... and we disagreed about her confirmation. She hated pretty much everything about this mare, such as pasterns that were too long, over at the knee and outrageous bum high.
While I do think she's bum high, for some reason I feel like the pictures look a little exaggerated (as in, one picture she looks so bum high it almost looks fake) and wonder what she looks like in person. My former OTTB looked bum high in pictures I took, but in RL was uphill. The name posted was not her racing name, so I wonder if she was older or younger than advertised (if the latter, could explain it).
I'm not seeing the hideous pasterns (sure, they're a bit long but not freakishly sloping) or over at the knee. I would say they're more tied in behind the knee.
Sure she's not going to be winning any conformation prizes, but she seems like a nice type that would turn into a fun riding horse for someone. I'm not seriously considering her (I'm not currently in the market) but found it interesting how our opinions on her differed.
The pasternak are long but IMHO not critical. I do not see over at the knee, maybe a bit tied in. Bum high yes but her stance looks very awkward, I get a 'distorted lens' feel that makes me think she will look better in person.
I see pictures of a horse that is definitely worth a look-see in person
The pasterns don't look terribly long to me, and I also don't see over in the knee. The photos do make her look a bit downhill, but god knows I've seen horses at the track that are NOT downhill at all, but the pictures I get make the horse look that way. Level ground is scarce at the track!
I doubt it's the angle of the photo, as the window frame in the background is parallel to the ground.
Yeahbut...in the first pic with the window frame she does not look downhill if you look from elbow to stifle, despite looking very butt high.
I suspect this horse looks quite a bit different in person. So many things in photos can cause weird distortions, and I think that's happened here. Granted--I could be wrong! But if I were interested in this horse, I would definitely not cross her off the list until I had seen her in the flesh.
I know this horse personally. She is only SLIGHTLY downhill. She is neither back at the knee or tied in at the knee. She does have slightly long pasterns, but they aren't as long as the pictures make it look. The pictures do not do her justice at all! She is a very sweet mare and a decent mover to boot.
In case anyone was interested in more pictures, her owner posted more pics on her stable page of facebook. I'm pretty sure they are set to public so anyone can see them. Some of the pics at the end really show her movement.
Just a pet peeve. A horse is not up hill or down hill based on looking at their top line. They can be a bit croup high and still feel extremely balanced and even uphill to ride depending on their stifle placement, shoulder angles and other factors. So looking at this horse and how she moves....I would be surprised if she feels downhill to ride at all. Nice looking mare.
** The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has its limits. -- Albert Einstein **
also a note to consider.
I thought my OTTB was a little long with an aggressive angle in the pastern.
After backing his toes up A LOT (his front feet looked like eggs when I brought him home) turns out he's really flipping straight. Booo.
Amazing how just fixing the feet can change so much!!
I bet she is an athlete. I think she is weak around the knees, whether you call it tied in or back at. Does have slightly long pasterns, but not too terrible to take a chance on. I think her movement pictures show that she could be a nice type.
The butt-highness is the biggest issue I see, but I agree that there's some distortion going on in these pics. Yes, her patterns are a tad long, but she's also long in the toe in the pictures and that is exaggerating the pastern line. Hey, at least the angles are good!
She has pretty good angle to her shoulder and her neck is set on really, really well.