Jump to content

Rod and Denise Nikkel

Contributing Member
  • Content Count

    423
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rod and Denise Nikkel

  1. FULLY AGREED!! And it is our job as tree and saddle makers to make that best quality saddle that does fit a variety of horses. A lot of our own main customers still build for working cowboys (though we build trees for all sorts of markets), and we know that if our trees work for them in all the variety of riding that they do, it will work for the recreational rider too. But working cowboys, on the whole, have some things the recreational market has lost - knowledge and confidence. Knowledge of how a horse works, how to take care of him well, how to change padding for different back types, what a "good back" on a horse is and how to avoid bad ones, how to decide if a saddle is of "decent quality" or not, how to take care of their gear properly, etc. etc. Confidence in their own ability to determine how to pad a saddle, if a different saddle should be used on this horse or not, if a horse is sore or not, and their ability to deal with a problem if it arises. This is why you rarely hear working cowboys or people who build for them talking about "saddle fit". They KNOW the basics, the tolerance levels, and how to deal with the idiosyncrasies, etc. But the recreational rider, on the whole, has not grown up with this basic knowledge and in today's world looks to "experts" to help them do what is "best" for their horse. This is where the "saddle fit" discussions are occurring - among the recreational riders - and where the "saddle fit" information is coming from - the "experts" who service them. (Some of the information is good and does come from reliable sources, but a lot of it isn't, and how is a lay person supposed to know which is which?) It seems this has come originally from the English market and has slowly been moving over to the Western area, but without differentiating the distinctions between them, and often (as I tried to point out) without the "facts" having any basis in actual fact . People read "experts" on the net and in the books and believe what they say, then come to us as professionals in the industry with all this misinformation in their heads and expect us to fit "the rules". When a potential customer comes with questions about how the saddle you will build them will work for their horse, "just trust me" may not cut it anymore (sometimes with good reason). A lot of customers will just trust us. People who really know horses don't need us to tell them stuff they already know. But for those information seeking customers it is a good thing for us to know what is being promoted, decide which parts of it we agree with and which we don't, and know on what basis we have made those decisions. We also need to be able to explain the basics (position of the saddle on the horse, don't dig in anywhere and distribute the weight over as much surface area as possible after the first two points) in easily understandable terms. The reasons I (Denise) want to know more is because of an insatiable personal curiosity to know the "actual facts" and frustration with the myths that are becoming more prevalent and more heavily promoted. I post it on here at times to hopefully debunk some of the myths and to help saddle makers know that there IS a foundation for the things we do that may not fit "the rules" - and possibly save a few sales that may otherwise be lost to people who believe some of the myths "the experts" are promoting. I seriously have wondered if it is better just to go out to the shop and glue up some more wood and ignore all the "saddle fit" discussions as well, but the inaccurate information is just getting more and more prevalent and accepted as fact, and unless those of us who do know the "actual facts", either from personal experience or academic knowledge, are willing to say something at appropriate times, I fear the voice of reason will be drowned out in all the confusion.
  2. David, You have not yet responded to my request to provide backing for the ideas you presented in your post. Although you state that this theory “comes from the world of paleontology and biomechanics”, I believe the lack of support is because it was you who came up with it in consultation with your friend and mentor, Dr. Deb Bennett. You posted your ideas as you developed them on her forum in this thread, starting with your March 8, 2009 post: http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/forum1/188-17.html (For those who can’t see the pictures, the ones David posted on April 22 are the lamp-horsie and lamp-horsie plus spine diagrams he posted here.) Dr. Bennett’s PhD is in paleontology, which is the connection to that part of your claim for veracity. However, I am at a loss to explain your claim for backing from the area of biomechanics. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Dr. Bennett has no academic credentials nor peer reviewed publications in the areas of anatomy, biomechanics, botany, history or any other area (with the exception of paleontology) though she has written extensively for the layman on all these topics. Peer reviewed academic literature (evaluated by people recognized as being knowledgeable in the field the paper is written about) is one way of assessing the validity and accuracy of the ideas being put forward. But it is easy to be described as an “expert” when you write and speak authoritatively, especially if you have Dr. in front of your name, even if your ideas are totally off the wall. The internet is full of such people. It is true that not all good and correct ideas come from the academic world. So how is a lay person supposed to discern if what is said is true or fabrication? One of my methods is to check if the things I can verify fit with what is written in reliable sources. If this is the case, I am more willing to accept the ideas presented which I don’t know much about or the new theories proposed. As I have pointed out previously on this forum, Dr. Bennett’s writings fail this test miserably. Despite apparently teaching full body equine dissection courses and claiming “very few people have dissected as many horses and other animals as I have” (her November 30 post here: http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/forum1/511.html) she has repeatedly made very serious and very basic errors in fundamental anatomy, and it is on some of these errors that she bases her theories on saddles and how they work. Fundamental Error #1: In her August 19th post in this thread (screenshot below): http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=445&forum she states “This is how the top of the mesenteries (added note – along which the small intestine of the horse attach) are "gathered" in the horse: the "curtain rod" from which they are hung is compressed into a very small patch…” “the whole weight of the fire hose is concentrated in one patch at the top, the compressed patch where the mesenteries are attached to the underside of the horse's vertebral chain. This point in the horse is beneath the anticlinal vertebra, which in most horses is Thoracic no. 16 or 17.” “Almost the whole weight of the intestinal tube is supported by the mesenteric drape -- and thus by the anticlinal part of the back -- NOT by the wall of the abdomen or its muscles.” Based on these statements, she declares “So you want your saddle designed so that it puts your weight as far ahead of the anticlinal part of the back as is practicable. Ideally your weight should be borne just at the base of the horse's withers -- as far ahead of the anticlinal vertebra as possible.” And she concludes with “the anticlinal zone of a horse's back must already carry the weight of his intestines; let it not also have to carry us.” FACT – the true position of the mesenteric attachment is below L1 and L2 and possibly the back of T18 (Reference below - #1) FACT – the diaphragm of the horse slopes backward from the bottom up and ends at the last thoracic vertebrae (T18), where the tendons that attach it to the vertebrae join with the ventral longitudinal ligament of the spine and via this method actually extend back as far as L4or even L5. (Reference #2) Conclusion – anything attaching directly below T16 would be in the horse’s thorax. Therefore, Dr. Bennett is placing the horse’s small intestine in its CHEST CAVITY. FACT – the mesentery is long enough for the intestine to reach the floor of the abdomen (Reference #3). And, as anybody who has ever butchered or dissected anything knows, you have to be very careful when entering the abdomen not to cut the contents because there is no room in there for anything to “hang”. Everything is very compressed and supported by the abdominal muscles. While the small intestine is only attached at one point, it IS supported by the abdominal muscles. Conclusion – the anticlinal zone of spine is NOT the major support for the small intestine in the horse. Therefore, I cannot accept Dr. Bennett’s statements regarding position of the rider (and saddle) on the horse. Fundamental Error #2 – In her August 11, 2010 post in this thread (screenshot below): http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/forum1/540-7.html Dr. Bennett states “The convex contour of the rear part of the ribcage changes as it goes to the front, becoming concave at about the 9th rib.” Lest we think she is just saying it is becoming flatter – less convex – she repeats the word “concavity” five more times in the same post. And in case we think she was meaning that it goes concave horizontally, wider at the back and the front, she corrects this idea with her statement later in the post “For that is what the horse's thorax is: a funnel-shaped object, with the small end going toward the front.” And it is on this basis that she goes on to discuss girth placement. FACT – all ribs are convex to various degrees. (Reference #4), therefore the ribcage is always convex. If the ribs went inward from their narrow attachment point on the vertebrae and back out to their narrow attachment on the sternum (which ribs 1-8 do, #9 attaching to them closely) there would be no room in the chest for internal organs such as the lungs and heart which actually inhabit that space. (If anyone wants photographic evidence of rib shape, PM me and I can send you pictures of a dissection Rod and I did, plus of a skeleton we have mounted. I thought it best not to post the pictures here as some people aren’t as thrilled with real anatomy as I am.) Conclusion – the rib cage is NOT concave. Therefore, I cannot accept Dr. Bennett’s conclusions regarding position of the girth based on her “anatomy”. Biomechanics has to be based on an accurate knowledge of anatomy, and you have repeatedly said in varying places (I am thinking of Dr. Bennett’s Inner Horseman 2002 CD ROM specifically) that you have learned your anatomy and biomechanics primarily from Dr. Bennett. (In this CD she also states that she has learned a lot of what she understands about saddles from you.) I am assuming this is the basis for the following: Fundamental Error #3 – In your post your say “you can clearly see how the lumbar region flexes away from the saddle” “Because of it’s function, there is no weight bearing capacity in the lumbar span. In fact, it has to flex upward…” “Inhibit the upward flexion of the lumbar span and you cause stifle and hock problems.” FACT – the lumbar area of the horse has the least ability to flex of all the sections of the spine. This has been determined both in cadavers and, as far as possible with today’s methodology, which is pretty ingenious, in live animals. (Reference #5) What you are seeing most in these fantastic pictures you and Adam Till posted is the major flexion available from the lumbosacral joint which allows the pelvis to tilt. Looking at the body position of the horse, we assume the entire spine (excluding the neck) is at maximum flexion. Since we can’t see what is going on under the saddle (though in Adam’s picture what is visible of the lumbar area appears to be fairly flat) and since we know (see above references) that between T2 and the lumbosacral junction, the area of the back that has the most ability to flex is between T9 and T18, we can assume that most of that flexion is occurring in that area – which you suggest is the only place for the saddle to contact the horse. Riders in both these pictures have saddles that extend onto the lumbar area, and in neither picture does the “arc of motion” appear to be “encumbered”. Conclusion – Normal pressure from a saddle does not inhibit (though it may affect) spinal flexion. Therefore, I cannot accept this as a basis for making bars that do not extend onto the loin. Fundamental Error #4 – You state “The Longissimus Dorsi muscle has no weight bearing capability. It is, however, the major antagonist to getting the horse to collect and as such it is the role of both the tree and saddle maker to do all that they possibly can to prevent this muscle from becoming tight.” The insinuation is that by placing weight on the longissimus dorsi on the lumbar area, you will make it tight and affect the horse’s motion. FACT – the longissimus dorsi muscle extends from the sacrum forward to the 4th cervical vertebra. It is a complex muscle made up of both larger segments and smaller ones that attach in various places to all the vertebrae along which it runs, both over the thorax as well as the lumbar region. The bar will sit on this muscle, regardless of its length, and if any level of pressure causes it to “become tight”, then I would think that concentrating the rider’s weight over a length of 12 to 14 inches (which is what you advocate on the Inner Horseman 2002 CD) would cause more problems in the function of this muscle than distributing the weight over a larger area which decreases the pressure on it. Conclusion – there is no more effect on the function of the longissimus dorsi muscle from pressure on it over the lumbar area as opposed to the thoracic area. Therefore, I reject this as a reason for avoiding non-excessive pressure on the lumbar area of the horse. I could go on, but I see no need. It is because of these plus numerous other errors in both Dr. Bennett’s and your writing that I cannot entertain the idea of the “spinal limbs” being a “reciprocating system” seriously. At present this is a simply a theory you have recently conceived, and there is no data supporting it. Yes, the supraspinous ligament has a huge function in the horse. (It is always best to use the proper anatomic term so people can easily check out the validity of your statements. There is a totally different spinal ligament called the dorsal longitudinal ligament - Reference #6 - and your terminology could confuse people checking anatomy textbooks for the accuracy of your information.) However, the whole back is much more complex and complicated than you are presenting and functions as a continuous unit, not as two distinct parts. If the theory is not correct, then neither will be conclusions regarding saddles which are based on it. In my original post regarding the origin of “THE RULES”, I stated I believe you have just given us a clear demonstration of how easily this can occur. References: #1 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, page 482 Nickel, Schummer and Seiferle, The Viscera of the Domestic Animals, 2nd edition, page 186 #2 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, page 406 #3 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, page 482- 483 Nickel, Schummer and Seiferle, The Viscera of the Domestic Animals, 2nd edition, page 186 #4 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, pages 266-268 #5 Clayton, Hillary M. Conditioning Sport Horses, pg. 123 Faber, Schamhardt, Weeren, Johnston, Roepstorff and Barneveld, Basic Three-Dimensional Kinematics of the Vertebral Column of Horses Walking on a Treadmill American Journal of Veterinary Research, Volume 61, #4, April 2000 Faber, Johnston, Schamhardt, van Weeren, Raepstorff and Barneveld, Basic Three-Dimensional Kinematics of the Vertebral Column of Horses Trotting on a Treadmill, American Journal of Veterinary Research Volume 62, #4, May 2001 Clayton, Haussler and Faber x 2 #6 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, page 34
  3. Billy, you are very welcome. We work hard to understand these things as much as we can, and then we enjoy helping others understand them too if they are interested. Glad we could help.
  4. Tosch, It depends why it was rubbing. If it was due to bridging, then yes, you would need to add more rock in the middle of the bar so the tree wouldn't work as well on a flatter backed horse (though we would rather have a bit too much rock than too little if we had to - but that is another conversation). And for short term solutions or idiosyncratic horses, padding is often a good solution. But often it is only that last couple of inches that are too straight and dig into the loin of the horse if it rises towards the croup. (Other horse's backs are flat there.) The rest of the bar fits the rock of the back fine. So building a tree with the bar bar tip relieved a bit extra to account for this will not necessarily negate the fit for a horse with a flatter back since it is only the last little bit that is affected. (Then of course, is the question of "Was it the back bar tip that was rubbing, or was it the skirts, and if so why (multiple reasons there) or even the pad?" Sigh - the variables involved in saddle fitting...) The other way to make trees is to have the same bar length and move the cantle forward and back on the bars to get the correct seat length for the rider. So for a larger rider, the cantle has less bar behind it and the rider is sitting more toward the back of the bar, putting more pressure on the back bar tips and possibly causing them to dig in just from sheer weight. We feel it is better to have the surface area behind the rider and their weight more central on the bar, where possible, to avoid this. It is always a balancing act...
  5. Tosch, what you basically did with your padding was add more relief to the end of the bar, and it worked. If the bar was shaped like that to start, it wouldn't have been a problem. So it isn't the length, but the shape that caused the problem.
  6. Billy, That is also a good question, and boy does it open a can of worms. First, we, as most custom or hand made tree makers, make a cut in the bar for the cantle (the same way as for the fork) and have a consistent length of bar behind that cut. This way of building trees helps to center the rider's weight over the whole bar. This also means that we don't make a standard bar length. Our bars vary in length between the fork and the cantle based on the room for the rider. The problem of bar length only arises when you have a short backed horse and a larger rider. Our quick answer to your question is that the bar should end a bit ahead of the point of the hip at least. We can't give a specific distance because that will vary with the total length of the horses back, but you don't want to interfere with the hip. Because of its position high up on the back and its shape (curving toward the back bar tip), the bar itself won't be what interferes with the hip. The skirt may do that depending on its shape and how it is made, but since the bar length dictates the minimum skirt length, it needs to be considered. What is absolutely crucial is not the total bar length, but the bar shape, especially the shape of the back bar tip. We have no problem with weight extending onto the lumbar or loin area of the horse. That really is not a problem (see below). What damages horses is excessive pressure from either back bar tips that dig in because they don't have enough relief built into them or from the tree bridging badly, creating four pressure points – two front and two back. You can have problems at the back of the bar with even really short bars if the shape is wrong. When we look at a bare tree on a horse, we want those back bar tips to be lifting off the horse. If they are down on the horse without weight in the saddle, they will be digging in when you add a rider. Some horses have a flat back front to back, and others have a rise into the croup. Either way, so long as the shape of the bar matches the horse, you shouldn't end up with excessive pressure. An objective measurement we have found helpful in comparing the length of horses' backs (compared to a subjective assessment) is from the back of the shoulder blade to the point of the hip. The shortest we have measured was 23" on a really small Arab. The longest was 31" on a very large thoroughbred. Now for the worms… If you Google "saddle fit" you will find THE RULES: seven, nine, eleven, fourteen, name your favorite number, of rules that supposedly determine if a saddle fits or not. One of most commonly stated rules is that nothing should extend past T18, the last thoracic vertebrae, or the last rib - depending on how they put it. The reason given for this is that "the loin should never carry any weight" and usually goes along with dire warnings of what will happen to your poor horses if any gear goes past the thorax. The original idea seems to have come from people evaluating English saddles, where the back of the saddle looks to end an inch or so behind the rider. If the back of an English saddle ended where the bars on a Western saddle end, the rider would basically be sitting on the loin, which is far behind the horse's center of gravity. (Note: in history, people have ridden everywhere on the horse's back from over the hips all the way up to the withers, as the art from over the last 2700 years depicted on this site shows. http://nicholnl.wcp....eatHistory.html ) "THE RULE" has then been transferred over to Western saddles, even though the rider is usually well over 6" ahead of the back of the bar, let alone the back of the skirts. All this is supposedly based on "anatomy and biomechanics" and what "they" - the experts - say. Lots of people state it as fact. Lots of people state it very emphatically as fact. Lots of people with Dr. in front of their name state it as fact. But all are either stating their opinion or quoting something they have heard/read from another "they". Tracing this statement as far back in the academic literature as far as I can find it, I have been unable to find any objective studies or data of any kind that supports this rule (and personal communication from a veterinarian who is a researcher on equine backs concurs.) It just seems to have been stated as fact by an early author with no objective basis for the statement, and repeatedly quoted since. The idea seems to be that since most ribs are connected together as well as to the spine, the thorax is strong enough to support the rider but since the lumbar area has no rib support, it can't. What isn't looked at is muscle volume (much larger over the lumbar area) and the change in vertebral shape – large sideways extensions (transverse processes) on the lumbar vertebrae that support that muscle. The entire bar sits on the long muscles that support the back. The front of the bar also sits on major propulsive muscles for the front legs. The back of the bar, if it extends onto the loin, will sit on a major propulsive muscle for the back legs, though it is a small percentage of total surface area and therefore total weight that is carried that far back. In all cases, the muscles continue to work under the moderate pressure exerted by the rider's weight distributed over a large enough surface area. It is only when there is excessive pressure (and the numbers thrown around for that are also not based on any studies on horses either) that the horse's movement will be affected or damage will occur. Practical experience tells us this is the case. Unless they have been made with super short bars and are put on a long horse, the bars on every western saddle extend onto the loin of the horse. The increased surface area that results from the longer bars (compared to English saddle panels) distributes the rider's weight better over the horse's back which is what allows for the long hours in the saddle put in by working cowboys. If just having weight on their loins really harmed horses, then the people who have depended and still depend on their horses for a living wouldn't be riding these saddles.
  7. We recommend that you get your saddle for a horse in his "normal working shape". A good saddle will have enough allowance built in to accomodate a few extra pounds. You may want to use a thinner blanket till they slim down in the spring, but if you are using them much that doesn't take long and they will then be in their "normal working shape" for most of the time they are ridden. (For some horses, their "normal working shape" is fat since they are never used enough to get in good shape!)
  8. GrampaJoel, Any fork shape can be used for what you are wanting. The shape of the front does not dictate how good a groundseat is in the saddle - the saddle maker does that - nor does it dictate the fit of the tree on the horse other than making sure the gullet clears the withers. A slick fork is one that doesn't have swells. The name that goes along with them is basically due to the history of that tree style, and in many cases you will find multiple differing explanations of what that name is supposed to look like. The differences have to do a bit with shape, but mainly fork "width", stock thickness, horn type. Regading shape - how many ways can you make an upside down U anyway? You will find a bit of difference between makers, but not a great deal. Regarding width - on our gallery we have pictures of three widths of slick forks. http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?app=gallery&module=user&user=1524&do=view_album&album=112 Remember that there really is no place to measure a slick fork, so one maker's 9" may look like another ones 10". Seeing pictures of their trees is the best way to decide what you want in these two areas. Regarding stock thickness - this is one of the big determiners of what name the fork can be called, but that isn't consistent between makers either. What do you like the look of - big fronts or narrow ones? Measurements do accurately describe this factor. Horn type - metal or wood post - is a big differentiation. Wades have a wood post horn. If it has a metal horn, it is NOT a Wade, regardless of what people call it. But you can have wood post slick forks called by other names. Wades traditionally have 5" stock, but now you will see them with different stock thickness. This thread has a pretty good discussion on Wades: http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=1907 The wood post horn allows the wood above the gullet to be thinner than a metal horn because you need more wood there for the screws to hold the metal horn on. So the horn and gullet lip (which is at the top of the fork) are actually lower to the horse with the same amount of clearance at the back and under the gullet. This is better for roping in reducing leverage on the horse, but it is neither better nor worse for general riding. So long as they clear the withers, there is no functional reason to choose one style over the other. It is pretty much aesthetics and personal choice. For long hours in the saddle, you are looking for a comfortable ground seat for yourself, and that can be built into any saddle by a good maker. For the horse, you are looking for adequate surface area on the bars, so stay away from narrow and short bars. The rest, like JW says, is pretty much personal preference. The big companies will sell a "name" of saddle with very few options - the bar shape may go with the fork style for instance (and of course every company is different...). If you are going truly custom, you can get whatever combination of things and whatever look you want and the saddle will be just as functional.
  9. Some people have the idea that a certain name equates to a specific fit or use. Maybe the original company who named the tree did but once other makers started copying that type of fork, the name simply goes with the shape of the fork. It has nothing to do with how the tree fits on the horse. Our gallery http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?app=gallery&module=user&user=1524&do=view_album&album=112 has pictures of some of the common tree styles we make. If you google images of the different fork names, you will get an idea of the variety of shapes people call by one name... There are a few good threads on Wade saddles here on LW. Check out: http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=1907 http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=8781
  10. Adam, Rod does a lot of his shaping with a carbide carving disc (Kutzall) on a side grinder. He gets them from Lee Valley. http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.aspx?p=33253&cat=1,42524,42527 They sure send the dust flying so if you can do it outside, that is the best.
  11. Looking forward to meeting lots of people we haven't met before. We should be easy to find as we will be having a booth there. Any suggestions on good hotels to stay at or other information about the show? Ann, No, we haven't been able to work out the tree seminar idea yet, though it still is on our "we'd like to do this sometime" list.
  12. Well, Rod and I have decided to travel WAAAAYYYY south to the Wichita Falls show the first weekend in October. Anyone else planning on going?
  13. Thanks Tommy. That would probably be one of the best venues for something like this we figure. We actually have been in contact with them, as early as 2007. So far they don't seem interested...
  14. Congratualtions Steve. Thanks for being willing to share your wealth of knowledge with the rest of us.
  15. Thanks for your kind words, Gretchen. If we can help people understand more about how saddle trees work, that's what we put the site up to do. We'd look forward to having you as a customer.
  16. Looks good Alan. Always nice to see how they turn out. Rod
  17. Clay, When we fenced the place (there were none when we came here) we cleared some of this chain saw style too, but were able to use some existing cut lines that just needed some cleaning up for the most part. Not much firewood out of it all - too small and too hard to get to to carry it out. The moisture has sure helped. Now we need some heat to get the grass to grow. Cattle coming in tomorrow.
  18. When we got home from Sheridan, there was good news and bad news. The good news was that we had had the first decent moisture this year. The bad news was that it came as eight inches of heavy, wet snow on fully leafed out trees. We have smooth wire, electric fence on our place to hold in the cattle and horses, and trees down on the fences need to be cleared. Here is what they looked like. Yes, there is a fence under there somewhere. We cleared the first 50 yards on this fence line. Normally you can drive the tractor through here. It is chain saw work to cut the trees down, then into managable sections. Then we play pick up sticks to get them off the fence, off the pasture and back into the bush. We have at least two more miles to clear yet. The poplars aren't too bad. It is the alders that really make a mess. The name of our road? Alder Ridge Road...
  19. Bobby, Thanks for the comment. I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested or not. Pete, I can't help you with the Still Brothers. Your saddle does look a bit like one an elderly gentleman came by with over 12 years ago. He had ridden it in his early days and wanted to build another like it. Rod took the measurements and built the tree with 16" swells (just the tree). Unfortunately, though the man was in good health when Rod met him, when we called him to pick up the tree we didn't get a reply for a long time. Apparently in the intervening two months he had suddenly taken sick and died. The family wanted the tree as a remembrance but we don't know if it was ever built on. How wide are the swells on your saddle?
  20. We've been building some unusual trees this year so far. Our own ClayB ordered one like his Grandfather's old saddle. He sent us a few pictures of the tree, and we used them to make something that looks the same and yet will fit more modern horses for him to build a new saddle on. We did a couple more side saddle trees with a few modifications compared to our first go. Then we were asked to build a Portuguesa style tree. The customer was very specific about the shape they wanted, and putting a fork on leaning backwards was another good learning experience. Then we were sent one picture of an Indian type tree. Again the customer was really specific and worked with us via pictures and phone calls to get the shape he wanted. He is going to build this into a riding saddle for himself. We don't mind building the more unusual trees now and then since it is generally a challenge and a break from the usual. But right now it is about time to go build a few more normal type trees…
  21. We'll be there. We have a booth this year that is supposed to be beside the resturant in the atrium area. Looking forward to meeting anyone who wants to stop by and say hi. (Johanna, that BETTER include you!!!)
  22. We also build trees to any scale. Ours are rawhide covered.
  23. Huntet, I have put two of your pictures below - the uncinched one where most of us liked the placement and where you had it last night. The saddle looks pretty close in position. Your latigo is angled forward a bit as we noted it would be. So, how did the ride go with the saddle in that position? How did your horse react? What kind of sweat pattern did you get? I would suggest, now that you have a reliable vehicle, that you get the saddle checked out by a competant saddle maker to discover the cause of the assymetry before doing anything else. Shims can cause more problems than they fix in a lot of cases.
  24. Bruce and JW beat us to it. Where the saddle is placed on the sweated horse is pretty close to where we would expect it to want to sit. It could maybe be a little bit further ahead, but not much. The way we like to recommend saddling is to place the saddle a little ahead of where you expect it to end up, then jiggle it slightly side to side. It will settle where it fits best. If it fits well, it will be quite solid there. If it shakes all over the place, then it doesn't fit anywhere well. Maybe note next time you ride her, after letting the saddle go where it fits best, where the lip of the gullet is relative to the angle change from wither to neck. I bet you will find it pretty close to where it is in that picture. I noticed you didn't have a back cinch in your early cell phone pictures of your old saddle. And the hobble strap between the front and back cinch on this one is pretty long - hanging down in some pictures. If your horse isn't used to being ridden in a back cinch and it gets back too far, you can get some bronc activity. I would suggest that you tighten up the hobble strap there too a bit to keep the back cinch from flanking her. One "rule" that is common but false is that the cinch has to be vertical. So long as it is on the breast bone and not behind it, the cinch can be anywhere along that breast bone. Some horses have more rise under their belly toward the front legs than yours does and the cinch will end up there regardless of where it starts. The cinch can be sitting forward and the latigo slanted backwards towards the rigging and if the saddle fits, it will not pull it out of position. There is nothing wrong with a slanted latigo. When you look at some horses and how far back the shoulder blades sit, and how far forward that "girth groove" runs, there is no way a cinch can hang vertical. So the cinch can be forward, your saddle can sit where it is in the sweated up pictures (which is probably where it slips to), the latigo will be slanted back and that is just fine. What has happened over the years is people are used to seeing cinches in the full double position and now use the cinch position as a guide to set their saddle on the horse. This is totally backward. We knew a saddle maker once who drove a long way to visit a customer who was complaining about the saddle he had made for him not fitting horses. When the saddle maker went there the saddle was perched on top the withers and held in place with a breast collar. He had to be a pretty diplomatic guy because when he left the customer apologized for having him drive all that way just to show him how to saddle his horses properly. And this guy was working out of his saddle. Length of time riding does not always equate to amount of knowledge...
  25. Huntet, Interesting shape to that dry spot. In post #29 it looks to have a pretty straight line on the top of it. Most dry spots fade out more gradually. In trying to interpret what you've written, it sounds like the different piece makes a ridge too. Anytime there is assymmetry like that it can affect all sorts of things - pulling the saddle crooked on the horse etc. Who knows what they are feeling under there if it is twisted a bit? So whatever is different needs to be fixed for sure. That is a defect in the saddle. We agree with Bruce that the saddle appears to be too far forward in a bunch of those pictures. Are any of the pictures with the saddle taken after your ride before you moved the saddle? Which ones? Most bars are made so they fit right at the back edge of the shoulder blade, but in trying to see though the saddle to the horse it looks like the saddle is set up on top the shoulder blades in most of the photos. You say the bars aren't touching under the "swell rise". I am not sure what you are meaning there. Could you explain better?
×
×
  • Create New...