it!  

This issue reminds me of how deer are taxidermied and mounted.  I was at Christmas with some family and the host had a bunch of mounted bucks.    All of the horns were just like the natural state, but they had shrunk a bit with drying.  But the necks of the bucks had been stuffed severely.  The taxidermist had taken a naturally, nerdy-pencil necked buck (think connan obrian, if the buck was a human) and made it the dimensions of an Arnold Schwarzenegger buck (think connan the barbarian).  It seems that across the board in professional preserving of specimen, people make the animal appear at its biggest and best.  I don't know if this is wrong or right, but I know it is common.


----------



## DreadLobster (Jan 5, 2009)

Well then thats the fault of the OP, rob admitted like 2 or 3 pages ago that the molt was 10... but still... is anyone challenging it for the title? cause otherwise...


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

tarantulaholic said:


> You cant honestly say this title are judge fairly.
> Below got the 7" title?
> 
> 
> ...


Okay.....the molt measured 10"....how is she not 10"....welll fine in a relaxed position 9.5-9.75".....she is bigger now......& much bigger......rob


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

DreadLobster said:


> Well then thats the fault of the OP, rob admitted like 2 or 3 pages ago that the molt was 10... but still... is anyone challenging it for the title? cause otherwise...


I thought she was a little bigger. At least someone reads....rob


----------



## CodeWilster (Jan 5, 2009)

tarantulaholic said:


> You cant honestly say this title are judge fairly.
> Below got the 7" title?
> 
> 
> ...


Well I'll say a few things. One; measuring a live T isn't completely easy. Two; measuring a live monster Haplopelma hainanum ESPECIALLY isn't easy. She's a bit curled in that pic, was hoping ppl would use their logical imagination skills for this one. That right there was the best pic I could get sorry you didn't like it. I could care less if I got the title but as far as I know nobody has put in another hap pic yet and, uh, I guess that means if it were only 2" I'd still get the title right? I do agree with you that none of this is very accurate stuff though. But seriously, does the winner(s) of any of this get a special prize? Are they going to go into any record books? I don't think so. Had it been more like that I probably wouldn't have submitted that particular one. This thread will probably go on and on until it gets deleted. It was supposed to be people entering in pics of their T's with some kind of size reference. This thread is over 9 pages long and there's hardly any pics. Hmmm lots of fluff :? To me, it was just a fun chance to show off some pics of my spiders. I can guarantee you that girl is 7 inches. I'll hopefully have a molt soon, or if I'm willing to chance one of my fingers and further pester my girl again I'll try to get an accurate picture of her next to a tape measure instead. It's not uncommon for this species to get that size anyway I'm sure. But seriously, this thread was created for kicks and I threw in a few pics for kicks. I think I'll stay away from it now though, it's like a bunch of first graders arguing over who got the biggest candy bar :wall:


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 5, 2009)

Good grief she is stunning.


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 5, 2009)

jeepinwu2 said:


> *envious*.


 Hey bud, any one of us could have bought this T from Reptist. It's hardly an accomplishment.  And if there is credit to be had it goes to Brandon.

How about we set the rules first, then maybe more entries will post....then you could start your cheer leading. :clap:


----------



## MizM (Jan 5, 2009)

moose35 said:


> why do they not have a smiley with a shovel?
> this 1 has got to be a record.
> p. fortis molt pic. she has got to be a little bigger now.
> i promise i didn't strech the molt.


ROFLMAO!!  Definitely a big 'un!


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

forensics said:


> Hey bud, any one of us could have bought this T from Reptist. It's hardly an accomplishment.  And if there is credit to be had it goes to Brandon.


Look BUD, this T wasn't bought from Reptist (though I do give Brandon my highest respect!) - I have several blondi's. The one I had bought from Reptist I sold to the admin on my forum...here's a pic of Celeste (the 9" blondi I bought from Reptist):







This one was bought from Tacoma (the one that molted before Zilla):







And the credit doesn't got to *anybody *- it goes to the T's...your remarks aren't necessary. Where are your pictures? It seems you've only come into this thread to bash people and cause drama...:wall:


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 5, 2009)

If establishing a common measuring criteria is bashing...so be it.


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

forensics said:


> If establishing a common measuring criteria is bashing...so be it.


I wasn't referring to anything you'd said about measuring criteria...I was referring to several other comments you've made. :wall:


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 5, 2009)

man, get over it. You're pretty selective with you indignation.


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

forensics said:


> man, get over it. You're pretty selective with you indignation.


Others haven't personally offended me, you have...let's just drop it and move on. Anything else you need to say to me can be done via PMs. This thread is getting hijacked and it's not cool. Bye.

Rob


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 5, 2009)

ok. I guess I mis-read you flying off the hook at Ryan thinking he called you a liar.   

You aren't a moderator but I agree with dropping it.


----------



## LadyPharaoh (Jan 5, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Good grief she is stunning.


She sure is. Did you raise her from a sling?


----------



## Arachnosold1er (Jan 5, 2009)

And its times like this that remind me why I personally dont care to give my input on here anymore. All people want to do is argue anymore. Cant we all just get along???? :4:


----------



## arachnidgirl (Jan 5, 2009)

I agree with Rob.  This forum is supposed to be fun.  If your going to argue, do it via pm.
I rarely post.  I come on here to learn through experienced t owners, not read arguments.
By the Way Rob, I love your vids...


----------



## D-back (Jan 5, 2009)

Hi everybody! At first I have to say, I'm not an experienced T keeper and I don't have any "big" T's yet.......but I think, the OP's intention with this thread was to have some fun and to see some nice pictures......I think it's very hard to make rules and set standards about measuring live T's. For example...what is "normal" position? Not stretched out? Some of my T's like to rest in a more stretched position than the others. I see differences even between T's from the same species. If the legs are not stretched, you can only guess, what the true size of the spider is. In my opinion, the only truly objective method is to measure the T's with fully stretched legs. But how can you measure a living T ( especially terrestrial ) with fully stretched legs? It's hard...it can be done with molts, but the actual size of the T can be bigger than the size of the molt.............And what's my point with this?......I think, in this case, you don't have to be 100% objective.....Come on boys and girls!...Just have some fun.....


----------



## arachnidgirl (Jan 5, 2009)

D-back said:


> Hi everybody! At first I have to say, I'm not an experienced T keeper and I don't have any "big" T's yet.......but I think, the OP's intention with this thread was to have some fun and to see some nice pictures......I think it's very hard to make rules and set standards about measuring live T's. For example...what is "normal" position? Not stretched out? Some of my T's like to rest in a more stretched position than the others. I see differences even between T's from the same species. If the legs are not stretched, you can only guess, what the true size of the spider is. In my opinion, the only truly objective method is to measure the T's with fully stretched legs. But how can you measure a living T ( especially terrestrial ) with fully stretched legs? It's hard...it can be done with molts, but the actual size of the T can be bigger than the size of the molt.............And what's my point with this?......I think, in this case, you don't have to be 100% objective.....Come on boys and girls!...Just have some fun.....


I second that


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

forensics said:


> ok. I guess I mis-read you flying off the hook at Ryan thinking he called you a liar.
> 
> You aren't a moderator but I agree with dropping it.


I will agree with you on that and Ryan clarified what he meant and I apologized...

Consider it dropped!


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

D-back said:


> Hi everybody! At first I have to say, I'm not an experienced T keeper and I don't have any "big" T's yet.......but I think, the OP's intention with this thread was to have some fun and to see some nice pictures......I think it's very hard to make rules and set standards about measuring live T's. For example...what is "normal" position? Not stretched out? Some of my T's like to rest in a more stretched position than the others. I see differences even between T's from the same species. If the legs are not stretched, you can only guess, what the true size of the spider is. In my opinion, the only truly objective method is to measure the T's with fully stretched legs. But how can you measure a living T ( especially terrestrial ) with fully stretched legs? It's hard...it can be done with molts, but the actual size of the T can be bigger than the size of the molt.............And what's my point with this?......I think, in this case, you don't have to be 100% objective.....Come on boys and girls!...Just have some fun.....


I'll third that! And great post!! Let's all have some fun!!!


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 5, 2009)

robc said:


> I'll third that! And great post!! Let's all have some fun!!!


Yes yes lets go back to pressing down on the joints of molts in an unnatural manner to gain more size when measuring a molt. (and yes Rob you are doing that in your picture, the only people that can't see that are the blind.)  

The standards are pretty simple. 
A molt sitting on a ruler unassisted by hands making it stretch, the measurement is  from the back leg to the front opposite leg then photographed. I don't see what is hard about that. 
And in the case of a live spider, a little bit of luck and patience and then you snap the best picture you can get. 
It won't be accurate down to 100th of an inch but you can get a picture that leaves little to dispute.  
Oh wait should I point out that this vagans lady does not have her front leg stretched out all the way so she is closer to 8"? LOL


----------



## fang333999 (Jan 5, 2009)

i cant even believe there are pages of bickering about the size of Rob's t blondi. OH MY GOD HES PRESSING ON THE MOLT!!!! even if he is, it only adds an inch at most to the leg span. its a big fricken t and its obviously around ten inches. no one can appreciate that? no we all have to bitch about whos right and whos wrong. well IMO its an impressive tarantula whether it be 9", 10", or 11".


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 5, 2009)

fang333999 said:


> i cant even believe there are pages of bickering about the size of Rob's t blondi. OH MY GOD HES PRESSING ON THE MOLT!!!! even if he is, it only adds an inch at most to the leg span. its a big fricken t and its obviously around ten inches. no one can appreciate that? no we all have to bitch about whos right and whos wrong. well IMO its an impressive tarantula whether it be 9", 10", or 11".


No one is arguing that it is not an impressively sized T. But most of us seem to agree there needs to be a measuring standard if there is going to be a "records" thread. 
Does that make any sense to you?


----------



## pinktoe53088 (Jan 5, 2009)

Chilobrachys huahini i think 6.5 or 7in duno im not good at eyeing it up


----------



## BCscorp (Jan 5, 2009)

When you go to the doctor and get a physical, they weigh you, measure your height etc. When they are measuring your height and you are totally slouching, do they tell you to stand up straight?? YES they do...why? Because if you are slouching its not your true height. I would like to suggest this is the case with measuring molts. To straighten the legs (NOT PULLING) by pushing down the joint is not stretching. I have observed my t's with one back leg on the ground and the rest stretched on the glass to the max (as if Robc was measuring it) as a normal pose from time to time.
Well im hopin my LP gets huge enough to submit here lol..
That B. vagans is nice lookin'


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Yes yes lets go back to pressing down on the joints of molts in an unnatural manner to gain more size when measuring a molt. (and yes Rob you are doing that in your picture, the only people that can't see that are the blind.)


Ryan I will agre the first leg was pushed down slightly but the back leg was not pushed down that far....would it make everybody happy for me to try and post a pic of the molt without putting it into position????


----------



## upwith inverts! (Jan 5, 2009)

Sorry, I was trying to sum up the situation with this. I will now be copying and pasting the records sheet to a post occasionally, since it won't let me edit the first one anymore. I am keeping Robc's Blondi up there at the same size, since now I have reason to believe that it is that size with the molt and all. (caused me to order a blondi ). Oh, and any tarantula dealers out there, can we get sponsorship or something ......please?


----------



## upwith inverts! (Jan 5, 2009)

Also, if we have some disputed measurement, i.e. with the H. Hainanum, could someone use whatever program tarantulaholic used to compare zilla with the quarter and PM me with the image they end up with (or post it)? So like with the H. Hainanum, if someone could use the image software to meausure each 1 inch inrement on the leg, so we can account for the natural curve? All measurements will be based on the tarantulas measurement lying flat. Otherwise, you can find me in my tarantula room, yelling at my tarantulas, "C'mon, Eat! Eat! you need to bring me a title in this contest I started!" But really, have fun.


----------



## upwith inverts! (Jan 5, 2009)

The new standings are:


Largest overall - Robc 10" Female T. Blondi*
NW tarantula - Robc 10" Female T. Blondi*
OW tarantula - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum female
Arboreal tarantula - CodeWilster 6 3/4" female Avic. Braunshasensi
Terrestrial tarantula - Robc 10" Female T. Blondi*
Avicularia - CodeWilster 6 3/4" female Avic. Braunshasensi
Acanthoscurria
Aphonopelma
Brachypelma - Talkenlate04 7.25" B. Boehmei*
Ceratogyrus
Chilobrachys
Chromatopelma Cyaneopubescens - CodeWilster 6" female
Citharischius Crawshayi
Cyriocosmus
Cyriopagopus
Ephebopus
Euathlus
Eucratoscelus
Grammostola - CodeWilster 6" G. Rosea Male
Haplopelma - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum female
Heteroscodra 
Holothele
Hysterocrates
Lasiodora
Megaphobema
Nhandu
Pamphobeteus
Phormictopus
Poecilotheria
Psalmopoeus
Pterinochlus
Selenocosmia
Stromatopelma Calceatum
Theraphosa - Robc 10" Female T. Blondi*
Xenesthis
North American tarantula
Central American tarantula
South American Tarantula - Robc 10" Female T. Blondi*
Asian tarantula - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum Female
African Tarantula 
Europian Tarantula
Australian Tarantula
Other
Longest fast - etown 411 G. Rosea fasting since Aug. '07
Most bites (person)

*Has Molted since last accurate measurement, or last accurate measurement was a molt pic. May have grown since then.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 5, 2009)

Oh there is a largest overall? 
Sweet,  I think I can beat that 10".
Grr to bad she was not in her pokie stance.


----------



## barabootom (Jan 5, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Oh there is a largest overall?
> Sweet,  I think I can beat that 10".
> Grr to bad she was not in her pokie stance.


I can't see the bottom of your ruler.  haha.  You did that on purpose.  :clap:


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Oh there is a largest overall?
> Sweet,  I think I can beat that 10".
> Grr to bad she was not in her pokie stance.


Ryan I was going to bring this up but didn't want to bring up any bad memories....but I think I have this beat when I get a measurement on my newly molted girl.....that pic of yours still makes me sad!!! :8o I must say though that we can not see the 1" mark but I still believe you .....Rob


----------



## robc (Jan 5, 2009)

fang333999 said:


> i cant even believe there are pages of bickering about the size of Rob's t blondi. OH MY GOD HES PRESSING ON THE MOLT!!!! even if he is, it only adds an inch at most to the leg span. its a big fricken t and its obviously around ten inches. no one can appreciate that? no we all have to bitch about whos right and whos wrong. well IMO its an impressive tarantula whether it be 9", 10", or 11".


Thanks brandon


----------



## MizM (Jan 6, 2009)

I don't understand all this bickering over size. Everyone knows men can't measure! Ask any woman, they'll tell you that every man they know has told them this ______________ is 6"!


----------



## robc (Jan 6, 2009)

MizM said:


> I don't understand all this bickering over size. Everyone knows men can't measure! Ask any woman, they'll tell you that every man they know has told them this ______________ is 6"!


LOL!!! That's why in that molt size pic - those are my wifes hands.


----------



## MizM (Jan 6, 2009)

robc said:


> LOL!!! That's why in that molt size pic - those are my wifes hands.


ROFLOL!:clap:


----------



## arachnidgirl (Jan 6, 2009)

robc said:


> LOL!!! That's why in that molt size pic - those are my wifes hands.


Snicker....


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 6, 2009)

robc said:


> LOL!!! That's why in that molt size pic - those are my wifes hands.


Really???, I would have never guessed. I thought it was your hands, but just recently shaved to impressed us.


----------



## robc (Jan 6, 2009)

tarantulaholic said:


> Really???, I would have never guessed. I thought it was your hands, but just recently shaved to impressed us.


ROFLMAO!!!!!


----------



## Franklin (Jan 8, 2009)

That in the back is one of those CD lids for the 50 pack of cd/dvd's 

she is pure evil, what other proof could i get? i have bite marks on a peice of cardboard that the holes are bigger than the tip of a pen.


----------



## robc (Jan 8, 2009)

Franklin said:


> That in the back is one of those CD lids for the 50 pack of cd/dvd's
> 
> she is pure evil, what other proof could i get? i have bite marks on a peice of cardboard that the holes are bigger than the tip of a pen.


Looks like a typical King Baboon...pure evil on 8 legs!!!


----------



## Franklin (Jan 8, 2009)

but good enough for the record for now?


----------



## robc (Jan 8, 2009)

Franklin said:


> but good enough for the record for now?


Which record??


----------



## Franklin (Jan 8, 2009)

Largest King baboon, and OW terrestiral


----------



## robc (Jan 8, 2009)

Franklin said:


> Largest King baboon, and OW terrestiral


I'm guessing you'll need a measurement of her...


----------



## DreadLobster (Jan 8, 2009)

Franklin said:


> That in the back is one of those CD lids for the 50 pack of cd/dvd's
> 
> she is pure evil, what other proof could i get? i have bite marks on a peice of cardboard that the holes are bigger than the tip of a pen.


How many inches are you thinking she is? I've got one thats definitely around 7" (trying not to exaggerate) but its so hard to get a measurement of them cause of the way their shaped... the front legs are always pulled in and the big long back legs are always bent way up... I don't know if I've ever seen her stretch out. Not to mention the fact that she's always underground. Maybe we should just get a measurement on "tallest threat pose."


----------



## ReMoVeR (Jan 8, 2009)

robc said:


> Looks like a typical King Baboon...pure evil on 8 legs!!!


 I actually see pure evil in 4 legs =)


hehehe

//Tiago


----------



## Drachenjager (Jan 8, 2009)

heres my g. rosea premolt . she is a lot bigger now that she molted. prob gained at least an inch or 3(just funnin)


----------



## Franklin (Jan 9, 2009)

DreadLobster said:


> How many inches are you thinking she is? I've got one thats definitely around 7" (trying not to exaggerate) but its so hard to get a measurement of them cause of the way their shaped... the front legs are always pulled in and the big long back legs are always bent way up... I don't know if I've ever seen her stretch out. Not to mention the fact that she's always underground. Maybe we should just get a measurement on "tallest threat pose."



when i set down some random objects and she walked over them she completely covered a Ben Franklin (bill) and had some room on each size, so if she was stretched out i would say 8" but could be closer to 7.5,

and highest threat pose? mine will get on its back to threat post, but who knows how tall it can go lol


----------



## JDeRosa (Jan 9, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Oh there is a largest overall?
> Sweet,  I think I can beat that 10".
> Grr to bad she was not in her pokie stance.


Hey, what kind of a pokie is that?


----------



## kryptix (Jan 9, 2009)

P. Ornata, the coolest poke


----------



## GartenSpinnen (Jan 9, 2009)

Sorry again for that little incident Ryan


----------



## Moultmaster (Jan 9, 2009)

*Funny...*

...how none of these measurements are linear.  In a lot of the pics the ruler or measuring tape is positioned at such an angle to make the T' appear lengthier than it actually is.   Since when do we measure T's diagonally like Television sets. I think if you want to have any of these "records" stand you need to get them verified by Guiness so they can be measured accurately.


----------



## DreadLobster (Jan 9, 2009)

Moultmaster said:


> ...how none of these measurements are linear.  In a lot of the pics the ruler or measuring tape is positioned at such an angle to make the T' appear lengthier than it actually is.   Since when do we measure T's diagonally like Television sets. I think if you want to have any of these "records" stand you need to get them verified by Guiness so they can be measured accurately.


As someone pointed out earlier, guiness book of world records is about as reliable as wikipedia. And, correct me if I'm wrong, all you dealers out there, but I'm fairly certain most people who sell/breed/measure tarantulas measure them diagonally.


----------



## robc (Jan 9, 2009)

DreadLobster said:


> As someone pointed out earlier, guiness book of world records is about as reliable as wikipedia. And, correct me if I'm wrong, all you dealers out there, but I'm fairly certain most people who sell/breed/measure tarantulas measure them diagonally.


Ypu are correct....you measure a T diagonally....rob


----------



## pandinus (Jan 9, 2009)

Moultmaster said:


> ...how none of these measurements are linear.  In a lot of the pics the ruler or measuring tape is positioned at such an angle to make the T' appear lengthier than it actually is.   Since when do we measure T's diagonally like Television sets. I think if you want to have any of these "records" stand you need to get them verified by Guiness so they can be measured accurately.


last time i checked this was a thread to have fun, its not meant to be hardcore serious, just to have a friendly competition


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 9, 2009)

GBB female and N. Chromatus female.


The GBB atacked my first attempt at placing a quarter in the tank. So a large discoid roach was offered, and the quarter was placed.

The N. chromatus is just such a nasty thing, a roach was offered and then this was taken. I still can't get the quarter out.

With all the critics out there. Myself and another AB member agree that the GBB is appox. 6 1/2" min. , and the N. chromatus at  approx. 7".


----------



## moose35 (Jan 9, 2009)

Ottawaherp said:


> GBB female and N. Chromatus female.
> 
> 
> The GBB atacked my first attempt at placing a quarter in the tank. So a large discoid roach was offered, and the quarter was placed.
> ...


agreed those sizes sound right.

this turned into a joke after people were over exagerating their spiders. which kinda sucks how people can mis measure by like 2 inches 


moose

ps i think i have the biggest haplo


----------



## Franklin (Jan 10, 2009)

NO KB MEASUREMENT FOR ME





almost a 6" MM rose. the back leg is bent down, but it is very close to the 6" mark, like there the big rock on leg IV is it does down about a half into to an inch


----------



## DreadLobster (Jan 10, 2009)

Franklin said:


> NO KB MEASUREMENT FOR ME
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you get her out in the open that often? Or are you just one of the lucky ones that got one that isn't shy? Mine doesn't come out except with a handful of substrate when she's expanding her tunnel.


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 10, 2009)

moose35 said:


> agreed those sizes sound right.
> 
> this turned into a joke after people were over exagerating their spiders. which kinda sucks how people can mis measure by like 2 inches
> 
> ...




Thanks, because getting a ruler in either of these enclosures would be next to impossible, and same with attempting to remove either occupant for photographs.


----------



## UrbanJungles (Jan 10, 2009)

moose35 said:


> ps i think i have the biggest haplo


Put 'em up, Put 'em up!


----------



## moose35 (Jan 10, 2009)

UrbanJungles said:


> Put 'em up, Put 'em up!


will do.. i have to get up some nerve to try to get my girl out of her container. she scares me 


       moose


----------



## Redapache (Jan 11, 2009)

How about my Singapore Blue does it get on the board,If she would flatten out like she does in the cage I think she would be over 7".And don't make fun of her ugliness she needs a molt lol.


----------



## Drachenjager (Jan 11, 2009)

Moultmaster said:


> ...how none of these measurements are linear.  In a lot of the pics the ruler or measuring tape is positioned at such an angle to make the T' appear lengthier than it actually is.   Since when do we measure T's diagonally like Television sets. I think if you want to have any of these "records" stand you need to get them verified by Guiness so they can be measured accurately.


like always! anyway, PERSONALLY i am upset when someone sells me a terrestrial spider measured diagonally and stretched out pokie style. A pokie measured that way is find , that's a normal stance for them , a T. blondi(or any terrestrial Tarantula) doesn't stand that way normally. it should be measured legs in its normal standing position. I know many people measure them stretched out , I don't, and don't want people to sell me one measured that way.


----------



## MizM (Jan 11, 2009)

Drachenjager said:


> like always! anyway, PERSONALLY i am upset when someone sells me a terrestrial spider measured diagonally and stretched out pokie style. A pokie measured that way is find , that's a normal stance for them , a T. blondi(or any terrestrial Tarantula) doesn't stand that way normally. it should be measured legs in its normal standing position. I know many people measure them stretched out , I don't, and don't want people to sell me one measured that way.


Yeah, but it's the hobby standard. I generally use given measurements as a guide to size, I never expect the exact size quoted. But then, in my case, size really doesn't matter, I keep Ts for their individual beauty.

I suppose it matters in a discussion like this, but I don't have anything big enough right now to qualify. My brother bought me a huge blondi yesterday at the Austin show, but I'm not going to attempt to get a size until I rehouse her.


----------



## barabootom (Jan 11, 2009)

Drachenjager said:


> like always! anyway, PERSONALLY i am upset when someone sells me a terrestrial spider measured diagonally and stretched out pokie style. A pokie measured that way is find , that's a normal stance for them , a T. blondi(or any terrestrial Tarantula) doesn't stand that way normally. it should be measured legs in its normal standing position. I know many people measure them stretched out , I don't, and don't want people to sell me one measured that way.


As far as I know, the standard has always been, for decades, a diagonal measurement.  What are the scientists who described the species using as a measurement?


----------



## Drachenjager (Jan 11, 2009)

barabootom said:


> As far as I know, the standard has always been, for decades, a diagonal measurement.  What are the scientists who described the species using as a measurement?


I don't have a problem with diagonal measurement, its the stretching the terrestrials out in an unnatural stance that I have a problem with.
lets face it if you stretch an A. anax out like a pokie hiding on a log, you may get a 7" measurement, when in real life the T standing like it does naturally its 5.5" and that's a bit misleading to a prospective buyer. now a pokie stretched out hiding on a log is their natural stance so its how I expect them to be measured.


----------



## robc (Jan 11, 2009)

Drachenjager said:


> I don't have a problem with diagonal measurement, its the stretching the terrestrials out in an unnatural stance that I have a problem with.
> lets face it if you stretch an A. anax out like a pokie hiding on a log, you may get a 7" measurement, when in real life the T standing like it does naturally its 5.5" and that's a bit misleading to a prospective buyer. now a pokie stretched out hiding on a log is their natural stance so its how I expect them to be measured.


For buying a T I 100% agree, but for a legspan record it should be the total legspan that exsists not how it stands....rob


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 11, 2009)

Measure me. lol

I have to agree with robc it's a biggest thing, but we should come up with a standard for measurement. The quarter thing is ok, but I imagine other countries currencies may differ. Then there is the whole ability to enhance photos on the pc.


BTW-That N. chromatus has been playing with that quarter it has moved three times that I have noticed, and has been flipped at least once. lol


----------



## kryptix (Jan 12, 2009)

Ha, Where'd you get the plastic weed leafs?


----------



## Drachenjager (Jan 12, 2009)

kryptix said:


> Ha, Where'd you get the plastic weed leafs?


who said its plastic lol


----------



## joshuai (Jan 12, 2009)

weed had seven individual leaflets thats a verginia creeper hows it?


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 12, 2009)

Exo-terra plants come in canabis style. really  lol


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 12, 2009)

A Hentzi - 10 inches!


----------



## barabootom (Jan 12, 2009)

forensics said:


> A Hentzi - 10 inches!


Looks like a N. vulpinus to me.


----------



## burmish101 (Jan 12, 2009)

I have been nailed 9 times in a 3-4 month period back when i was 16 lol. I'm 22 now and have learned my lesson Cant remember everything and have no pics but ill try a list.

2in. Heteroscodra maculata
7in. H. gigas then next night 2in H. longipendum, talk about hallucinations all night Oo Sickest i've ever been from spider bites.
I remember a A. metallica sling and a blondi sling also, obt and P. cancerides. 

Seen there was a most bit at the bottom of the list thought i'd have a go lol. And no, I probably shouldnt of owned all the t's I did back then.


----------



## Drachenjager (Jan 12, 2009)

well I have a T blondi female somewhere between 8-10" depending on how you measure . and a guy i know told me today he has spiders taht size under his house in central Texas so I may have located world record A. hentzi lol


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 13, 2009)

Shame, a neat thread turned to fluff.


----------



## Arachnosold1er (Jan 13, 2009)

So, uh, do we have a standard of measure yet? I like the quarter idea, but there is always photoshop.


----------



## robc (Jan 13, 2009)

Arachnosold1er said:


> So, uh, do we have a standard of measure yet? I like the quarter idea, but there is always photoshop.


A quarter is not a good way to measure the legspan of the T.....depends how close or far the pic is taken....rob


----------



## moose35 (Jan 13, 2009)

robc said:


> A quarter is not a good way to measure the legspan of the T.....depends how close or far the pic is taken....rob


that makes no sense....:? 

no matter how close(or far) you are. the quarter will always be the same size in relation to the tarantula. 

              moose


----------



## T_DORKUS (Jan 13, 2009)

moose35 said:


> that makes no sense....:?
> 
> no matter how close(or far) you are. the quarter will always be the same size in relation to the tarantula.
> 
> moose


Actually RobC has a point.  Try it.  It depends on how far away the object is from the camera and the angle the picture was taken.  A quarter placed closer to the camera than the T will appear larger than if that same quarter was placed further from the camera than the T.


----------



## robc (Jan 13, 2009)

T_DORKUS said:


> Actually RobC has a point.  Try it.  It depends on how far away the object is from the camera and the angle the picture was taken.  A quarter placed closer to the camera than the T will appear larger than if that same quarter was placed further from the camera than the T.


Exactly!! I used a quarter in my blondi pic, just for a relative size, not for measurement...


----------



## moose35 (Jan 13, 2009)

T_DORKUS said:


> Actually RobC has a point.  Try it.  It depends on how far away the object is from the camera and the angle the picture was taken.  A quarter placed closer to the camera than the T will appear larger than if that same quarter was placed further from the camera than the T.


if you put a quarter next to a tarantula and you take a picture of it then you take the same picture from outer space.

the spider will still be *X*# of quarter lengths.

but if you wanna put the quarter on a table and the spider on the floor then obviously there will be a difference.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 13, 2009)

moose35 said:


> if you put a quarter next to a tarantula and you take a picture of it then you take the same picture from outer space.
> 
> the spider will still be *X*# of quarter lengths.
> 
> but if you wanna put the quarter on a table and the spider on the floor then obviously there will be a difference.


LOL. 
I was going to write all that, but I am glad you did for me.  :clap:


----------



## robc (Jan 13, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> LOL.
> I was going to write all that, but I am glad you did for me.  :clap:





moose35 said:


> if you put a quarter next to a tarantula and you take a picture of it then you take the same picture from outer space.
> 
> the spider will still be *X*# of quarter lengths.
> 
> but if you wanna put the quarter on a table and the spider on the floor then obviously there will be a difference.


Okay, that's why they use that for Guinness, right? It's so accurate... LOL


----------



## moose35 (Jan 13, 2009)

Talkenlate04 said:


> LOL.
> I was going to write all that, but I am glad you did for me.  :clap:


your welcome.


{moose now goes off to contact nasa about borrowing a spaceship. to prove a point on an online forum}


now where is that damn smiley with a shovel:?


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 14, 2009)

moose35 said:


> if you put a quarter next to a tarantula and you take a picture of it then you take the same picture from outer space.
> 
> the spider will still be *X*# of quarter lengths.
> 
> but if you wanna put the quarter on a table and the spider on the floor then obviously there will be a difference.


I agree, The only way its gonna make a difference if the camera in angle or shot closer to either quarter or the T. But if pic is taken from top view and pretty much centered, that is actual size of T compared to quarter. imo


----------



## T_DORKUS (Jan 14, 2009)

moose35 said:


> if you put a quarter next to a tarantula and you take a picture of it then you take the same picture from outer space.
> 
> the spider will still be *X*# of quarter lengths.
> 
> but if you wanna put the quarter on a table and the spider on the floor then obviously there will be a difference.


:wall: Rob's point is the quarter method is not a consistent way to measure a T.  A quarter just 3 inches further away from the camera than the T will appear relatively smaller if taken at an angle.  Multiply that by 8 or 9 times for a large T like a Blondi and the margin of error is significant.  The only way the quarter method can work is if everyone stands directly over the T to take a pic.


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 14, 2009)

Ottawaherp said:


> Shame, a neat thread turned to fluff.


A few pages ago it was too serious because some dared to ask for a measuring standard and taking things too seriously. Fast forward several pages and the question still remains, but now those who aren't so indignant by the notion of rules first are now turning this thread to fluff?

Ottawaherp- I don't know if this comment was aimed at me for posting my fake spider. There was a thread about what to do with a fake Christmas tree. I had one and my son and I made spiders with them. I looked for the thread but it was buried deep. Because I was accused of being "argumentative" about asking for rules because I simply observed we had different standards of measurements in the photos. I thought it would show I don't take things so seriously. And since a humorous photo was already posted and well received, it was ok.  

This is why we have rules. We need them. You leave it up to the people and you get chaos. The only fluff I see is all the brown nosing going on.


----------



## UrbanJungles (Jan 14, 2009)

I a spider sits on this...you can measure it accurately from just about any angle...you can buy these for a couple of bucks at any art supply store.


----------



## TrevorB (Jan 14, 2009)

i was going to suggest something like that. i have a gaming mat that is divided in to clearly visible 1" squares. plopping the T down on one of those with an overhead shot would give a good indication of size.


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 14, 2009)

This card is 5" and it doesn't include the back legs. Cambridgei are noted to get 6-7" He was easily 7"+ by the time he reached his ultimate molt. This cambridgei was noted to be very large by the two breeders he was sent to. Both said it was the largest they had ever seen. It was larger than any I've had previously so I stuck a card up to it.

To be honest, I can't tell you how big most of the species I have get. I take note of size of species when purchasing but it's never the governing factor and often forget that information. :8o


----------



## D-back (Jan 14, 2009)

forensics said:


> Because I was accused of being "argumentative" about asking for rules because I simply observed we had different standards of measurements in the photos. I thought it would show I don't take things so seriously. And since a humorous photo was already posted and well received, it was ok.
> 
> This is why we have rules. We need them. You leave it up to the people and you get chaos.


Hi. Some might disagree, but I think your photo is great...I laughed a lot... 
PS. That cambridgei looks large!


----------



## robc (Jan 14, 2009)

UrbanJungles said:


> I a spider sits on this...you can measure it accurately from just about any angle...you can buy these for a couple of bucks at any art supply store.


Finally! Awesome idea and I agree with that totally!!


----------



## MizM (Jan 14, 2009)

A little comic relief is _ALWAYS_ welcome on the boards!


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 14, 2009)

Perhaps "fluff", was to harsh of a word. lol 

This thread was a neat idea in the beginning, but we have argued and argued about how to measure a "T". (myself included) lol

Pictures are worth a thousand words. I am aware even my photos may seem deceptive with the angles, but these were the best size comparison photos I could get to give a decent "approximate" size. 

The grid measuring idea is a good idea (used this method to measure my G. pulchra) but some of my big girls are not as friendly, and to place on a grid for measurement is not practical.

I expected to be scrutinizing photos with size comparison objects, instead of reading how to measure a "T" for Guiness. This is only for bragging rights.


----------



## Franklin (Jan 14, 2009)

Well i have a pamphobeteus nigricolor that is a COMPLETELY solid 6" when standing normal

[IMG

	
	
		
		
	


	











And here is a cute picture of her daughter


----------



## MizM (Jan 14, 2009)

T_DORKUS said:


> Actually RobC has a point.  Try it.  It depends on how far away the object is from the camera and the angle the picture was taken.  A quarter placed closer to the camera than the T will appear larger than if that same quarter was placed further from the camera than the T.


Take the famous camel spider photo for instance....


----------



## gbbgirl (Jan 15, 2009)

I just had my first entomology class today, I asked the prof how they "officially" measure inverts.  He specializes in nematodes (the class I have with him is nematology).  He refereed me to another prof, one that has more arachnid experience.  I'll find out the academic standard this week or next.


----------



## tarantulaholic (Jan 15, 2009)

Franklin said:


> Well i have a pamphobeteus nigricolor that is a COMPLETELY solid 6" when standing normal


Above is really a nice example of measuring a T. Although we can see one of leg is bent, we can add 1/2" or so to compensate for bent.
Straight shot from the top and centered, no fuss / no confusion.


----------



## Arachnobrian (Jan 15, 2009)

Not sure the character of the spider above, but my N. chromatus or GBB wouldn't stand for that. Perhaps the B. smithi would, but the Brachy record has been taken.

I had to feed each of my big girls a roach in order to get the quarter near them. lol

Nice spider BTW, and nicely photographed to show size.


----------



## Franklin (Jan 15, 2009)

Thank you, i love that girl so much, she is more mellow than any tarantula i have had when she is in your hands, but in her cage she is like lightning and eats like a machine, its like the mellows out just because she knows i am holding her, but i know she has no idea whats going on unfortunately


----------



## barabootom (Jan 16, 2009)

gbbgirl said:


> I just had my first entomology class today, I asked the prof how they "officially" measure inverts.  He specializes in nematodes (the class I have with him is nematology).  He refereed me to another prof, one that has more arachnid experience.  I'll find out the academic standard this week or next.


That's good news in my opinion.  Thanks for checking into it.  If someone reads in the literature something can get to 8 inches (measured flat) and everyone is measuring their 8 inch T's as 7 (natural stance) then that causes confusion.  Once the scientific standard is clarified, maybe we should have two lists of records (molts and mounted T's - flat meaurement) and (living T's - natural stance measurement).  For obvious reasons, living tarantulas aren't going to lay flat for a picture.  And thanks to everyone who has posted a picture.  I haven't yet, because I only have two T's big enough to maybe qualify and I'm waiting to see if someone else posts them before I get myself all itchy.


----------



## D-back (Jan 16, 2009)

barabootom said:


> Once the scientific standard is clarified, maybe we should have two lists of records (molts and mounted T's - flat meaurement) and (living T's - natural stance measurement).  For obvious reasons, living tarantulas aren't going to lay flat for a picture.


That's a great idea!:clap:


----------



## Endagr8 (Jan 16, 2009)

Gosh i wish the creator of this post would finally edit the records


----------



## MizM (Jan 16, 2009)

Oh for God's sake people, just set them on the scanner and close the lid really tight, set an anvil on top... everyone knows you can get an accurate size that way!!!


----------



## Skullptor (Jan 16, 2009)

gbbgirl said:


> I just had my first entomology class today, I asked the prof how they "officially" measure inverts.  He specializes in nematodes (the class I have with him is nematology).  He refereed me to another prof, one that has more arachnid experience.  I'll find out the academic standard this week or next.


I think I can tell you what he will say. Measurements usually given are of body length; however, for butterflies and moths usually wingspan is indicated. The body length can aid in determining species. A 4" spider can have a 1.75" body or a spider of the same length can have 2.25" body. This is why they use body length. If you don't believe me pick up an Autubon Field Guide. This is how they measure.

Now when you whittle it down even further, a group such as tarantulas may have roughly the same size body, but the leg length is a determining factor, which is why it is also acceptable to use legspan when talking about different species that has roughly the same body length. 

I'll say again, it doesn't matter which way we measure so long as everybody measures the same way. It's not that there is a right or wrong. Maybe there should be a molt category where true leg span can be measured, and a live category where it is impossible to measure that way.


----------



## Endagr8 (Jan 16, 2009)

there should be a record for largest collection too.


----------



## Warren Bautista (Jan 16, 2009)

Talkenlate04 has the largest, IIRC.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 16, 2009)

The Heartbreak Kid said:


> Talkenlate04 has the largest, IIRC.


Highly doubt that!


----------



## Warren Bautista (Jan 16, 2009)

Really? I thought you had more Ts than your post count?


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Jan 16, 2009)

The Heartbreak Kid said:


> Really? I thought you had more Ts than your post count?


Not even close.


----------



## skippy (Jan 16, 2009)

i think that "largest" should be measured by weight. that's how we determine the "biggest" fish for the jackpot on the charter boats 

this means that you have to get them to sit still on a food scale or some such for a few seconds and that will finish all arguments.


----------



## Franklin (Jan 17, 2009)

my king baboon weighs as much as the post man he took down and add maybe like 7oz to that,


----------



## mafiamike (Jan 17, 2009)

My MM G. aureostriata is at least 7" when he sprawls out on the wall, but catching him in that postion is the hard part. His front leg is fairly bent in this picture, but he's still measuring in at 6 5/8", which beats the current record listed for the Grammostola genus. 

I have a picture of him next to a ruler when he measured 7", but I took it at such an extreme angle to avoid glare from the flash, that it's not an accurate measurement since the ruler was closer to the camera than the tarantula due to the thickness of the glass. I know it sounds lame, but at the angle the picture was taken, it really did make about a 1/2" difference.


----------



## JOHN 3:16 (Apr 6, 2009)

*My largest Tarantula just Molted!*

Hi name is Mike. This is my first post. I want to post up a picture of my Blondi that molted on *03/31/09*. She is CB. I recieved her as a freebie from John Hokes with a purchase on *3/11/02.* What do u think? Look at the size of her body! 
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 77219


----------



## MizM (Apr 6, 2009)

She's a beauty, would love to see a pic of HER!


----------



## Franklin (Apr 7, 2009)

If he streched out the molt, i bet that would be about 12"+


----------



## JOHN 3:16 (Apr 7, 2009)

MizM said:


> She's a beauty, would love to see a pic of HER!


When she come out of her den I will take a picture of her.


----------



## upwith inverts! (Apr 10, 2009)

Rules of measurement:
- Measured flat, from leg I on one side to leg IV on the other.
- all post- ultimate molt pics will have 5% tacked on to their lengths when completely flat, as I have found that to be a good general constant for the spiders growth after post-ultimate molts.
- will find % constants for various relaxed positions.
-preferably with a ruler, tape measure, or 1 inch increment grids.
- Will also put length in natural position in parenthesis by the record.
What do you all think?


----------



## Paramite (Apr 10, 2009)

skippy said:


> i think that "largest" should be measured by weight. that's how we determine the "biggest" fish for the jackpot on the charter boats


Nah. Then some moron would just feed his T. blondi to a point close to EXPLOSION. This is the same reason why body length isn't an accurate way to measure tarantulas.


----------



## upwith inverts! (Apr 10, 2009)

Largest overall - Robc 10.5" Female T. Blondi 
NW tarantula - Robc 10.5" Female T. Blondi
OW tarantula - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum female
Arboreal tarantula -UrbanJungles 7.25" female C. sp. Singapore Blue 
Terrestrial tarantula - Robc 10.5" Female T. Blondi
Avicularia- CodeWilster 6.75" Female A. Braunshasensi
Acanthoscurria
Aphonopelma
Brachypelma- Talkenlate 7.5" female B. Vagans (7" natural)
Ceratogyrus
Chilobrachys
Chromatopelma Cyaneopubescens- CodeWilster 5.5" female
Citharischius Crawshayi
Cyriocosmus
Cyriopagopus -UrbanJungles 7.25" female C. sp. Singapore Blue 
Ephebopus
Euathlus
Eucratoscelus
Grammostola- mafamike 7" Male G. Aureostriata
Haplopelma - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum female
Heteroscodra 
Holothele
Hysterocrates
Lasiodora
Megaphobema
Nhandu
Pamphobeteus- 6" P. Nigricolor
Phormictopus
Poecilotheria
Psalmopoeus
Pterinochlus
Selenocosmia
Stromatopelma Calceatum
Theraphosa - Robc 10.5" Female T. Blondi
Xenesthis
North American tarantula
Central American tarantula- Talkenlate 7.5" female B. Vagans (7" natural)
South American Tarantula - Robc 10.5" Female T. Blondi
Asian tarantula - CodeWilster 7" H. Hainanum Female
African Tarantula 
Australian Tarantula
Other
Longest fast - etown 411 G. Rosea fasting since Aug. '07
Most bites (person) - burmish101: 9 bites.


----------



## wedge07 (Apr 10, 2009)

Actually I think Rob's blondi is a little bigger and Rob also has a Regalis MF that is bigger than 7" probably close to 8".  He has it posted in one of his mating videos.


----------



## robc (Apr 10, 2009)

I have a 8" P. Fasciata....but Talkenlate04 has also a Ornata that was posted at over 10".

Rob


----------



## wedge07 (Apr 10, 2009)

robc said:


> ....but Talkenlate04 has also a Ornata that was posted at over 10".
> 
> Rob


  Wow, that is one huge Ornata!


----------



## robc (Apr 10, 2009)

wedge07 said:


> Wow, that is one huge Ornata!


I have one a tad iover 10", but I think ryans is slightly bigger.

Rob


----------



## wedge07 (Apr 11, 2009)

That's impressive. How long have you had it?


----------



## robc (Apr 11, 2009)

wedge07 said:


> That's impressive. How long have you had it?


I haven't had her that long...maybe 6 months? She's only molted once with me...


----------



## Sathane (Apr 11, 2009)

I think barabootom's Pampho pic above shows perfect measuring form.  You can see that the specimen is flat on the ruler with the tip of the L1 leg and the tip of the R4 leg touching the ruler.



UrbanJungles said:


> I'm pushing 3'2" these days...you need to be more observant.
> 
> 
> If you guys really want to do this...you need one of those grids that are in 1 inch increments...I think I've seen TravisK post a pic of his spder on one.  This way, the spider can be measured from all angles.
> ...


----------



## Sathane (Apr 11, 2009)

LOL!    Too funny.

Just woke my girlfriend up and she's pissed. haha.



robc said:


> ude don't measure it for proof until it hardens!!!


----------



## Sathane (Apr 11, 2009)

Well said.  Why don't we just drop the concept of this being a record holding contest and just post your biggest Ts?  This way no one needs to get defensive and annoyed if your measurement isn't perfectly accurate and officially recognized and verified by Guinness.  Just have fun with it.

Awesome Blondi Rob.



D-back said:


> Hi everybody! At first I have to say, I'm not an experienced T keeper and I don't have any "big" T's yet.......but I think, the OP's intention with this thread was to have some fun and to see some nice pictures......I think it's very hard to make rules and set standards about measuring live T's. For example...what is "normal" position? Not stretched out? Some of my T's like to rest in a more stretched position than the others. I see differences even between T's from the same species. If the legs are not stretched, you can only guess, what the true size of the spider is. In my opinion, the only truly objective method is to measure the T's with fully stretched legs. But how can you measure a living T ( especially terrestrial ) with fully stretched legs? It's hard...it can be done with molts, but the actual size of the T can be bigger than the size of the molt.............And what's my point with this?......I think, in this case, you don't have to be 100% objective.....Come on boys and girls!...Just have some fun.....


----------



## Sathane (Apr 11, 2009)

Actually, a pic taken from straight overhead with both the T and any common item with a constant size is a good form of measurement.  The ratio of the item's size to the T's size will always be the same no matter how far the camera is from the subject.



T_DORKUS said:


> Actually RobC has a point.  Try it.  It depends on how far away the object is from the camera and the angle the picture was taken.  A quarter placed closer to the camera than the T will appear larger than if that same quarter was placed further from the camera than the T.


----------



## JOHN 3:16 (Apr 14, 2009)

Here is the picture you asked for. The molt has hardened and shrunk about a   1/2" or so. 

John 3:16


----------



## Pacmaster (Apr 14, 2009)

Thatsa big spider!


----------

