bruce johnson

Cowboygear, In short - Hamleys made the second one and an improved third one. Cliff Wade was a neighbor of the Dorrances in Oregon. Cliff had a saddle that his dad brought from somewhere else. Tom Dorrance liked it, and had Hamleys copy it. He didn't like the first one they made, and had them redo the tree a couple years later. I think he said this was late 30s/early 40s as he remembered. The Wade has gone through a lot of changes since then. I don't know of anyone who is credited with making Cliff Wade's dad's original saddle. Regarding the metal/wood horns. Wood horns were the norm in original trees. They were not always the post horns like the mexican saddles, but a more shaped horn that was prone to breakage. I think I read that Meanea (of Cheyenne roll fame) patented a metal repair horn that bolted over the broken stump and was sold as a repair horn in the 1880s. Within a few years, the metal horns were the norm, either polished and left plain or leather covered. Anybody feel free to correct me, I am going off a conversation and memory.

Greg, LOL. Yep, what ever keeps you in the saddle will keep you out once you get loose. April, 1989 - Riding a "California stocksaddle" with slight equitation build up - keeps you in place front to back in hard stops - net result - fractured L2 and L3 vertebra when the colt decided to buck instead of turn the cow down the fence. November 1993 - Cutting saddle - This colt told me for 3 laps he was going to buck, I over-and-undered him to see for sure, bad move. Fractured pelvis, subluxated sacroiliac, and after he broke my pelvis on the cantle, sucked back and kept me in the buggy. Sixteen inches of pretty flat seat was a good sized target to slide back into. I wish he had bucked me off, then I wouldn't have had to figure out intentionally how I was going to get off him by myself. Finally grabbed the fence and let him go out from under me. Multiple other sprains, strains, and pulls from other wrecks, but that is the basis for getting old and having good stories. Just finished restoring my great-grandfather's Duhamel, my son made the 5th generation to ride it. I have a 1928 Hamley to restore next. It is not a contest saddle, but is built on the Association tree with a single EZ dee rigging. It came with the paperwork - copy of the order and estimate form, and the receipt. Every once in a while I will see a contest saddle in a museum, pretty cool. Did yours still have a horn? I'll get some pics of the Duhamel tomorrow and put it over on the restoration section.

Never rode an Aussie, but have seen "The Man from Snowy River" movies several times. Glad it wasn't me going down those hills. Bucking rolls generally sit a little further back than swells would be on a fork. They are softer (usually stuffed with hair, wool, or fiber of some natural or artificial origin), and bruise you less than swells. More to lean into or a safety valve to keep you from contacting the horn if you are pitched forward. Bucking rolls are also loose enough that you can't get quite the grip you might get with undercut swells. Personally I like the look of most rolls on a slickfork, and think they look "naked" without them. Undercut swells will let you get a grip under them and kind of "lock-down" into position. Straight sided swells will not give you much grip, and mainly serve to bruise up your thighs and sort of protect you from going over the front. Kind of a fence to bounce you back into the cantle. Most swell forks are good to lean up into to get forward and rope. Usually swell forks are longer than bucking roll seats and give you more room to rattle around. Biggest problem is that most swell fork saddles have limited forward stirrup swing. It is pretty hard to get forward with your feet enough to get a grip under swells on some of them. There is some debate who did the first swell fork saddle. I have heard Marsden (?) from The Dalles (?), OR credited. The first swells appeared to be like a wooden ball cut in half and screwed onto the fork. Then like everything else, it went to extremes with the Form-Fitter wide swells, deeply undercut and wrapped back over the thighs. Combined with a short seat, and high cantle, made it easier to lockdown and harder to buck off. The high cantles were the back-biters we talked about a while back. Rodeo committees finally got together to standardize the saddles used in bucking horse contests. They came up with the "Association" and Hamley got the first contract as I understand it. The basis of the Association tree originated with the Ellensburg tree. There were standard measurements allowed, and several contractors and rodeo committees used them. In fact, at most of the early rodeos, you rode their saddles, you didn't pack your own.

Regarding the increasing popularity of Wades, Rod and Denise hit it on the head. They have been popular in the great basin area for quite a while. Since slickforks were the original saddle tree style, they just maintained popularity. Ray Hunt took the show on the road, so to speak, and introduced Wades to other parts of the country. Other clinicians have followed suit. There are several versions of Wades - slightly different fork styles. Probably the biggest reason for the continued popularity of Wades in the west is the bar patterns on the truer to form ones. Generally more surface area on the horse than most swell forks. The great basin is big pasture riding, and so it followed that the bigger bars put less strain on the horses just getting around. When you have one or two saddles and order them custom, most guys order something that has been proven. Not so much for the off-the-rack buyers. Agreed that some swell fork bars are not a problem, but it is pretty hard to look under any saddle and see if the barpads are adequate. There are some swell forks built on good trees, and some have pretty small bars. There are a few varieties of slick fork bars - Northwest, Wade, etc. Each treemakers patterns are probably a little different. I read something I think Greg wrote that Wade trees are probably the most bastardized of any tree style. There are the Homesteads, Cliff Wades, '58, Denny Hunt, help me out...There are a bunch. With most people it comes down to looks. They see Buck, Ray, Bryan or whoever do some pretty cool stuff with horses, and want to be like them. Yeah, it might be a fad for a lot of people, but there is a definite purpose other than looks for the slick forks to survive.

John, I likewise escaped Indiana, but it was 23 years ago. Good old days, no divisons in high school sports, You knew where you you were going to be every Fri night all winter (HS basketball games), and snow sucked. I escaped Purdue on May 14th. On May 16th I was headed west. Where did you slip through the "corncob curtain" from? Glad to have you here.

Savage, Phone number I have is (307) 737-2222. There is an email address in ShopTalk's Big book, but we can't post email addresses in open forum. Easiest to get him on the phone, and pick his brain while you get the chance.

Gay, My stand from Ron's Tools has an arm that raises up to tip the tree at different angles. The actual top doesn't swivel like the Weaver model. The Weaver pivots in two directions. The arm is an OK feature, but not an absolute requirement. There is not a wooden stand that raises up and pivots without raising the base. Millions of saddles have been built on them. If I needed to tilt the wooden stand, I put a something under the front or back. The biggest reason I had two drawdowns of different heights was to make the different things easier. The lower stand was good for shaping ground seats and doing fork covers and cantles. The tall one was good for sewing horns and cantles, installing strings/conchos, stuff I would have been bent over in one postion for a time on the lower one. One thing I would do if I was making my own. Make a contoured top to set the tree in. A rocking tree is exasperating. The shape will hold better. The Weaver has a flat plank with some kind of rupperized cover. Trees rock, and slip occasionally. One of my friends says always at the worst time.

Gay, The pictured stand is 46" high I think. I originally made one out of a saddle rack that was 39" high. Between the two, I was able to do what I needed without excess bending. It was nice having the height differences. The issue was that I had two drawdowns, they took up twice as much room, I was always moving from one stand to the other to do what I needed more comfortably, and it there was always a saddle on the other stand. This spring I got a hydraulic stand and would not go back. I sold the lower wooden one, and kept the tall one to set stirrup leathers on repair saddles, or other minor things if the hydraulic was being used. It is still out in the shed I stuck it in. Makes a dandy rack for saddle blankets and pads at the moment.

Gay, The metal combs like Greg is describing are pretty easy to adjust, you can just step on the bar and kick it over into wherever you want. Most any welding shop should be able to make one up for you if you don't have the tools. I made mine a little different on the wooden stands. I have attached some pics. The bar hinges off the back. I drilled a series of holes in the front. I put a gatepost bolt or piece of rod through the holes over top of the bar, and then stick a wedge in over the bar/under the rod to provide tension. The further you pound it in, the tighter the tension. Not as quick to adjust, but these parts are all available at the hardware store or lumberyard.

Rod and Denise, Even with just hand pressure, the rear points dug in. Quite a lot worse going around corners with more pressure. Pretty sure they probably didn't like it much. Good point about seat length measurements vs. thigh length measurements. Your articles should be standard issue on tree measurements should be standard issue. Greg, Can't agree more. Although looking at the trees from the 30s and 40s, they have been pretty well made and substantial, just designed to fit a different horse. There are probably more junky makers right now for sure. Trees for $99 on ebay, supposedly same maker as some factories are using. Saddles by Billy Shaw for $400. Yep, a lot of bottom enders making for that market. The consumer is mostly ignorant of what is happening on the bottom side of the tree. But it says QH bars on the saddle tag, they own a quarter horse, so it must fit. LOL. Alan, I have to agree. I tried to get my horses to flex up into the tree. didn't happen to any great extent. Also, I am not sure with where the bridging is on that tree, that a horse has all that much flex in their back usually. The only good thing is, I am pretty sure the stirrup leathers are not going to rub. This has made me seriously consider any need for room to round into. A lot of these has been "a guy said..." or "Leddy's trees are like this..." and we just accept it. Yes these horse are doing extreme turns 20-30 times during their event, but are they filling in these areas then?? Are most of the cutting saddles built on similar trees? Mine has more rock in the bars, but haven't tried it bare bottomed on either of these horses. All in all, I look at this tree as a good example of a bad example. I have not built a cutter on this guy's trees, and this was in an inventory reduction deal from another shop that came with some others. I have 3 other trees from him. All his trees are not like this. They have larger pads, a good bar pattern, and much less bridging other than a couple inches back of the stirrup leather slot. Leather rub could be an issue there, as with other AZ bar patterns. The bottom line, is that customers could be riding trees with similar bars, and we are going to see them. The saddles I mean, the vets and chiropracters are seeing the horse.

Since the arena saddle discussion has kind of focused on the cutting trees, I am exploring that a little. I took a cutting tree I have on hand and set it on my two horses. This tree was made by a tree maker who had a pretty good reputation, and a fair amount of people around here built on his trees. It is a 17" seat, which is not an uncommon size for a cutting saddle. The horses are both cutting bred, although that is not their real forte. The chunkier, slightly roaned horse is a Doc's Stinger/Poco Tivio. The narrower bay is a Doc's Remedy/Rey Jay. The tree is of a vintage that a similar tree could sure be in the used saddle the non-pro buys used, or the trainer has had for a several years and hasn't broken a bar yet. I am attaching pictures of their back profiles, then the tree on them from some different angles. Any discussion is welcome. I am not crazy about the smaller front pads, the bridging, and the contact area of the back pads. Dynamics of cinching this down and moving the horses around is enlightening to say the least. I have other trees from this maker, and they dang sure are not like this.

Marlon, Maybe others have different experiences, but I have not found the ruby blades to glide. I think they drag as much or more than the ceramic blades. Some people like that feel, and don't like a blade that glides like hog on ice. I used to get the ruby blades in the yard sale sets around here quite a bit. Tandy used to have a local store. When they closed, a lot of people lost interest and tool sets showed up in the paper and yard sales. Often I would have to buy the set to get the 4-5 things I wanted. I never found a ruby blade I liked. Even the cheapest steel blade would sharpen up better for me than either the ceramics or the ruby blades. The metal blades just needed more frequent stropping. At that time there was a lady who would collect unwanted tools for donation to prison craft programs. (Since has been shut down in CA, there was an issue with prisoners with sharp objects). I would stick the rubies in the knives that went there. Wish I had them back to sell now. Obviously some people either like the ruby blades as evidenced by what they pay to get them on ebay, or have heard about them and haven't tried one yet. Apparently there was also an issue with the ruby falling off. I got paperwork with some that said Tandy would repair the blade for something like $1 if it fell off.

Greg, Good point about the rigging position on the bronc saddles too. I understand about the double cut weakening the bars and the reason for the Arizona bars, especially on the cutting reining saddles with thinner bars. Playing the devil's advocate here for a second. Denise and Rod posted a pic in the tree section of some skirts off a saddle with Arizona bars. There was a definite groove worn in the skirts at the back edge of the stirrup leather. There was no wear or rubbing on the skirts behind that for a moderate distance. Obviously the stirrup leather edge was putting pressure on, and the middle of the bar was bridging enough to not provide much support. Reason enough for me to rethink bar patterns. I know that a lot of swell forks with Arizona bars are cowboying and roping saddles. My rambling brain is thinking these horses would be happier with some support there, either thicker bars built into the rocker for less bridging and a double stirrup slot or a shim on a reline when it is seen? The increased bar thickness would not raise the rider up any more than is already there, it would fill in down below.

Greg, Yes, raising the front up does change the pitch and potentially could cause the rear pads to dig in. This particular tree was pretty flared, and still sitting the tree on my horse with the skirts off and the shims laid in under was not pointed into the horse. That 5/8" or so we raised it really didn't change the back end all that much. I am not sure that it really made a huge difference in how the saddle would ride that much anyway. But, when you feel like your gear is not quite what you think you want, it matters in your head. Two Coke cup piece thicknesses under one stirrup pin as an adjuster, that sort of thing. This saddle was pretty new and not spread, and this kid was #16. He left Cow Palace (before they changed it to a spring rodeo) placing on one, and was on his way to Brookings SD, Florida, and KC. He had a skinny horse in Brookings, and was hungry. Good kid, missed the finals that year, but has made it since. I am still not sure how gray an area he was in rule-wise. The book really doesn't address it, and the judges I have talked to since have said they probably wouldn't even notice. The rules mainly address the hull. On another note, I had an email from a guy who only uses 2-1/2" leathers with AZ bars to lessen the lump that a 3" leather extending a little further back could make. He uses 3" leathers on double slotted bars. I can see the logic there, although I am still curious if anyone is shimming the bar bottoms to any extent? Don't be afraid to post directly, folks.

I am rural at home, DSL not available (irony is the guy who owns the place we rent developed bringing DSL and high speed to the masses). I did not want to sink any hardware into anntenas, satellite, or other means and expenses on a rental place. I was chunking along on dial-up speeds on the laptop from 34-42 kbps were average. The PC would top out at 26.4. A few days ago it was brought to my attention that cellular high speed is available. Basically it is either an aircard or USB plug-in that enables high speed wherever there is a cellular signal. I went with Verizon, and the speeds are dramatic. Down load rates of 50 and more, where it used to be 4. I don't need to go to coffee shops or fast food to get high speed. Pretty handy, and definitely cool. Might be an option for those on the go, or situations similar to mine.

Greg's post brings up another question. I have been in the roundtables, informal get-togethers, and fitting classes where someone mentions shimming trees on the bottom to improve fit. In Greg's example of the AZ bars, a shim full thickness at the back of the stirrup leather and skived to taper back from there to fill in bridging. Any thoughts? Anybody doing it? I have done a similar but not quite the same thing on a bronc saddle. This guy had me install two skived plugs in the front of the skirts under the front barpad area. He wanted his second saddle to sit higher on narrower or low fronted horses. Basically I took two full thickness pieces and skived them at the edges , tapered back behind the pad area a bit. Sewed them in between the woolskin and the skirts, and not obvious from looking. It didn't change the specs on the saddle, since we were mostly raising up and not changing where the gullet width is measured.

Johanna, Thanks for getting this straightened out. Greg, It was me who messed up the move, and lost the name. To err is human, to really screw things up requires Bruce Johnson and a computer. *Johanna imagines the mayhem that would occur if she were to get on the back of a real horse...and thinks computers are easy compared to what Bruce does...

Julie, Buy big. I would recommend a Pro 2000 and make a flat bed table for it. I can sew a double layer of skirting and 1" woolskins on mine. I do a business card holder that is 3 oz. I don't know how small a thread it will take, needle size is the factor, but I use down to #207 in mine sometimes. You can buy several different feet and plates. I bought the "package". Some I use all the time, and others have never been used. Some day they might be just what I need.

Denise, Second try, the computer ate my homework on the first reply. We are getting closer! What I don't like is that this particular treemaker's trees had the eqivalent of the the oval lifted straight up. This made a smaller footprint on the bars, and brought the cantle corners closer together in front of the cantle face. I think they were probably cupped out a little more at the lower corners of the face, and that made the ridge that bites. Your tree I have along with my others are flatter in the lower corners and blend smoothly into the bars. Regarding the seats. I make the same basic seat on about all of them. I have had one request for and made a ridgepole seat from swell to cantle. I like to be able to slightly slouch. I sit like that in a chair, in the truck, and on a bench. Say I was sittling in a straigh back kitchen chair. I shove my fist in where the seat meets the back. That is the feel I want. Much like using a wedge or rolled up towel on an old Chevy truck seat. I put that same feel in at the cantle/bar angle and taper it up the face of the cantle. I want that to roll my pelvis underneath me. That is what sits me deeper when a horse stops and the backend drops. It slides me down and deeper if the backend comes up. When I am just sitting in a saddle, I want about 3 fingers clearance from my back to the top of the cantle. I want that same measurement when I am done with my groundwork. That cantle will get closer with the rolling of a lope, but hopefully I am sitting quiet and everything else is moving around me. I put the low spot near the middle of the seat. (Your tree is just right for that BTW). I have done a lot of things on horse, but none spectacularly. I rode pleasure horses as a kid, reined, roped, bridle horses, cut, and started a lot of colts. I found I did the best when I stayed on them and out of their way and that was usually toward the middle. If I needed to get back, it was usually on a cutter sucking back under me, and that is what pushing on the horn is for. I am attaching pics of three different saddles with different purposes, but the same basic seat geometry. My calf roping saddle is built on a 15" tree. The roughout is kind of an all around cowhorse saddle - roping/ cutting/reining. The inlaid seat saddle is my wife's 16". She just rides for now, until we figure out what her horse wants to do for a living (I think he will make a good one). These saddles all pretty well keep you where you need to be.

Spencer, Regarding the lower priced machines that can do heavy duty. The Adler cost me about $2200 used from Ferdco, and after 5 years, I sold it for that through their swap-board. I used it for the cost of one bent feed dog. Quality and reputation will hold their value. There are several clones of the Juki 441 that the Pro 2000 is based on. Cowboy, Sewmo, etc. are out there, along with Artisan selling two long arm clones at two different prices. Several sellers have the shorter armed versions as well. Personally, I don't see the appeal of the short arm machines other than price. I have folded up enough chaps and saddle blankets to stuff them through on a narrow throat machine. The difference with all these machines is service. Not to sound smart, but it sounds like you haven't used a heavy stitcher before. It is a given you will have a problem, everyone does. That is when you find out who has fire and who has smoke in the service dept. I broke a needle on the Adler. In doing that, it also bent the lower feed dog and was "short-stitching". The Ferdco service guy was on the phone with me for an hour while he diagnosed the problem through me taking it apart. When I got the new feed dog, he offered to call me at 5:00 am my time so I could put it on and he could talk me through retiming it if needed, before I had to leave for work. They have been that helpful to me whenever I have called them. The Pro 2000 is supposed to have some parts redone or replaced from the original Juki to make it more reliable and even stitching. I just know I really have to try to make it skip a stitch. "Ferd" of Ferdco original fame retooled and beefed up a lot of the original machines into heavy stitchers or machines dedicated to sewing a specific application. The servo motors give very good speed control and good punch power at low speeds. I can sew from 1 stitch every 2 seconds to running down an edge. I would not go back to a clutch motor again. I like the cylinder arm for a lot of things. I can sew curved things on the curve. It allows me to sew gussets into bags and planners from the outside. On a flat bed you would have to sew them from the inside. I made a flat bed for my 2000 with a cut-out for the cylinder arm and adjustable legs (folding table legs with different length of PVC pipe extensions that slip over the legs). This supports awkward or heavy things like saddle pads and blankets. The smallest thread I use in the 2000 is #207, not sure how small it will go. I like the flat bed for sewing flatgoods and strap work. I have used up to #207. The flat bed is nice to do chaps, checkbooks, wallets, belts, spur straps, stuff like that. My wife is less intimidated by the flat bed machine. If I was buying one machine and needed to do saddle work, it would be a reputation cylinder arm and I would make a good sized flatbed for it. Then if the trend is there in your business, get a second machine later, and that should probably be the flat bed then. My thoughts.

Spencer, I have the Ferdco 1245, and Greg used the right word - awesome. I have had mine since December. I don't think it has skipped a stitch yet. It will handle up to #207 thread handily. I have used down to #92 thread as well, but usually run 138 through it. It will do heavy strap, they say up to a half inch I think. It is not a saddle machine. I have Ferdco's Pro 2000 also. It is a good solid saddle sticthing machine, and pretty hard to get it to skip too. I think I have had it a couple years. Between the two machines and servo motors on both, I have all the firepower I think I need for sewing. As far as Ferdco. I started off with a used Adler 205-64 from them. I used it for 5 years and they helped me sell it for what I paid for it. They have always been very good for advice on machines, maintenance, and supplies. I have tried to deal with other sellers at times, but Ferdco has done the best by me.

In an effort to keep the cantle thread more focused on cantles, I am opening up this thread to the differences between arena saddles for a specific purpose vs. long-day riding saddles. Obviously the long day saddles have to be able to keep the horse going for all day. The arena saddles may be for the horse who is ridden for a shorter time frame - warm up and 10 minutes of cutting training on cattle, long trot and patterning on barrels, then one run at speed, loping 5 laps then running 8 steers, etc. The arena saddles may have different needs (like the room to round up the back or stop deep) that the guy out gathering and moving cattle may not need or want. One has to provide support, the other needs to not get in the way for the horse first and the rider second. I think we can be general enough to focus on any aspect from trees to seats in this thread.

Denise, That is "kind of" what I was referring to at the cantle corners. I had occasion to ride a saddle that the cantle points dug in a little right below the pockets if I got rocked back or reached back with my leg. It was on a fairly high cantle, 5" or so. It got to be fairly obnoxious by the end of the day. A few months later I talked to the guy who built the saddle. Asked him who made the tree (so I would be forewarned). A few factors were at play. I will preface this by saying I know little about making cantles. Apparently this tree maker had one cantle "pattern" and so the bottom was shortened to make the various heights. It had an oval profile from the front. As the height increased, the oval was "raised". This made a pretty good undercut at the corner instead of blending into the bars. This saddlemaker thought it was a plus, because he could really tuck the seat jockey ear up in there and it made a tight clean look. The issue was the point of the cantle was running around that oval and made a ridge where it started to curve around and went up the bar. I like to have that point blended in and not continue forward. Some better groundwork could have filled that in a bit too. As far as test fitting seat. I had a guy I respect tell me he learned to test fit by stripping down to underwear, and sat in the groundseat for a while. If he was pretty comfortable at the end, he thought it was probably going to be alright. When he got his shop in town, he didn't use that method anymore. LOL. As far as seatbuilding in the cantle area, I want to slouch back. I leave the angle pretty full in the center. That way the first thing that hits is down low and kicks the bottom of your pelvis forward relative to the top. It rolls your butt up underneath you, rather than getting hit up higher and and kicking the top of your pelvis forward and arching your back. If the back end comes up, you are forced forward and down if your back is "slouched" or curved back. If your back is arched, everything stiffens and it forces you up and out. The low spot in front of the cantle on the bars makes that kind of a seat easier to build. A trainer I worked for used to say, "sit on your pockets". When they figured that out, it changed to "sit on your belt loops". An exaggeration, but worked. Greg, Interesting point about the arena saddle vs. cowboying saddle. I had asked that question a while back on another thread, may have even been another list. I had been told that same thing about having a little clearance for the horse that really rounds up. It makes sense to me. I think probably front and back pad shapes and angles play a significant part in fitting these horses. They round up when stopping and turning, but then may hollow out when they jump out and go across the pen. Those pads have to bear weight without digging in. What I AM really curious is, what kind of contact these horses have when they drop that front end and are low behind, doing that little "cow dance"?

Ashley, Good idea. One thing I would like to see is sources for some of these things too. Some of the more obscure things can be hard to find. If there is some maker's version of a particular tool that works better for someone, list the maker. If it is an oldie that is an ebay find, inherited, or traded for, let us know who made it. Say you like one version of a splitter better than another, tell us. If it is something you made, cool. We can all trade plans. When we burn out this candle, then we can start one on cool things, like Greg's 18" splitter.

I usually go for a 4" plus or minus a half inch cantle. My calf roping saddle is a 3-1/2" and the others are 4" or more. I think the angle and amount of dish is more of a factor for the back grabbing when horses buck. A really straight up fronted cantle with more dish will tend to pivot up into yout lower back - a bad thing. A cantle with a little flatter slope to it will push on your lower pelvis and roll your tailbone more underneath you (sitting on the "W"s, as Alan said) - a good thing. Especially if you set a low spot and a place to sit slightly in front of, not on, the cantle. This is a factor of dish, cantle angle, and how much groundwork the maker leaves in that area. I have heard this referred to as a "beaverslide seat". Looking at some of those old timer bronc saddles - the seats were shorter and the cantles were steep and not "filled" all that much. That combination will bite. Modern bronc saddles have longer seats and more cantle slope. Also most guys will adjust their leathers so there is just cantle pressure at full leg extension. The seats are longer (15-1/2 to 17-1/4" seats) vs. the 15" on the oldies. More "float" and less "mash" now when things get western in a bronc saddle or a western saddle. You could probably get some argument from Don Butler, me, and anyone else who has broken a pelvis in the saddle if "float" is always a good thing though. LOL. Another factor I see vary from maker to maker is at the front corners of the cantles. Some will curve around more the front and others will blend down the bar. The first will tend to grab a "wider-beamed" rider at those corners. I don't know how else to describe this and how to tell a treemaker about it. It is below the meauring point for "dish", so dish really can't account for it. The final concern I have with cantles is how well it blends into the bars. Some trees will have an abrupt angle, and others will have a graceful curve. The abrupt angle can be filled in somewhat with groundwork. I guess everything I have concerns about is with the front of the cantle. The backs vary by treemaker. Some makers have the backs pretty flat, and others undercut a little and have some "undercurve" to them. The straighter ones probably have a little more footprint on the bar and are potentially stronger. I like a litle curve, and can use a filler to make an undercut to slide my rear jockeys up under.