Standards, Breaking New Ground...

[Newfman]

I tend to 'hang out' in the background, and maybe still should. . .but. . .

I read a lot from the archives, follow links to personal websites of members that have their own business websites showing their work and philosophies. I am attempting to assembel a good working knowledge of saddle building in the hopes that I someday, have the opportunity to build one myself (with a lot of help from you people).

The hardest thing so far, is the lack of consistency in measurements of. . .well. . .just about anything you can measure. For example, one may say they use a line from the center of the post, down through the center of the bar and that becomes their "Full" rig position. Another may have a slightly different approach, so, his full rig position is different. The same goes for bar angle, seat length, gullet so on and so forth. Saddle fitting and tree making all have this tendancy towards obscurity. Nobody can agree, as to what the standard is for measuring, therefore, there isn't any. One person may say, well this is a 93 degree bar, or this is a semi-quarter horse 6 1/4 width and 7 3/4 height but another asks "based on what?" Those numbers don't really mean anything because there is no standard. Anyone get tired of saying that?

The "Industry" standard is to not have a standard in the industry. Ultimately, that works fine for the individual tree builder, and saddle maker, or the individual production company. The end result though, is confusion for the customer and poor fit for the horse, as well as confusion for those interested in learning the art and science of what you guys do. That may be nice from a job security aspect, but it would be a terrible shame if eventually, future generations referred to your trade a the "lost art" of saddle making. Of course, nothing that I propose will either encourage or prevent that from happening. It actually just sounded like a colorful addition to the paragraph.

A Proposition.

There are enough saddlemakers here to set standards. At first they can be standards as used between members, but no doubt will grow. This is certainly a way that "industry standards" can be established. It may require you as a group to propose different ways of measuring something, and then you try to come to an agreement on which way will be the standard that it is referred to in the future. You could call it a UCSM Standard (United Coalition of Saddle Makers) or something catchy like that. It DOES NOT mean you must measure things that way in building your saddles. But it may mean that some of you may need to become bilingual if you aren't willing to work with something different. You could always say that yours is a 7/8ths rig (but it's a full rig by UCSM standards) or something to that effect. Ultimately though, measuring from a different place to get to the same result, doesn't change the result, just the way you measure it, hence refer to it.

You would no longer have to give long confusing statements on how you got that measurment, everytime you answer a question on the topic. You could just say it is a UCSM measurment and it would be a "Pinned" post on how it is accomplished. Eventually, it could grow to an industry standard, and that could be good for you, the customers and most of all, the horses.

Ok, now that i just wrote that, it does seem unlikely , but what the hey, I took time to write it, so I will give it a shot.

[Leatherimages]

[

Ok, now that i just wrote that, it does seem unlikely , but what the hey, I took time to write it, so I will give it a shot.

Newf,

Ooh. Heavy topic. I'm going to Watch this Topic.

I'm not a saddle maker, but please allow me to drop in.

I've had similar concerns while learning boot making "on my own", (as much as it may be called such in these days of information).

But I have some thoughts about independence and individualism when it comes to propositions like this.

For many of us, this is why we chose to go with such an acane trade to begin with, that is "to march to our own beat".

And on the other hand, having suffered the same frustration as I'm hearing from your perspctive on the issue, I think it will be an interesting discussion.

You maybe should be prepared to be asked if you're will to administer the deal if it should fly.

[Johanna]

Dennis Lane has attempted to create a standard to measure horses. Maybe Denise ir Dennis himself can jump in and explain the card system better than I can.

Johanna

[Newfman]

But I have some thoughts about independence and individualism when it comes to propositions like this.

For many of us, this is why we chose to go with such an acane trade to begin with, that is "to march to our own beat

I don't think i understand how it would affect the individuality in design or the "artistry". Generally, I can order a size 7 1/2EE boot from Dan Post and another from a custom boot maker. Chances are good they will both fit. Once in awhile there will be boots that run outside the 'standard'. The custom will have the benefit of fine hand craftsmanship and the other will have a bit more of a production feel...and price.

Johanna, that is a good example of a place to start. Hard to get everyone to agree, but maybe someone has a better easier way. That is the idea behind this topic. There are many aspects to saddle making that can be addressed.

[Blake]

I'll throw something in to add or subtract from the confusion.

The full Qtr Horse, Semi Qtr Horse etc. measurements or terminology is a product of production company mail order catalogs that attempted to help a customer choose a fit for their needs. It was also usually unique to their own products since they also controlled the mfg of their trees. Its like ordering a small medium large or xtra large shirt from LL Bean and then ordering the same from JC Penneys. They probably won'y fit exactly the same but will be somewhere in the ballpark . Rigging position is critical for the horse so it is typical to set its position based on the bar shape rather than where the fork sits on the bar or the horn sits on the fork.

Most Saddle makers prefer certain tree makers and that may/can also have a bearing on how they measure for their rigging position. Its not rocket science but it is common sense.

This is a good topic and hopefully Denise will steer you to some past discussion on tree measurements and various Professional saddle makers will discuss their methods of setting the rigging's. You also have to take regional differences and conditions along with it and in some cases the breed differences for the way makers learned their methods.

You are correct that there are no real published standards but usually most professionals set their own very high standards and based on the end results of their efforts I would say that most are working from the same perspective so you should be able to narrow down the information that you seek.

Blake

[Timbo]

To me the lack of standardization is one of the things that is appealing about saddle making and lets face it, if it hasn't happened yet, it's probably not going to. There are loose standards within the trade and it seems to me they have to be loose. It is an art form and like any other art form it is subjective. The saddle makers and the tree makers are both artists blending there two skills together. Every artist has there own slant or spin they put on there portion of the completed piece. Order the same exact custom saddle from different makers and each one will be different. Same goes for the trees. There is a finite amount of shoe sizes in the world but there are no two feet that are identical. When I try on shoes I know what size to start with but that is just a start. I go with what feels good. (...and I have shoes from 8EE to 9.5D and they all fit well and are comfortable) It's hard to find brands of shoes whose sizes are identical to other brands. Same goes for horses and saddles and saddle makers. Too many variables to be able to put it in a box.

I understand what you would like to see happen, but I just don't see how it can be more standardized than it already is.

Each artist has there own standard.

Just my .02 on the subject ymmv

Timbo

[Newfman]

Interesting points. As far as full quarter horse and Semi-Quarter horse etc., I think we could all agree, even me, that those terms would quickly find there way to total obsolesence in the standardization effort. They are nearly useless. But, like Johanna mentioned, there is the card system. If that or something similar were to become the standard, then the previous mentioned terms would be replaced by numbers or the results of what ever measurement system that is accepted, uses to represent the results. Like pants, we all know that if I order a 34w32L, we can get a pretty good image of my frame size. If I order a 44w 32L, a whole new image comes to mind, yet none of you have ever seen me. That is the differnce between using a system that accounts for variations, such like the card system provides, versus ordering pants by small, average, average med. tall, large and short. Those terms mean as much to a real saddle artist as they do to the fit of the product. What I was suggesting is not removing that which makes you unique and special, but in fact, make it even that much better than production. Because, if the customer can wrap their head around just how important it is and how involved it is to truly get a saddle to fit a horse and rider, they know that they just cannot get that from a production company. To the consumer, it is as simple as Full, Quarter, Semi and regular, and that they can get for thousands less. I seriously doubt most people even know that there are variations in trees, other than those four common terms. If professional customer saddle makers could speak a common language amongst themselves, explain how it works and how the intricacies are what makes your saddles so much better than a click and stitch rig, you wouldn't have to work so hard to establish the value in your product to those that can pay for them, but just don't really understand why they should. That is only a small but significant part of it though.

Rigging position is critical for the horse so it is typical to set its position based on the bar shape rather than where the fork sits on the bar or the horn sits on the fork.

Exactly. So when you build a saddle and someone is admiring it and they ask, "So, is that a 7/8ths rig?" You just say what? It is what is is based on the horse it was measured for? Again, the questiopn is in your explanation. You now told us that you have a way that you measure for the rig position. It is that part that helps make your saddle custom. Maybe it is the best way possible. It sure isn't something that BIG HORN saddle company is going to do. But to some variation, it is something that each one of you will. Again, i don't suggest you change your method if you don't want to, just create a standard way of measuring it, from specific points, so that during a discussion or fitting, everyone "gets" the picture. that doesn't take away from the fact that you may put the rigging in a different place for one horse than say, Keith or Tex or myself. But we will all know where it is located based on the references. That way too, should you decide to discuss rigging locations with others on the board, and four or five of you are discussing the pros and cons, it will be based on the same reference points. Otherwise, one may be speaking Japanese, one Chinese, one Russian etc... and all ultimately be saying the same thing, but since you don't speak the same language, you always have to translate or agree to disagree when infact, you agreed.

How is the artistry lost in that?

Let me quickly say, before i get nuked, I am not trying to come here and make changes. I will gladly learn what I can from everyone and make my own mistakes. It was just a thought I had while drinking a cup of coffee yesterday morning. Thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion, and educational for the ignorant. Um, yes...that would be me.

Also, i am not a seller, proponent or opponent of the "Card System". It is just a handy example.

[D.A. Kabatoff]

Newfman,

you must remember that the card system is a way to present an image of a horse's back to a treemaker, it by no means dictates anything about how the appropriate tree will be made. This is left to the interpretation of the individual treemakers who decide which of their own patterns will best fit the horse in question. This still leaves alot of room for different measurements between different treemakers. What one treemaker calls a 93 degree bar may end up looking and fitting quite similar to another's 90 degree bar... doesn't make one right or wrong, just means the process to get to the end result is different. In addition, different treemakers may have differnt theories on how to fit a particular horse or group of horses. It would be like you taking a waist, thigh, knee, calf, and ankle measurment and sending those measurements to five different tailors and having them send you a pair of pants... It's highly unlikely any of them will fit the same as the others. As a saddlemaker, this gives me choices as to who's tree I think will best suit the regional differences of my customers. Add to this the nearly infinite number of fork and cantle patterns and I'm not sure you could standardize trees or that i'd want to.

I sometimes wonder if customers are partly to blame for the confusion when it comes to handmade trees and saddles. In their quest for information on the subject, they often get tidbits of information which makes them just knowledgeable enough to be a thorn in your a$$. This doesn't apply to everyone, but a good number of people have tried to tell me what they need using terms like bar degrees and gullet widths, etc... without having the slightest idea how one aspect of a tree's measurement affects another. I can't tell you how many times I've had customers tell me they need a tree with a seven or eight inch gullet and 93 or 95 degree bars because they have a really hard to fit "wide" quarter horse. Then I show up with handmade trees with 4" hand hole widths and 6" gullet widths and 90 degree bars that fit as well as a tree can fit.

In contrast, I often get working cowboys who aren't microfitting and don't need all the terminology to order their saddle. Makes you wonder how somebody riding a couple of horses a few hours a week needs the standardized terms and somebody riding dozens of different horses for eight or ten hours at a time doesn't. Not sure what the answer is but with the number of variables involved with a horse's back, uses for the horse, theories on saddlefit, etc... that standardization is really an option.

Darcy

Edited February 10, 2010 by D.A. Kabatoff

[Denise]

Good discussion. Makes my head spin. So many sides to it (which might explain why I have tried to post a few times and deleted everything I have written so far).

Advantages of consistent standards:

1.) Saddle buyers have a much better idea what to look for when they start saddle shopping

2.) Discussion between makers, etc. is easier.

Problems with standards:

1.) Who sets them? We are all for everyone following one way of doing things, so long as it is OUR way!! And everyone will feel that way. There is a point to be considered, though. If the saddle industry doesn't set standards, then at some stage government might (and this would happen sooner in some countries than others, but I can see it happening), and who is influencing the government at that stage? Animal rights groups? Special interest groups? Production makers only? Having custom saddle makers having a hand in setting standards would be really important.

2.) How are they determined? Right now it is an "I like to do it this way because..." based on experience and opinion. To set rigging position standards, for example, would depend on bar shape or fork placement, etc. So to standardize rigging positions, you would have to standardize tree construction. How do you standardize shapes, and how do you decide what should be standard? Everything in saddles and trees kind of depends on something else, and there really isn't a starting point.

3.) It ain't gonna fly with the custom makers we have today. Most makers spend a lot of time alone in their shops working on their own projects that their, and only their, name goes on. Trying to contain that kind of individualism with rules... Not in our lifetime - unless they are imposed from outside. See point #1 that we should be aware of.

There are two ways to try to figure out which saddle will work on a horse - label it by the saddle specs or by the way the horse is built. Shoes aren't sold by 12" long and 4" wide. They are sold by numbers that are supposed to represent feet. How each shoe maker wants to fit that foot will vary. They may like a shoe to fit tight while you like it looser, thus the 8EE to 9.5D variation in Timbo's closet. But none of them make a man's shoe that they know will pinch his toes. (Women's shoes are different, but then function isn't applied to them as often...) In the same way, it is much more likely that a rider will be able to figure out a horse size than what all the saddle terminology means* so if saddles were eventually labeled with an equine body type (and Dennis's system may lead to knowing if common types occur or how to describe them) that would be better than lay people trying to figure out if they want 90 or 93 degree bars, not knowing that the numbers are meaningless between makers anyway! Right now we have lots of experience and opinion in all areas of the horse industry. What we lack is solid research and things that can be accurately measured or quantitated. Anyone could say "This is the way things will be", but until we know more, I think it would be pretty difficult to have good standards.

By the way, a while back a few friends in the industry were talking, not about making consistent measurements, but about getting a consistent terminology for some measurements. The result? We now all know what each other calls things and can understand without explanation between us! But consistency? Nope...

*To get a good idea how confused the buying public is on our terminology, check out this thread. They are trying to figure out what "bars" means. http://www.trot.org/...read.php?t=3148

[Newfman]

So. . .um. . .No? ;+)

[Denise]

Not saying no. Just difficult. What's the saying about the impossible taking a little longer? It would take a bunch of people to be willing to leave their egos at the door and be wanting to work together for the same purpose, which in this case would be wanting to set standards in the first place. I think the desire for that is pretty low among makers. (The first question to answer would be "Is this really a good thing overall or not?")It may just take time if it ever happens. I do think it is wise to be keeping track of which way the wind is blowing in regards to standards though. If it looks like someone is going to be serious about making them, then those of us in the hand made/custom world better be aware of it and get our voices heard. The last thing I would want would be to have standards imposed that were contrary to what we feel is correct.

[BOB BRENNER]

A great topic and one that should be ongoing with everyone in the industry, whether one is a custom saddle maker, a production saddle company, supplier, etc. This is a subject I have been involved with both informally and formally over the years and have the battle scars to prove it. Whenever "standards" are even hinted about, it brings out strong emotions and opinions. Many many years ago when I was wet behind the ears an old cowboy told me that "a horse is worth so much a pound and all the rest is emotion". So when we let our emotions get in the way it is hard to have a good conservation or make a good decision and I have been as guilty an anyone, but I am learning. In the words of the cartoon character "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us".

Everyones’ points so far are well taken and all have valid considerations. So, why are we having this discussion and what is driving it? Several years ago, when my good friend Verlane was still teaching in Spokane, we were having one our weekly "intellectual conversations" on how to solve the world’s problems, and our (for what is worth) opinion, was good or bad the market is driving it. For example, saddle fit. This subject has become front and center only recently, say the last 10 years or so, and giving us all fits in some fashion. About a year ago I was talking the publisher of "The Western Horsemen" about saddle fit and in my opinion a lot of the information was incorrect or misleading. To my surprise, the Oct 2009 issue had a major article on the subject. (A must read for all saddle makers.) The subject of saddle fit is not being driven from within the industry, but from the outside by the consumer or market. The point is that although, I basically agree with "The Western Horsemen" article, the market or consumer is saying something different.

The questions coming up as to standards in relation to rig position, bar angle, etc. is market driven. Folks, I am in the saddle making business to make a living, so I have to listen to the market and if I don’t I will not be in business long. Many years ago the U.S. auto industry did not listen the market, and see where they are now. Have you ever heard the chairman of the board of a major U.S. auto company have a press conference and say we screwed up, like the chairman of the board of Toyota did last week? Over the years I have changed some of my ideas on saddle making that some may not agree with, but I was and am responding to the market.

Maybe bar angles are to much at this time for some type of standards. As mentioned earlier, as saddle makers let’s all talk from the same page. As an example, in my book "How to Establish Prices for the Saddle Maker or Leather Worker" in the "You are Worth it" chapter I have this text.

"At a Colorado Saddle Makers Association meeting we were having a discussion and one the members said; "Go and look at the custom saddles at (a well known retail saddle shop) and see what they do". To which I replied, "They are not custom saddles they are handmade production saddles". Let me tell you the discussion quickly got heated. This illustrates that as an industry, we have no standards. By standards I am not talking about standards on how to build a saddle (to be truthful something to consider - minimum standards), but standards in terminology. What is a "custom saddle"? The definition of "custom" in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary is "made or performed according to personal order". My question is this: If by definition a custom saddle is made to personal order how can a "custom" saddle be for sale to the general public at a retail saddle shop? Every one in the industry uses the word "custom" without regard to the definition. How can a saddle be custom when in a saddle catalog there is a picture, number, and price? Should we have a standard definition, perhaps something like the following?

A custom saddle is a saddle that is made to the customer's specifications to include tooling/carving and other forms of decoration done completely by hand using no machinery with the possible exception of a sewing machine/stitcher.

NOTE: It is generally the trade practice for an individual saddle maker to make the saddle from start to finish, but occasionally a collaborative effort between one or more saddle makers and or leather artisan (leather carver) is also an acceptable trade practice.

If we as an industry cannot define what a custom saddle is, how can our customers understand what a custom saddle is and value that saddle accordingly? And we wonder why we can’t get what we are worth?"

Maybe we need to take some baby steps first. Let’s keep this discussion going. The more input the better off we will be.

　

My opinion and $5.50 will buy you a Starbucks.

Bob

[Newfman]

Funny, I was thinking about the term Hand made Custom saddle myself. For me, I came to the conclusion that, if was custome made for a horse, it is a custom saddle on that horse. If it were a custome made saddle for a person to the specs he/she wanted, as in design or artwork, then in his ownership it is a custom saddle.

If I buy that saddle from him for my horse. I am the proud owner of a Handmade saddle. Albeit, one that was custom built for someone else. Does that make sense?

As far as the standards thing, again, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding. As things are right now, I could order a 7/8ths rigged saddle from one person here, show it to another and that person may say, "Um, that looks a bit like a three quarter rig to me." And it may well be. It might not. But, if we could agree on a consistent way of measuring the 7/8ths position on a tree, something that would work for all but the most unique trees, we would have a Standard. So, I as a consumer, if I decide i just had to have a 7/8ths rig for my hand made saddle, regardless of who built it, ti would be measurably in the same place. You as an expert may say to the customer, the Standard placement of 7/8ths is a bit forward for your horse, i recommend we move it 1'2 inc back of standard. You still have all the flexibility in the world. Now, when you post a picture of it and someone here says, is that a 7/8ths rigging on that, you would say, No i moved it 1/2" back of standard due to the conformation of the particular horse. We would all, knowingly, nod our heads and understand.

does that make more sense?

That goes for the variety reference points to the saddle. It absolutely does nothing to change how you actually

make

the saddle. That way too, there are no egos to step on, or atleast shouldn't be. It is just a matter of communicating measurments and references in the same language. No matter where you want to ultimately place things.

Sorry Denise, my comment was just a tease. Hence the wink. ;+)