bruce johnson

It seems like drawdown stands are one of those things that vary from shop to shop. Most of us at least started with a wooden stand, probably made it ourself. Some of us are still using the original, have modified it, or moved up to a hydraulic - homemade or commercial. I would like to get a discussion going on what everyone thinks is the best for their own use. To kick it off, I started with a modification on a old wooden saddle stand I made 20 years ago - cut a slot in it, put in an arm and wedged the arm to create tension. It worked OK, gave me pretty much all the range I needed for the arm. It was a good height for shaping ground seats and "low" work, but a lot of bending over for sewing cantle bindings/horns, and screwing in conchos. Two years ago I made one on the same pattern, but higher. It worked well for "high" work, and was less fatiguing. The advantages of two stands was that I could be working on two things at once. Disadvantage was that I had two stands in the shop, and my space is pretty tight. This spring we went to the Wickenburg show. My wife scouted ahead, and found Ron's Tools. By the time I got there she was convinced I "needed" one of his hydraulic stands. I went home with one and have no regrets. The top really holds a tree nicely. The drawdown spring is mounted to the post, not the base like some. I can pivot the tree all round and not have to remove the strap. I can raise or lower likewise with the strap in place. Makes working at a comfortable height much easier and faster. Doesn't seem like a big deal, but the work pivots to me. I don't have to walk around to the other side. I can lay my tools out on one bench, and not carry them around with me. I have the removeable overhead arm, and laser attachment. It shoots horizontal, vertical, or crosshairs. Just line it up on the centerline of the tree, and it ensures even rigging placement, checks trees for even cantles, etc. I haven't done a Cheyenne roll since I got it, but there is a tip up arm to raise the tree for that. The biggest advantage is that one stand has replaced the other two, is easier to work with, and has a smaller footprint in the shop than either of others by themselves. I know Ron isn't the only maker of these, and thousands of trees cross a wooden drawdown every year. I would like to hear what others are using, and where they would or have changed on them. Bruce

Stephanie, I agree with the previous posts that you really have to try a swivel knife to see the differences. The height and barrel size are important. The yoke or cradle is a factor, width shoud fit your finger. Some yokes are flat stock, and others are contoured. Then you get into blades, thin blades/thick blades, angled blades/straight blades, then widths -1/4,3/8,1/2. Lots of choices and combinations. Different configurations for different styles of carving, different hand size, even the angle you hold the knife at makes a difference in all these choices. I have knives from Chuck Smith (Ol Smoothie), Barry King, some of the fat barreled old Tandy Pro knives, and a drawerfull of the regular old TLF knives (yard sale set finds). I have different blade set ups on the regular users. You are most welcome to come down and play with any of them. Other than the IFoLG show in TX, I think the trade shows are about wound down for the year. Bruce

Barra, For breast collars, my standard length is 36" from tip of the ring to tip of the ring. I sometimes will make some up a bit shorter, down to 32" for colts or some saddles that have the attachment points pretty far out there. My headstalls vary depending on use and head size. Personally I don't like a lot of excess length flopping around the side of their face. My crown pieces vary from 26 to 32 inches depending. My cheek pieces start off as 16", and then are shortened by the bit end and buckle end folds. Browband stays pretty constant. I make them 13-1/2 for the "inside" measurement, and then allow for the crown and throatlatch widths after that.

The Dale Harwood DVDs on saddlemaking are due to be released at about any time. They were doing some re-editing since the first announcement last winter, and last I heard, were doing the final duplicating. Has anyone had the inside track to see them yet?

Ken, A quick and dirty thumbnail differences for circular patterns. Arizona tends to use larger flowers with the flower on the stemwork. California tends to follow the circular pattern of the Sheridan, but the flowers are larger relative to the circle, centrally located, and overlap the stemwork somewhat. Sheridan follows a circular pattern also, but the flowers tend to be smaller relative to the circle, the stemwork is more intricate. These styles are not carved in granite, there is overlap, each person tends to view them and definitely do them just a little different. Example - some will say that CA has a checkered background, and Sheridan has bargrounded backgrounds. Rules are guidelines until you find out how to break them for "your" style.

My thanks go to Johanna for help in reorganizing the saddle and tack section. I think this will make this section easier to get around in and be a great resource. By way of introduction, Johanna has asked me to be moderater of this section. I am very happy with the great response we have had so far on this section. I want to personally thank everyone who has contributed. Also I would ask that you invite anyone you think might be interested to join us. We have a great mix already, everyone from users to first-time makers, part time makers, and respected full time makers. With that sort of braintrust and fresh questions, we can't help but all take something away. We are unique in the saddle business among most other leatherworkers. There are a few fulltime purse makers, belt makers, or checkbook cover makers. There are many fulltime saddlemakers. There are people here who have done some apprenticeships most would die for, and some that are learning from a book or video and only ever expect to make one saddle. This brings different backgrounds, perspectives, and expectations. We have a fulltime treemaker on the list. Not many other groups can claim that. The opportunities to learn here are boundless, and active participation and inviting more in will get it done. Thanks to all

Darcy, Apparently it was done as a booklet. A google search shows a copy in the collection of the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum (formerly The Cowboy Hall of Fame) in Oklahoma City. Not a lot is showing up on a search. The name is correct, it is called Saddles of the Old West. Sounds like he made some period reproduction saddles for display.

Happy Birthday, Frank. I just finished a bit of cake for breakfast (ala, Bill Cosby), so I will consider FZ birthday cake. Have a good one. Bruce Johnson

Steve, I have used about 45 sides of it. It is a little softer than Herman Oak, similar to the old Caldwell-Moser I started with. It works up better for me. I like the way it tools and oils. Occasionally I buy the second grade when they have them on special. Usually that is more for making up stuff like strap work, repair parts to cutting something I just can't get out of a saddle side. The second grade is the same tannage and works up just like the number 1s. The number 1 grade is my choice for saddles. It never fails, the butcher cut or brand will be right in the middle of a seat on all 3 sides if you order just the off grades. Bruce Johnson

Steve, We are on the same wavelength here. Can't disagree with anyone you mentioned. I am partial to Don King as the other of the top two. Maybe we should have age categories. LOL. I have Don's museum poster hanging over my tooling bench. I have the poster print of Don Butler's Wichita Falls saddle hanging in the entry to my house. I can't be anywhere and not be inspired by some great work in my house. I don't remember who did the work for the Holes catalog. Some guys have told me that Gerry Holes, when he was "on", was about as good as it got for their style. I saw a fender a few months ago that Bill Rogers had just tooled. I don't know how old Bill is, but has to be mid 70s. He worked for Visalia, and then has been around the horn. He was just at Caps for a while. This fender was plenty cool. I have said it before, but I am glad we have these guys to look at their work and borrow (steal) from. Bruce Johnson

For the under piece, I slipped it over the horn while the Barge was still wet. I then tacked the filler in place on top of the horn. I hit bottom of the filler and the edge of the bottom donut piece with a little heat and tacked it up. Positioned it and pliered it. That pretty well held it while I worked the slack down and compressed out the wrinkles. By this time the neck and bottom part of the underpiece was fairly tacky, so I made it kind of evenly wrinkled all the way around (looked like a cupcake paper, if you know what I mean). As the casing got right in the leather to compress, I worked the wrinkles flat. I used a bone folder, slicker, smooth hammer, and my hand to get them down. I found a piece of low neck, infront of the flanky front pocket worked best for me. I tried a flanky stretchy piece first. It worked in OK, but was still a piece if flanky stretchy crap when done. Then I tried some low belly. I ended up chasing wrinkles around the neck, wouldn't compress as well. The neck has the firmness and compressibilty that worked best for me. Bruce Johnson

For what it is worth, I have only done one donut style cap and wrap. I did the one piece under the horn, but it took me three pieces to get the one piece of the right temper to mold, stretch, and compress right. It did look nice when done, and then I covered most of it up with some grainy old mulehide. I don't do many cap and wraps because of previous experiences with repairs. Even on rawhide covered metal horns, I see some of them burned through the rawhide down to the metal. The rubber lets go, the nylon runs, and the wraps and rawhide are a blue vapor. I still wrap mulehide on the ropers, knowing they are going to put rubber over it. Two layers of neck protection. They can still (and have) burn through the mulehide and neckwraps. On the wood post horns, I prefer to do a traditional cap and wing style coverering. I figure that extra layering of neck leather gives some more measure of protection than just the mulehide. On a metal horn burned through the rawhide, I fill in the ropeburn with skirting scrap, varnish, and recover the horn. I figure that metal is still pretty solid and reasonable protected. I am not that confident on a woodpost burned through the rawhide with just a mulehide wrap over it. Me thinks moisture will cause some post decay in shorter order. Bruce Johnson

Denice and Rod, Actually I think the saddlemakers are as different as anyone here. Some measure full double from the center of the horn base, others use the center of the fork, some use the lowest point of the fork where it hits the bars. Obviously angles of fork placement, even where the fork isplaced, the the horn is placed on the fork (on the back edge of the fork or slightly forward) and other variables all could affect this. I sat in one of Pete Gorrell's classes several years ago. Clint Marrs came in for a few hours - just a real treat to hear his stories. He said the old shops used the lowest point of the front pad as full, and the lowest (widest) point of the rear pad as the other reference (not the cantle as some use). Three-quarters riggings were 3/4 of the way to the front. Likewise 7/8, 5/8, etc. None of the arbitrary one inch back for 7/8, 2 inches back from full for 5/8. I am sure each shop was getting trees from makers that were similar enough that these reference points were fairly consistant. I respect tradition and honor it with using the low point for my "full". It just makes sense to me that the low point should be the pivot. Anything forward of that pulling down should tip up the back of the tree. Bruce Johnson

I got my backgrounders from Barry King. I also had him make me up a few with even more distinct checkering (similar to a 104) but not a complete set. The fine is really fine - finished look is almost a smooth matte look. That is what really makes these work as matters also. The medium shows some checkering burnish. Bruce Johnson

Ashley, Very cool. I like them. Nice clean work, and like the rolled buttons. Bruce Johnson

One of the best lessons I have received in the last year is to create the illusion of depth, rather than to beat depth into my piece. This illusion is accomplished by beveling at different depths (like lighter where stems cross than where the stem is next to background), Steeper bevelers to avoid mashing down large areas, fading the knife cuts, etc. It is not a crime to leave "high" areas in an element like a leaf or flower untouched. A smooth area between a depressed center and pear shaded edge creates more depth at each end than if the pear shading and center beveling meet. Another way to create depth is having a fair amount of crossing stems in the pattern, rather than everything on the same plane to start with. Another option not mentioned yet is using undershots and propetal tools to raise and round up areas. Regarding backgrounding, It doesn't have to be deep, as long as it breaks up the design and looks even. This can be accomplished by either texture or burnishing of the background tool. I have used matters to first depress the area in the background, and then textured with a stamp like a 104. I now mostly use a 6 piece set of backgrounders that are different shapes and sizes, but the same checkering pattern. I have a fine set and a medium checkered set. The are real time savers, less walking. The larger ones double as matting tools. Like Mulefool, I do a lot of basket and geometrics on orders due to customer cost constraints. I am pretty healed up and able to swivel knife more - so I am playing around with more florals again on the stock items. It is coming back. I look at some of the carved pieces of Jim Jackson and others on 3/4 oz, and wish I could get that look on skirting. Those guys have got it going. Bruce Johnson

If it is the same Wolfgang (from Germany) I met there 2 years ago he won a division of the saddle contest that year. He made a really nice clean looking cutting saddle. Bruce Johnson

Steve, I am with you on this. I oil the whole skirt for the reasons you say. By only oiling part, my thoughts are that most oils will migrate anyway. If you only oil the edges some will eventually work its way to the bar area. Another factor - skirts aren't the only area to contact oiled leather. If we follow that same logic, we also shouldn't be oiling or pasteing the riggings, stirrup leathers, jockeys, swell cover, or any other parts that potentially contact the rawhide. I don't know too many who would advocate that. I thank that group could probably dine at a table for one. Bruce Johnson

Soybomb, When I first saw your post, I suspected that was the creaser you were using. Think pf the legs as skies. As you open them up, the edges splay further and further. Tip the front ends of your skis apart and head down the hill - once. I couldn't get them to track either. IMHO, it is because you are trying to force a groove making tool at an angle. If it was a sharpened tool and meant to cut it wouldn't track with the blade at an angle. What you are trying to do is essentially the same only making a groove with a dull linear surface at an angle. The sized edge creasers with the longer leg, and the creasing surface parallel with the direction of travel works much better. Bruce Johnson

T, A few sources out here on the west coast are Goliger Leather in Santa Barbara, CA and Hide House in Napa and San Dimas, CA. Siegels carry lots from time to time that might fit what you are looking for. Another source I would consider also is Sheridan Leather Outfitters in Sheridan WY. I know the leather you are talking about, but it is hard to tell the drapiness of it on a swatch card. A good rep from any of these should steer you right. Bruce Johnson

Susan, Mechanically once you get a tree positioned on the horse's back and then get the latigo position you want, that will determine the rigging position for me. Looking at the pictures of your horses, it looks to me like your thoughts on full rigging or 15/16ths looks right for the way I would do it. David talked on the other thread about the horse that goes well in a 5/8ths. Tree fit is probably a bigger issue than a strict rigging position. To introduce a few variables into this equation - if the horse has a good back and the tree fits, there should not be a lot forward and back movement of the saddle. If the side to side fit is likewise good, then there shouldn't be as much rolling. With these, you can get by with a looser cinch for most riding. Add a thick 1" pad, or pad and double navajo blanket, and that will change things a bit. More roll and more movement. The rider's cure for saddle movement - pull the cinch tighter. I think that is where a more posterior position will cause some issues. Not to be assumed that back cinches are not to be pulled. They are there for a reason and I use them. Also as David pointed out the mechanics of putting in the rigging are an issue. If the rigging ring is right at the bottom edge on the bar, it will stand away from the horse a bit more than one slightly lower and formed when made. Over time everything may stretch and pull into position, but maybe not. I have zero experience with the Sam Stagg rigging other than seeing it on some period pieces, and the old "Windy Bill" song. You are right, this does throw a monkey wrench into the works. My basic thoughts on any adjustable rigging is they are only as strong as the weakest link. Buckle tongues bend, laces wear and tear, fasteners come undone, and the wreck is on. Bruce Johnson

Allen, Thanks for your input. Regarding the leather in front of the swells. I am not the end all guy for saddle making for sure, and have changed with time. My fronts are actually blocked up higher than the bar level, and I use 2 sets of tugs in front to hold them up there. Two reasons, first is to minimize that contact with the shoulders forward of the bartips as much as possible. Blocking less to have pressure out there is not to my mind necessary or wanted forward of the bars. Second reason for the heavy blocking is to help cover up the tips of the bars. I want no gapping there. Also these two saddles were built on really different trees. The Weatherly had more bar in front to start with. The association didn't have much. In fact rigging was a bit tricky. I am attaching a picture of my wife's saddle that has a fair amount of "front" to it, but really opens up. It is a roper/user, but there was more bar than the Association had. The length of bar tip determines how far in front I extend the leather. I just want enough that I don't see tree when done. One thing that is a little deceiving on my saddles is that the skirts aren't real deep either. There is a pretty good book, now out of print, on saddle evolution. Glenn Vernam wrote it, and it is called "Man on Horsdeback". Goes from ancient times to modern, at least as modern as 1964. Glenn also wrote "The Rawhide Years" a book about the evolution of the American cowboy gear and co-wrote "They Saddled the West" with Lee Rice, which is the history of several american saddlemakers. Man on Horseback has some illustrations of Moor saddles, as well as Algerian, Bedouin, etc. in some sections. Regarding the Wade popularity. In the Northwest and basin area, slickforks always maintained a good level of popularity. I think the regional popularity was expanded by one man - Ray Hunt. He rode them, and was the first major equine clinician to take the show on the road. He opened the door for a lot more equine clinicians who rode them, and it took off from there. Joe and Jane ClinicAttendee see these guys getting some stuff done with a horse that is pretty phenomenal to them. They see the saddle, it ain't their Circle Y with the braided "boy" horn, and want one. I would wager that at least half the slickforks sold now will never be see a rope as anything but a decoration, and very few big posts will see a reata. There are pluses and minuses to all swell and slick forks. Back to getting the rider forward. There are two limiting factors. The swells and the stirrup slots. You can build a seat more forward, but when you get closer to the swells, that limits the proper knee bend and severely limits forward movement. You are also getting up where the tree is widening out again. The stirrup slots have to have some allowance forward swing, and the more forward you put the seat, you cross that line from stirrups underneath you to behind. If you have ever ridden a saddle that stirrups tend to fall away behind you, and have little forward movement, you probably won't want to again. I am claustrophobic if I can't get my feet up into the flats. This is where plate, triangular, and skirt riggings have the advantage over most traditional folded leather drop dee riggings. Bruce Johnson

Allen, Welcome!! A few historical points as I know them. The slick fork trees were not developed. They were the originals. They were made form the fork of a tree, and prior to the early 1900s, all trees were slick forks. The first swell fork developer is open to debate, some say Marsden in Oregon, others claim a Hamley employee, not a major thing, but that is the time period swell forks came about. Regarding the bareback rider sitting right behind the withers, that is true enough. However I would offer (for discussion's sake and not to disagree with you) that gravity is the cause of that. As David pointed out in the bar or fitting thread, very few if any horses are built uphill. You naturally gravitate to the lowest spot, and that is directly behind the withers. The withers rise up to stop you. Ride a down-hill mule bareback, and you may be hanging onto ears. I will agree that that position is close to or the pivot point or balance point for most horses. There is a reason bronc saddles are rigged 3/4 - it keeps the rider closer to that pivot point. Try sitting back further and leverage will kick you over the swells. Also why it is easier to get bucked off out of a double rigged roping saddle, you are further back on the leverage arm. Sitting too far back on a spinning horse, lead changes, standing up to rope, anything, and you are constantly "behind" the horse. The horse that collects up and really gets a hind leg underneath himself to stop or turn, you can sit back in the pocket a bit more. Part of the reason the cutting saddles with the flatter longer seats are designed for that purpose. The poor sloppy or "bracey" rider negates all this, but that is beyond our control. Now we are getting into the rider who either purposely sits back and braces (David's concept of "brida") or the seat is built so the cantle is the low spot and everything ramps up from there. The rider has to sit there, or brace to sit up higher and more forward. The posterior seat as some call it. So to get back to where we sit on western saddles. Other than a very short seat, thin forked minimal bar in front of the fork tree, we can't easily put the rider directly over the exact same spot they would sit on the horse bareback. We can get them closer. I vowed I would never make saddles several years ago because I only ever rode two that I liked that weren't cutters. I realized why when I ate those words and built a saddle. I whittled away groundseat and sat in a lot of wet leather to get what I liked. I want the lowest part of the seat in the seat not on the cantle. I got lucky on that first one, and it worked. Chuck Stormes did a series of articles on seats and riggings on a natural horsemanship website - Eclectic Horseman or something like that, where he showed "my" seat in some 1930 Visalias. Some people call them centered seats, David uses the concept of "jineta" vs. "brida"; hell, Xenophon probably had a Greek term for it before any of us. I doubt the Visalia tree makers had heard much of jineta, brida, or Xenophon, but they built a seat that worked. So to expand this thread from riggings and include seats, I think it does fit together. Regarding your bringing up skirt riggings, I purposely left that out, just to create some discussion. I think a properly installed skirt rigging is the hardest to do, and probably strongest rigging styles. I think the deep drop front skirt riggings could be restrictive, just like a deep drop too-much-leather-to-the-front plate rigging could be. Minimal stirrup swing restriction, opportunity for more attachment points, and less bulk makes them a real plus. Too bad there is the prejudice against them in many areas caused by the historically poor job some factories and makers did installing them. We are on the same wavelength about the 3 way. There is a reason some of the best horsepeople are barrel racers and there are a lot of three way skirt riggings on barrel saddles. One thing I am not sold on is free sliding cable riggings. Hamley tried it years ago, and another tree maker is trying to bring it back. The concept is probably OK, the mechanics aren't. What makes me think a leather latigo won't be more easily cut by a cable under tension than by a metal ring with more radius under tension. I cut enough hay strings with a spare string to know my thoughts on that. Now how I was taught to position a rigging. With the bare tree on the horse sitting in the sweetspot, The latigo should hang vertically in the narrower part of the chest. Behind the shoulder muscles and where they will be in all phases of the stride, and in front of the area where the chest widens out viewed from above. Reasons I was taught. Too far forward - we are binding muscles, too much motion under the cinch rings and we are creating sores. Too far back and we are inhibitng chest expansion on some level. Obviously this intimates we are fitting a "particular" horse, but in light of other discussions, I call it fitting the general type of horse now. I think the sweetspot for the latigo has more leeway than the sweetspot for the tree. I was taught to saddle a horse by setting the saddle up a further than you want it. Then slide it back and it will find its "bed" where it wants to stay, let the latigo hang straight down and cinch up. The reasons given were that it (1) puts the saddle where it needs to go, (2) smooths out a wrinkle in your blanket if you have one, sliding forward could make a wrinkle, (3) lays the wool down in all one direction to keep the blanket in place (we aren't going to woolskins front or back right now!! LOL) because thats the way the woolskin was put on, (4) lays the hair down on the horse preventing wither sores, (5) because my Grandpa said so, that was enough - no discussion. I am attaching a couple pics of some of my saddles to illustrate a centered seat vs. a posterior seat. The slickfork with the corner stamping is pretty typical for my "centerish" seat. The branded fender saddle was done with the posterior seat by request. This guy wanted that seat because that he is what he wanted. It is a definite ramped up narrow posterior seat. He wanted to be able to grip something standing up from front to back - he can. Bruce Johnson

A bell knife skiver is a bench mounted motorized skiver. Basically a feedwheel feeds the leather against a rotating bell shaped blade, and that cuts off the skive. Ferdco and Artisan both sell them, and have them on their websites. Kind of the old standard that these are a knockoff of are the Fortuna skivers. There are different presser feet for different shaped skives. The depth and width of the skive can be adjusted by a fence guide to control how far in the skive goes. Also the presser feet are different lengths and can be adjusted to have varying pitch too. There is a top adjustment for depth on the presser foot. These adjustments are all thumbscrew type adjustments and pretty easily changed. With the widest foot and setting it level I can split a 2" strip of latigo or mulehide from just leveling to paper thin. By changing the pitch on the presser foot, I can do a tapered skive up to about 2". Raising/lowering the presser foot or changing the guide fence width makes shorter or longer skives too. I can use a piece of 8-9 for a checkbook, channel the center so it folds easily, and skive the edges so they are not so thick and clunky looking. The thicker center leather makes it safer to undershot and propetal with less risk of cutting through. These skivers sell at prices on-line for the knockoff models from about $900-1300. They usually come with a stone feedwheel and two or three basic feet. Additional feet are available, as well as the steel milled feedwheel for vegtan. Not for everyone, but I wouldn't be without one now. I have a heavy sewing machine, and flatbed sewing machine that can do up to 1/2", a shop press for a clicker, Chase pattern splitter, handcrank sole skiver, handcrank heavy splitter, and a rein-rounder. I have everything mechanical I foresee needing. All of the work these machines do can be done by hand, these just do it more consistantly for me. Bruce Johnson

OK, looks like time to move onto riggings. And on this topic I likewise expect no consensus, and encourage differing viewpoints. The battle of the "rimfires" vs. the "centerfires" went on 150 years ago, and hasn't been toally solved yet. A few random thoughts. First we probably need to define (or at least get on the same page) on what the various positions mean to us. I was in a class that an elderly statesman sat in on. The original positionings were based on the lowest point of the front pad and the rear pad of the tree. Centerfire was exactly half way between these two references. Three-quarters was hung at 3/4 of the way between them toward the front, likewise 5/8. Full position was directly under the low point of the front pad. They didn't go from the middle of the fork, middle of the horn base, or use the cantle as a reference. Likewise, they didn't use the 1" back from full is 3/4, 2" back is 5/8". There trees may have been pretty standard and these measurements would correspond to how some makers determine postion today, don't know. Fork thickness, horn placement, and cantle placement all could affect the measurements on the same bars today. Likewise different bar patterns with differing low spots could affect the postioning going by the old system. My best references to the centerfire are some of the old vaquero books. Arnold "Chief" Rojas wrote several. He got in on the tail end of the ranchos, and talked with and wrote down the storeies and lore of the older vaqueros who had gone before. Centerfire cinchas were wide for stability. They were riding generally thinner 900# horses, with not a lot of bodyfat, and accroding to several accounts, fairly slab sided. They were credited with being great horseman, and admired for getting off every so often and loosening the cincha, lifting the saddle, and airing out the back. In a couple accounts it was mentioned this was mainly to readjust the slipping blankets and reposition the saddle, not necessarily caballo concern. Roping was done with reatas, the dallies run, and so not a lot of stress or jerk on the saddle. Centerfires fell out of favor because they were not stable enough for evolving use of the horse, interfered a bit with leg cues, and the body style of the horse evolved. As an aside, they talk about the time taken to train the famous Californio stock horse. These horses not put into the full bridle until at least 6 years, spade bit packers, etc. According to several sources, horses were cheap and tools. They were used hard over big areas in a day from ranchos, not from cavvies in a camp and traded at noon. The users were not shod like the "Fiesta" horses. A colt might be ridden 30 miles over dry adobe or rocky foothill ground all day. It took many of these horses 2-4 weeks to get over being footsore and saddlesore enough to ride again. They may get to be 6 or 7 and have had 30-40 rides at most. Meanwhile they go through the transition from hackamore to bridle in 30-40 rides. The good horses were like good horses today, if they were special they went on a fiesta horse to ride to town or to another rancho. Rojas estimated that 1 in 30 ever learned or were good enough to pack a spade bit, they were the ones you took to visit. About the same as today. They took several years to train these horses, but it was generally pretty interrupted compared to today. Back to riggings. The other battle generally is plate vs. ring rigging. Then we get to how low the riggings should go down the side. One camp says the lower they are, the more they "wrap" around the horse, and less cinch pressure is needed to hold the saddle, and the horse is more comfortble. The other says that the lower plate riggings will act like a corset and bind up chest expansion. If the plates have a lot of leather forward of the slot, that can interfere with the shoulder muscles. Should the rigging be on top of the skirts and spread that pressure over skirt edge, or lower and possible have a lump where two or three laps of latigo are on the horse? I definitely agree that a tree will seek its sweet spot on the horse's back. My general though is that the latigos should hang vertically below that. The latigos and cinch should be in their "sweet spot" too, behind the elbow and in front of the widest part of the chest. Shoulder angle difference between two horses can play a part in a particular saddle having the same sweetspot on top, but slightl y different for the latigos. We can also get tinto the merits of rigging hardware - SS vs. brass, beveled or flat dees, EZ dees, etc. How to attach them for strength, but still allow adequate stirrup swing. All opinions and input are welcome. Bruce Johnson