Where we could expect to find a 'generic' hunter busy with the remains of his victim, the ethnographic view reveals a plurality of subjects animated by different motivations. The aesthetic of trophies shows us things are different in case of the hunter being a landowner or a farm laborer, a townsperson or a country dweller. These thoughts are very instructive (and corresponding to expectations of anthropological orthodoxy). However, is it enough? Can the opposite approach - investigating the phenomenology of the trophies starting from a lot of similarities ― be considered illegitimate ?