Fitting Assessment Photos and Conformation Shots (Throw Me a Bone)

When I'm doing long-distance fitting, I require quite a bit of information from you, my customers.  Since I can't get my hands on the horse and saddle, you have to provide a lot of input and answer dozens of questions.  You also have to provide clear, informative photos so I can see the horse I'm trying to fit, the way the saddle fits the horse and the way the saddle fits the rider.

However, it's come to my attention that there without being able to see exactly the photos I require, a lot is left open to interpretation, and I sometimes get some fairly useless (though sometimes quite interesting) photos.  So in an effort to provide clear, concise guidelines, here are the photos I require ... and a sampling of the photos I don't.

First, a conformation shot of your horse.  All I need to see is the whole horse, weight on all 4 legs, on level ground, head in a normal, relaxed position (no Drama Llama photos, please!) against a fairly plain, contrasting background (no fleabitten greys against dirty snowbanks, and no dark bays against the opening of the run-in shed).

Here are some examples of useful conformation shots:

If I'm assessing saddle fit, I also need a conformation shot of your horse, but with the saddle on:

And a photo of the tree point in relation to your horse's back:

I'll also need to see the same photos, but with the rider up:

Pretty easy.  Remember that it's best to take photos outside when possible, and if the day is overcast, even better - you won't have to worry about shadows obscuring some vital bit of information.  Choose a time when your horse won't be fretting about being fed or being turned out, and when you aren't stressing about getting to work on time or getting home to help the kids with homework. If they aren't exact matches, don't worry - I can probably get the info I need from them as long as you come pretty close.

Now, here are some photos that are of absolutely no help whatsoever.  Please don't send photos like these.  Please, just ... don't.

It's a horse's back.  That's about all I can tell.

"Against a contrasting background" also means no dark bays, blacks or liver chestnuts in dark indoor arenas.

Is this horse standing downhill, is the camera tilted, or is s/he very croup-high?

The Red Menace in her "Drama Llama" guise, standing hip-shot, making her back look even more dropped than it really is.

The pommel clears the withers, but since I can't see the tree point in relation to the horse's back, I can't tell whether the tree width is correct or not.

It's a saddle.  On a horse.  With a white pad under it.  That's all I got.

Remember, all you have to do is come close.  If you send me the info I need, the saddle fitting process will be a lot less time consuming, expensive and frustrating.  And as an added bonus, your photo will never be featured in a rogue's gallery like this!

What's the Point?

There is very little standardization in the way saddles fit - particularly when it comes to width.  Tree construction varies from company to company, so one company's medium may be comparable to another company's medium-wide or wide.  Trees made in the UK to BETA (British Equestrian Trade Ass'n.) standards have to be within a certain angle measurement - a medium, for example, between 85° and 94.9°, and a wide between 95° and 104.9° - but that's almost 10° variation.  Even centimeter measurements, which you'd think would be a more exacting way of measuring width, aren't much help.  A 29 cm. Passier (that company's x-wide tree) will fit a wider horse than a 32 cm. Stubben. 

Why?  Tree point length.  Saddles measured in centimeters are measured between the tree points on the bare tree, before the saddle is built.  So if you have an 8" long point, 32 cm. will be considerably less generous than if the points are 5" long.  To illustrate, I've compared a 28.5 cm. "wide" Passier with an "xw" Stubben (which, according to Stubben's web site, is wider than a 32 cm., though no exact width measurement is listed).

Here's the Passier.  Edie's index finger is showing the location of the bottom of the tree point:

Measured from the saddle nail down to the end of the point, it's just about 5":

Now, here's the Stubben, with Edie's index finger again at the end of the tree point:

And here's the length of the point - about 8":

Here's a comparison of the same saddles (remember, Stubben xw, Passier wide, 28.5 cm.) from the front, with the ends of the tree points marked with tape.  First, the Passier:

 

Though it's hard to see, the measurement is just under 12".

Here's the Stubben:

Again, hard to see the numbers, but it's measuring about 12 1/2".

The longer points on the Stubben can be helpful when fitting a horse with a good wither - they distribute the weight all the way down the wither.  But on a horse with moderate to no wither, long points can make the saddle "perch" and cause lateral instability.

And when you add panel configuration and tree shape into the mix, it can be even more confusing.  A K panel or a wither (or full front) gusset will make a saddle fit less generously.  A hoop / freedom head tree or a panel that's attached lower down in the gullet (like Passier's Freedom panel) will make a saddle more generous in the width department.   Here's a photo with three saddles - all 34 cm. trees - so you can see the variation in width.  The top saddle is a Duett Largo, built on a hoop-type tree; the middle is a Prestige 2000D, and the bottom saddle is a Duett Fidelio.

And to get an idea of how panel configuration figures in, here are two Black Country saddles - an Eloquence X on top, and a Vinici X on bottom.  Both are 17.5" wides, built on the same tree ... but look at the difference.

So if you're in the market for a saddle, remember that describing your horse as needing a "wide" tree or a "33 cm. tree" can be open to a LOT of interpretation.