Point of reference on a tree?

[Doug Mclean]

I would be interested in what everyone has to say about putting in the riggin and skirts. When I start on a saddle I usually use the center of the horn and the center of the cantle as my reference points. And then when I am in the process of attaching riggin and skirts I will use a straight edge on front of the fork resting on the top of the bars and also on the back of the fork. I usually try and find a happy medium between all of these. Sometimes I am not very happy with the end result. It seems like I end up having to make some compromises. I also wonder if you should be looking at the bottom side in regards to the riggin and not so much concern about what shows up on the top. I'm in the process of putting in a riggin and it is not going as well as I would like. ( Can you tell !!!!)

[jonwatsabaugh]

Doug,

Rigging placement is somewhat subjective. I've yet to run into any two that place them the same way. 7/8 on one guy's saddle is a little different than 7/8 on another. Although I think horn position should be considered, I rely mainly on a measurement back from the front tip of the bar, that being 3 1/4". This is what I consider full position. 1 3/4"-2" back from that is what I call 7/8. I built a jig I square my tree on to get the rigging placement symetrical side to side. I consider symetry the single most important issue here. Now, looking at the tree on the jig from a profile view, I position it to represent how it sits on the horse. This is also a subjective matter as you "eye ball in" this position. Once I'm satisfied with the placement of the tree, I simply measure back from my point of reference and draw in a perpendicular line for rigging placement. I measure from the front edge of the jig to this point then replicate that to the other side. Using this jig, I can be dead sure they are the same side to side. When I get my camera back next week I will post a couple of pix of my jig with further explanation.

Jon

[barra]

I have heard many and various explanations as to reference point, so many that it makes my head spin. Prior to the crash this explanation was offered and it was the one that I found the simplest. I am sure Bruce mentioned it something like this.

Take the lowest point of the bar at the front (full).

Take lowest point of bar at rear. Measure the distance between the two points. From this measurement you can find 7/8" the distance between the two measurements, 3/4" etc

keep up the comments. I'm finding it all very informative.

Barra

Edited March 14, 2008 by barra

[kseidel]

Rigging placement is sooo subjective! And How to place them consistently is difficult without good reference points that are consistent. A jig helps. Jon's fixed point being the front of his bar works fine if you only use one treemaker. Also, how a tree sits on a horse affects rigging position from one treemaker to another.

I like to have my skirts in place on the tree when I fit my riggings, and that makes using a jig somewhat harder. I have a jig set up on a saddle stand that is fitted to tree shape to hold the tree square, and have attached a board across the front to measure back from for a consistent reference point. I determine the depth of the rigging from the bottom of the bar and measure back from the board across the front.

I don't like to use the horn or cantle as reference points since they are not consistent from tree to tree. The horn can be out of center, leaning a bit to one side, etc. The same with the cantle; off center or one side farther forward than the other. I know we all want to have perfect trees, but that is not always the case. The horn and cantle are not always centered and square over the bars, and the bars are what fits the horses back. So I always reference off of the bars as they sit in the horses back.

[jwwright]

I have been using the lowest point of the bar front and back, then do the math method. Seems to work well for me.................sure enjoy hearing how others do it. JW

[kseidel]

Barra, that method of finding rigging position is inconsistent from tree to tree. I have tried to find methods that work every time on any tree for any saddlemaker.

With the tree sitting level as it would on a horses back, (not flat on a bench) I use a verticle line from the center of the base of the horn for the full position. I never want to be forward of this position, and sometimes this can be too far forward for a good functioning rigging. Nevertheless, it is the farthest forward weight bearing point on the top of the tree. I then make a verticle line at the frontmost points of the cantle. This being about the farthest back that bears weight where the rider sits. Halfway between these two lines is centerfire position. Halfway between centerfire and full is 3/4. Halfway between 3/4 and full is 7/8'ths. It is the most consistent way that I have found to place riggings given any set of variables.

Keith

[bruce johnson]

To give credit for using the low point of the front and back bar pads as references. I first heard it from an older guy sitting in on one of Pete Gorrell's roundtables at a Reno LCSJ show. His name escapes me, but it was a pleasure to just hear him talk about some of the old days and ways. Old men are generally wise. He had a few other pearls. One of my favorites was cutting strap work. In the old shops the foreman usually cut the parts out. On the really good saddles they cut the strap work and stirrup leathers out of the righthand sides. Reason being the rumen sits to the left side of the living beast. The rumen is filling and emptying, creating methane to ruin our environment, eructates or bloats up, fills on good feed and sags in on poor feed. All of that creates a just a little more stretchiness in the finished left sides in that area. I have never heard that referenced to before or since, but it makes sense to me. I do it just to honor the thought.

[Doug Mclean]

Thank You everyone for all of the good feed back. On my way to the shop to put some of these ideas to work. Will let you know when the smoke clears.

Thanks again !!!

[RyanCope]

The way I was taught I think is similar to Keith. I place the tree on a flat bench and put a block under the rear of the bars to simulate a horses back. I then mark the low spot on the front bar pads which is usually the middle of the horn. Never going past the middle. I consider this to be full. I then tip the tree on its nose. With a yard stick I measure up one inch per position. 7/8-centerfire. Center fire being 4" above full. Mark each side.

When placing the rigging on I measure down from this mark. Then again I tip the tree on its nose and measure the rigging vertically with a yard stick. Simply put. Often I use triangle to make sure dee riggings are square, etc. This does not work if your rigging leather sticks out beyond the bar tip.

I recently bought a laser that disects the saddle into 4 quadrents. So far it has been a very frustrating method for riggings when I get things lined up perfect, and try to measure it in the way previously noted (great in other areas). I think Keith is correct that if the cantle and horn aren't perfect it makes those measurements invalid.

[jonwatsabaugh]

I do block and trim my skirts before I set the tree on my jig. I have the ability to do this with 4 points that protrude out from the base of the jig that are also adjustable. This alows me to change the elevation front to back to simulate correct level on the horse. The jig also enables me to hang the rigging at the exact same depth side to side. This is a very simple tool that is very user friendly and virtually fool proof for symetry.

Jon

[TroyWest]

My reference point is the same as Keiths, usually the back of the base of horn. I built my drawdown to be shaped like a horses back, so my tree fits on it at exactly the same angle as it would when sitting on a horse. This is crucial to getting your lines accurate when the saddle is on the horses back, in other words you don't want the bottom of your skirts running downhill when you saddle up. I see this a lot. It isn't nearly as crucial on round skirts as it is on saddles where the bottom edge of the skirt is flat.

Back to the tree issue.

The difficulty for all of us is there is no foundational reference point, meaning, If I use the lowest point of the bar, as a tree maker I can move that point further forward or back, and mess up your point of reference and most tree makers have no idea saddlemakers are using it anyway. I can also lean my front further forward or back, and mess up my own reference point. I can also set my front further back on my bars and change everything, but we all have to use something! So I use the reference point I mentioned, preferring to have a rig a little too far back than too far forward, if anything. I know fronts can be off, seen a lot of horns off center, and cantles can be further forward on one side or the other. Using a good craftsman for your trees will eliminate a lot of these problems. Another thing I do is put a small nail in the center of the top of the cantle. I keep a string hanging on the wall with a loop in it. After hanging my rigs temporarily with nails I hook the loop over the nail in the center of the cantle and measure to see if the rigs are the same distance from the nail. It's simple quick and easy. I consider it important to hang my rigs the same distance from the bottom of the bars, easily checked with a ruler, but even more important to have them the same front to back.

[Tosch]

In her 2003 booklet Verlane mentions as reference points "the center of the fork and the point of cantle. ....A full rig (..) is directly under the center of the fork. A 7/8 rig is seven eights of the distance from the point of cantle to the center of the fork. Same for 3/4 and 5/8 rigs. A center fire rig is almost directly in the center of the saddle...."

So I would think depending on the horn type and placement there might be a difference in using the center of the fork as reference point or the center of the base of the horn as used bei Keith and others.

Also I noticed she would have placed a center fire rig not directly in the center (halfways between her reference points), just almost.

Tosch

[D.A. Kabatoff]

I agree with what a few others have already mentioned about not using the center of the fork or horn as a reference. Like Troy mentioned, forks can be leaned forward or stood more upright and horns can be all over the map. I like the idea of looking at the front bar pad when the tree is in the position it would be on a horse's back. Imagining the front pad in a circular shape (even though it's not a circle) and then bisecting this circle gives me what I consider full position. This often corresponds to the lowest point on the bar with the trees I use but the low point can sometimes be up to an inch long so simply picking the center of it doesn't reliably give me the position I want. In a recent discussion with a long time saddlemaker the rear reference point came up and it was noted that the center of the base of the cantle as it comes down over the bar makes a good rear reference. This requires imagining the thickness of the base of the cantle from front to back and bisecting it. This rear point sometimes coincidentally ends up at the low point of the rear of the bars or it can be slightly forward or back from the low point depending on the treemaker, bar length and bar shape.

Darc

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

In reading through these posts, here is the list so far for what people use as their basis for the "full" rigging position.

Center of the horn

Measurement back from the front tip of the bar

Lowest point of the bar

Center of the base of the horn

Back of the base of the horn

Center of the fork

Center of the front bar pad

There was a thread on this before the crash that, if I recall, had some more ideas as well. Obviously, saddle makers are no more "standardized" than tree makers in how they do things.

For what it is worth, from the perspective of a tree maker:

Using anything but the bars themselves as a reference point for rigging position will introduce a whole bunch of variations. We can make a wooden horn or put a metal horn on the same fork style. This makes the center of the horn vary relative to a specific spot on the fork. We can make vary where we set a metal horn on the fork, or where we place a wood post horn on a fork, and how we shape it as well. This makes the back of the base of the horn vary relative to a specific spot on a fork. (We have even been asked to set it ¾" ahead of normal to provide some needed extra "belly room" for dallying.) We can stand a fork up or lean it ahead. The center of the fork relative to a specific spot on the bars will then be different, and this also affects all the horn references. All of these changes can give different reference points for "full" even when used on identical bars that will sit on the horse in an identical place on its back.

It is the shape on the bottom of the bars that is crucial in determining where on the horse's back the bar will sit, especially the front bar pad area. If the front bar pad is designed to fit behind the shoulder blades, then the "roundest part" or "deepest part" of that area will determine where the bar fits relative to the shoulder. (This "roundest part" can be more difficult to determine on bar pads that are flatter rather than rounder, but the shape does affect where the bar fits.) And that "roundest part" is as far forward as you would ever want a rigging to go – if that far. Further forward, and you will be pulling the front of the bars down, acting to tip the saddle forward and more likely affecting the movement of the shoulder blades as they rotate back. Even that far forward can cause problems for a lot of horses. In checking out a bunch of pictures of trees tonight, almost all the measurements from the horn and most of the measurements from the fork as described above would put the pull of the rigging too far forward on our trees based on this idea.

How does the "roundest part" of the bar pad correspond to the front tip of the bar? Doesn't have to be, and isn't, consistent at all with different bar types and especially between makers. On our trees, there is a different between "regular" bars and "Wade" bars in that the bar tip for Wade trees is longer (from the fork cut forward) to accommodate the extra stock thickness of the Wade fork. But the "roundest part" is consistent compared to the fork cut between regulars and Wades. So using a consistent measurement from the front bar tip on our trees would vary the "rigging position" (compared to the bar shape) depending on bar type. Between makers, it would be all over the map.

How does the "roundest part" of the bar pad correspond to the lowest point of the bar? Doesn't have to at all. The outline of the bar doesn't have to correspond to the bottom shape in any set manner. Every tree maker does things differently, you know. On our trees, it happens to. Because it was planned that way? Not by us, but probably by wise people in our "genealogy" of tree making who knew how to make things easier for a saddle maker. If it does correlate, it makes it a simpler way for a saddle maker to figure a rigging position.

Basically, as far as we see it, the full rigging position needs to be based on the shape of the bottom of the bar since that is what determines how the pull from the rigging will affect pressure from the tree on the horse's back. And that shape, of course, varies between tree makers, which gives saddle makers an excuse for varying how they do things too.

A story about the "string from the center of the cantle" test: We have pictures of a rigging on a tree that passed that test beautifully – string to same spot on the rigging an even length. Unfortunately the actual rigging was ¾" farther forward on one side than the other and also off an equal amount up and down. A case where it appeared that two wrongs made a right, but the horses sure didn't think so! So while it can be a good check, in our experience it shouldn't be the only one that is used.

[kseidel]

A couple of thoughts on this subject............ Which is getting deeper into "philosophy of saddlemaking"

First, How would you gauge the position of a rigging on a finished saddle if the position is based on the shape of the bars?

Second, If the tree fits the horse with uniform contact over the entire surface, then there is no "lowest" point of the bar as it relates to the horse. This lowest point is only relative to the tree profile as it is seen with a flat surface under it. Therefore, in theory, the rigging could be hung as far forward as the front of the bar without tipping the front down and the back up. It is only when the bar flares away from the horses back that the tree can tip forward.

The position of the horn and swell probably should be placed relative to how the bar shape is desiged to sit on the horse, and usually is. But that is another topic to discuss in the tree forum.

The most important thing to remember here is that it is important to know how your tree will sit on the horse and where you want the cinch to hang relative to the horses action.

Keith

[greg gomersall]

I was taught that it was the bottom side if the tree bar that you measured off of as well because thier are too many variables affecting the top side. I have trees from 3 different high end makers in my shop right now and what I refer to as the ball of the front bar pad corresponds with the lowest point of the front pad area when sitting on a horse on all of them. All you have to do is tack a rigging in place on the tree ahead of this point and cinch it on a horse to see what happens when you go ahead of this true spanish position. For years a lot of people have been taught to use the horn to determine rigging position, this does not mean it is right or accurate. Keith you mentioned how do we determine rigging position on a finished saddle without referencing the horn? The same way we determine gullet height and width on a finished rig by measuring best we can and making an educated guess. I have far better results and consistantcy in my rigging placement by referencing from the bottom than I ever had from the top. Matt Eberle taught this to me and the light went on as soon as he started describing it.

Greg

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

As I was thinking and typing, Greg chimed in and probably said it better and faster. But since I hate to waste all this time and effort, here it is anyway…

How would you gauge the position of a rigging on a finished saddle if the position is based on the shape of the bars?

With all the different points used, I don’t know that anyone can ever tell what the “official” rigging position is on any saddle other than the maker themselves. Sort of like “is it a 90 or 93 degree bar tree?” You can’t tell from the finished product. There are too many variables involved with them both in how they are built.

If the tree fits the horse with uniform contact over the entire surface, then there is no "lowest" point of the bar as it relates to the horse. This lowest point is only relative to the tree profile as it is seen with a flat surface under it.

Definitely the lowest point on the bar is a totally artificial point as it relates to the horse. It is just a very easy to identify point on the tree, and as such can be used as a reference point if wanted. It also will only be useful in comparison between trees within one type of one tree maker’s bars unless they are made in a similar manner. But within those boundaries it can be used.

Therefore, in theory, the rigging could be hung as far forward as the front of the bar without tipping the front down and the back up. It is only when the bar flares away from the horses back that the tree can tip forward.

I think we are agreeing here, though seeing things in maybe a different way. Extreme “tipping forward” would be the back end of the tree lifting off the horse, but long before that, “tipping forward” would cause a decrease in pressure at the back of the tree and an increase on the front, with the largest difference in pressure being at the front tip of the bar. Any rigging placed ahead of the point where the front of the bar pad starts curving out from the “deepest” part will have that effect. The further forward, the greater the effect. As the shoulder blade rotates back (in the unweighted phase of the stride) the top back edge will slide under the front bar tip of most trees. The idea of having enough relief or flare in that bar tip is to allow this to happen. It is not that there is no contact with that area at all unless the shoulder blade is back, but that there is a low enough amount of pressure that it doesn’t impede the movement of the shoulders. If the front of the tree is held down tightly by a very forward placed rigging, too much pressure will on be that front bar tip to allow free shoulder movement. This is why we feel that the shape of the bottom of the bar needs to be considered in rigging placement.

Greg, could you define "true spanish position" please?

[greg gomersall]

Spanish Position in rigging is an old term meaning Full position weather single or double rigged. Greg

[TroyWest]

Greg and Denise,

I think your reasoning here is very sound and logical, and frankly I like it, but it will only be as consistent as the treemaker makes it, but he should be very consistent.

Greg

After hanging your rig on the left side you still have to make sure your right side isn't further forward or back than the left. What is your point of reference?

Denise,

The nail in the cantle method. Set a yard stick on the back of the bars right behind the cantle. Take a small square and set it centered on the yardstick between the bars. If its 3" set it at 1 1/2" and draw a line straight up the back of the cantle. Turn the square around check it on the opposite side. It should be in the same spot. This should be a very accurate center point between the bars, Which is the goal, a center point between the bars. It should also be the center of the cantle. This also gives a very accurate reference point for lining up skirts when blocking in behind the cantle. Place a nail at the top of this line. I'm sure if I did this to one of your trees I could take a string and run it to the furthest point forward on the left bar, it would be identical on the right bar. I could run it to the front of the gullet on the left side, it would be identical on the right side, and if I hung a rig on the left side and then on the right, it would clearly tell me if I was off. If the nail isn't centered in the cantle, it's a waste of time. I don't see a way to do this after a saddle is built, too many variables with cheyenne rolls and seat jockeys. A rig 3/4" off would scream at you if this were accurately done. Your guy in the photo couldn't have done this accurately. Still, this is simply A method, not THE method.

[greg gomersall]

Troy I use a nail top dead center on the cantle first, then I stand the tree up on the front bar tips on my stamping block and measure both front and back rig distance from block.. If everything is where its supposed to be the measurements will be exactly the same both ways. As for rigging depth I have a 1 foot wooden ruler to which I have fasten a piece of skirting flush with on end making a large stop . then I took two pieces of skirting 1" wide by 3 " long and sandwhiched the ruler between these two placing a rivet close to the edge of the ruler on both sides. I can set the blocked end of the ruler against the bottom edge of the bar then slide the riveted piece up to the bottom of the riggin ring or plate then check the other side. This is nice cause if the phone rings or I get distracted I don't need to re-measure or try and remember the measurement as I still have my ruler set. Greg

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Troy,

We agree completely that the tree maker has to be consistent in how he builds the bars. That, to us, is essential in a good tree maker. They also need to know when and how to change something and for what reason.

Thank you for the good explanation on how you set up this method of checking evenness. In this case, we have the rigging and pictures of it tacked back onto the tree to prove how far it was out. Not only was the right side further back than the left, but it was also lower down. That is why the string worked out almost even. The length of string it lost in being farther back it gained in being lower down. As well, in comparing the two sides of the rigging, they were anything but identical. In fact, the second saddle maker who tried to square it up had to build a new rigging because this one couldn't be forced to be square, which is how we ended up with it. It was going in the garbage bin anyway. With a straight rigging, the saddle worked great. Prior to that it had caused major problems whenever it was ridden despite having had two different trees in it.

We know this is a common and good method to check evenness from side to side, but we just wanted to point out that the string can still be the same length if whatever you are checking is out evenly in two directions. Something that obvious should scream so loud you don't need the string, but it seems that there is the occasional person that wears ear muffs, or blinders…

[TroyWest]

Troy I use a nail top dead center on the cantle first, then I stand the tree up on the front bar tips on my stamping block and measure both front and back rig distance from block.. If everything is where its supposed to be the measurements will be exactly the same both ways. As for rigging depth I have a 1 foot wooden ruler to which I have fasten a piece of skirting flush with on end making a large stop . then I took two pieces of skirting 1" wide by 3 " long and sandwhiched the ruler between these two placing a rivet close to the edge of the ruler on both sides. I can set the blocked end of the ruler against the bottom edge of the bar then slide the riveted piece up to the bottom of the riggin ring or plate then check the other side. This is nice cause if the phone rings or I get distracted I don't need to re-measure or try and remember the measurement as I still have my ruler set. Greg

Greg,

One of the things I didn't say was stand the tree on a rock, but your depth measurement jig I've never heard of. Pretty clever.Thanks for sharing that.

Troy

[steve mason]

Great topic here.

I, like Greg use the ball or rounded part of the bar pad to refer from, since I also have been to the Matt Eberle school of rigging position, that method may have come from Cliff Ketchum since Matt was influenced from him. The ball usually corresponds with the lowest drop of the bar pad or close to it, it is just another reference point although I do have to remember that the drop it is not always Hoyle. I also use the jig for measuring the depth of the rigging plates. I use two jigs, one stays set for the front rig and the other for the back. Instead of a string I use a 1/2" strip of latigo to measure with. I will put a nail centered on the top of the cantle, and in the cantle gullet, I find center there with a center finding rule. Along with these two points of measurement I use Harwood method of measuring from the back bar tips to the front rig plates, the tape will run both over the top of the bar and under the bar pads. Using this measurement I have to be careful since the lacing of the tree can some times interfere with the measurement.

I feel like I want as many measurements as possible to make sure that my rig is square from side to side both forward and back and up and down.

Here is a photo of the jigs I use to measure depth with. the ruler I made and the all wood jig Matt made for me.

ps;

Ryan Cope, I heard from the rumor mill that you won the show at Kamloops, congratulations. Do you have a photo of the saddle?

Edited March 17, 2008 by steve mason

[RyanCope]

I did go up to Kamloops. I had a great time, and enjoyed meeting every one. Everyone was very friendly. Having Mr. Stormes disect my work was quite a humbling experience. However, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to receive some feedback from him with regards to improvements that could be made. And by the way, Darcy had to pull out at the last minute. Had he not I suspect the outcome would have been different. I'll post the saddle on the other page.

Ryan Cope

[TroyWest]

Denise, the point you made on the string is an excellent point.

Ryan, congratulations on your win at Kamloops. I know after listening to Chuck it'll just make you better. Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.