Under the very recent Jockey Club ruling, how many oficially-registered "palominos" have been registered up to this day?
Any hope of acceptance with their "fraternal" brothers/sisters: the "buckskin" cases?
Please share with us the latest.
Blessings,
How many officially-registered "palominos" are aro
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
The German JC is coming to my place this summer to look at all the different dilutions I have to see. Then will decide if they will help to fight for more color descriptions or not. They said they need to see the differences as they think a cremello is just a ligher Palomino. So I think it is a good idea of them to come and get some education of coat color genetics in the dilution section. Then our director will decide if he will help me get the next color descriptions, probably buckskin and cremello, to be accepted as such.
My three Palomino TBs are still chestnuts in their papers and I wait until they are here to take the papers with them once they have seen the horses. I will have a hard time with my filly though as she is such a dark buckskin to make it difficult for me to explain that THIS is a buckskin and not a dark bay.
My three Palomino TBs are still chestnuts in their papers and I wait until they are here to take the papers with them once they have seen the horses. I will have a hard time with my filly though as she is such a dark buckskin to make it difficult for me to explain that THIS is a buckskin and not a dark bay.
http://www.gestuet-falkenhorst.com
Exceptional colored German WBs, TBs and Arabs
Exceptional colored German WBs, TBs and Arabs
color wrote:said they need to see the differences as they think a cremello is just a ligher Palomino.
<snip>
I will have a hard time with my filly though as she is such a dark buckskin to make it difficult for me to explain that THIS is a buckskin and not a dark bay.
Do these idiots truly NOT understand genetics? There's only thousands of references available for them to get even a rudimentary understanding of the science involved. Aaaah, maybe that's it -- It's science and "science is bad".
I've got some seriously nasty and sarcastic remarks about "Intelligent Design" believers I could be making right now.
Seriously, in the 21st century, we STILL have to put up with a "if it walks like a duck, talks like duck then it must be a duck" mentality? I can understand them registering the extreme sabinos as white, but to think that cremello is a "lighter shade of chestnut" when even laymen railbirds with a couple of warm beers in them can tell the difference?
It's pretty sad that we have to DRAG the members of Jockey Clubs around the world into the modern age, kicking and screaming every inch of the way.
Of course, why should I be surprised when we can't even get them to agree on standarized medication rules or even get past this ridiculousness of each state having its own licensing board.
Well I can understand the German JC as they had never seen a Palomino TB, before they saw mine and they came in person to see them. Then they helped to fight for the correct naming of the color in the papers as this is important for identification of a horse they said. Which I heartfully agree. A chestnut does not look like a Palomino. But when I imported RFF The Alchemist, they said that they will not fight again for another color as this "will certainly only look like a light Palomino". Then I explained that it has pink skin and blue eyes and every foal from such a horse will 100% carry the dilution and produce Palomino, Buckskin or Smoky Black. Oh "what is a buckskin, what a Smoky Black?" I tried to explain at my best. So they said "well then they will come to see it and then decide if it is worth to go through the hassle and fighting again as it was really hard for our JC director to get the others agree to the color description Palomino and the only JC that voted against it, was the American JC btw. But since Great Britain was PRO the vote went for Palomino in the papers of the Palominos.
I had sent several pictures of Buckskin TBs, Cremello TBs but the pictures won't help. They want to SEE the coloring to see the difference standing aside of the non diluted color and so they want to see them here in summer.
I had sent several pictures of Buckskin TBs, Cremello TBs but the pictures won't help. They want to SEE the coloring to see the difference standing aside of the non diluted color and so they want to see them here in summer.
color wrote:the only JC that voted against it, was the American JC btw.
Why am I not surprised. Hell, half the time the overseas books are LIGHTYEARS ahead of things while Americans continue to scratch at the dirt.
The other thing that bothers the hell out of me is the LACK of information sharing. If it's not from GB or IRE, getting information on horses that have been exported is like pulling teeth. Hell, half the time the American Jockey Club can't even be bothered to get accurate information from Australia. With as many horses vanish into the wilds of Japan, you'd THINK they'd make better effort to at least get race records/produce records for horses who are related to those that vanish overseas.
-
SymRanch
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:56 pm
- Location: TX, NY and PA
- Contact:
I know it's odd that I'm on the other side of this argument, but I am.
The Jockey Club bases its color schemes on visual identification, not genetics. This leads to some weirdnesses, but I find it better than the alternative.
If you go with genetics, you'll have to add buckskin, cremello and perlino to the mix of available colors. Once you've done that, you've got a whole lot more complexity in inheritance patterns than they've exists for grey. The current implementation of "palomino" is a disaster. They insist that a palomino must have a palomino parent. That's not true, and is eventually going to cause someone's head to explode in the JC office. (clearly 2 bay parents can produce a chestnut, regardless of the dilution gene)
So if you drop the "one parent rule," you've dropped genetics entirely and are back to visuals only. Which would cause many flaxen chestnuts to be registered as palomino. And I have palominos who don't get their white manes/tails by the time I send in foal photos. If it's purely visual, they'd be in the chestnut bucket until they are older, and would need new papers issued later. I find that far more confusing that calling them all by their base color. And clearly rules out a generic "dilute" color, as the visual difference between buckskin and cremello is so vast as to make that an even weirder option.
"Any railbird" might be able to tell that there's a visual difference between a liver chestnut and a cremello, but I've had palominos and flaxen chestnuts where most people would guess the genetics wrong on both. And the visual difference between a cremello and a perlino? It's just not that simple.
My preference has ALWAYS been to register with base color (bay or chestnut) and add a "dilution gene" checkbox. Similar to white markings and whirls. Describe the horse correctly ("golden body, white mane and tail" or "dark metallic brown body with orange mane and tail") on the papers, and check the dilution box if you care to send in the extra $35 for a genetic test.
Frankly, I'd probably advocate something similar for "grey" and "white" , since those are also modifiers rather than base colors. We all know of greys who don't show until long after they are registered, or non-grey sabinos get labled as grey because of white hairs in their early years. And would you ask them to call a palomino or buckskin who is also gentically grey??
I'm one of the few (only?) people who've raced a dilute in recent years. It was a bit of a mess, as the tatoo guy had never seen a buckskin and didn't know what to do with it. Probably took an extra month to get her tatooed. But I also have foals in all ranges of colors each season, and I find the new rules to be a PIA, and adding more color possibilities will only make it worse. I'd far rather have simple colors for most of them, and deal with the "education" issues every couple years when one makes it to the track.
It's under $50 to get a color test done if I ever had buyer who wants to be sure of the color of a horse. In all these years, it's just never come up!! My clients are looking for type/performance. And if they cared about color, the current JC papers/rules for palomino have exactly NO merit for proving the gentics.
Who is all this helping? Track identifiers? Breeders? Maybe understanding that would help craft a new "color rule" that would be sane.....
The Jockey Club bases its color schemes on visual identification, not genetics. This leads to some weirdnesses, but I find it better than the alternative.
If you go with genetics, you'll have to add buckskin, cremello and perlino to the mix of available colors. Once you've done that, you've got a whole lot more complexity in inheritance patterns than they've exists for grey. The current implementation of "palomino" is a disaster. They insist that a palomino must have a palomino parent. That's not true, and is eventually going to cause someone's head to explode in the JC office. (clearly 2 bay parents can produce a chestnut, regardless of the dilution gene)
So if you drop the "one parent rule," you've dropped genetics entirely and are back to visuals only. Which would cause many flaxen chestnuts to be registered as palomino. And I have palominos who don't get their white manes/tails by the time I send in foal photos. If it's purely visual, they'd be in the chestnut bucket until they are older, and would need new papers issued later. I find that far more confusing that calling them all by their base color. And clearly rules out a generic "dilute" color, as the visual difference between buckskin and cremello is so vast as to make that an even weirder option.
"Any railbird" might be able to tell that there's a visual difference between a liver chestnut and a cremello, but I've had palominos and flaxen chestnuts where most people would guess the genetics wrong on both. And the visual difference between a cremello and a perlino? It's just not that simple.
My preference has ALWAYS been to register with base color (bay or chestnut) and add a "dilution gene" checkbox. Similar to white markings and whirls. Describe the horse correctly ("golden body, white mane and tail" or "dark metallic brown body with orange mane and tail") on the papers, and check the dilution box if you care to send in the extra $35 for a genetic test.
Frankly, I'd probably advocate something similar for "grey" and "white" , since those are also modifiers rather than base colors. We all know of greys who don't show until long after they are registered, or non-grey sabinos get labled as grey because of white hairs in their early years. And would you ask them to call a palomino or buckskin who is also gentically grey??
I'm one of the few (only?) people who've raced a dilute in recent years. It was a bit of a mess, as the tatoo guy had never seen a buckskin and didn't know what to do with it. Probably took an extra month to get her tatooed. But I also have foals in all ranges of colors each season, and I find the new rules to be a PIA, and adding more color possibilities will only make it worse. I'd far rather have simple colors for most of them, and deal with the "education" issues every couple years when one makes it to the track.
It's under $50 to get a color test done if I ever had buyer who wants to be sure of the color of a horse. In all these years, it's just never come up!! My clients are looking for type/performance. And if they cared about color, the current JC papers/rules for palomino have exactly NO merit for proving the gentics.
Who is all this helping? Track identifiers? Breeders? Maybe understanding that would help craft a new "color rule" that would be sane.....
Your problem is that it is only the American JC that has these problems apparently. Here in Germany and Europe we go by the TRUE color which a horse has. That is why the Germans said NO we do not take these horses into our books as chestnuts as they are clearly Palominos in color.
The craziest thing is that the Australians don't even know that the JCs now allow Palomino as color description for TBs. They still do not allow Palominos into their ASBs. Crazy world out there!
The craziest thing is that the Australians don't even know that the JCs now allow Palomino as color description for TBs. They still do not allow Palominos into their ASBs. Crazy world out there!
-
SymRanch
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:56 pm
- Location: TX, NY and PA
- Contact:
What if you have a flaxen chestnut born in germany? What rules are in place to ensure a horse registered as a palomino really is a palomino?
Or are you saying that it's PURELY visual, and not a genetic verification? In which case, how on earth would you VISUALLY identify buckskins? There are plenty of light bays that look more "buckskin" than some buckskins?
(I think the "one parent must be palomino" might be an office policy rather than a rule in the US. When registering a palomino foal, they call and request that you send the palomino parent's papers back for re-issue if both are still registered as chestnut, but I don't think it's specified in the rulebook as it is for grey color inheritance.)
Or are you saying that it's PURELY visual, and not a genetic verification? In which case, how on earth would you VISUALLY identify buckskins? There are plenty of light bays that look more "buckskin" than some buckskins?
(I think the "one parent must be palomino" might be an office policy rather than a rule in the US. When registering a palomino foal, they call and request that you send the palomino parent's papers back for re-issue if both are still registered as chestnut, but I don't think it's specified in the rulebook as it is for grey color inheritance.)
Under the very recent Jockey Club ruling, how many oficially-registered "palominos" have been registered up to this day?
We've had about 5 corrected to palomino from chestnut (all the ones we still owned who were mis-labeled.) RFF El Dorado, who's cremello, had his papers changed from chestnut to palomino, so at least that's closer. Our other palominos have all been registered correctly since palomino was available as a color choice.
Any hope of acceptance with their "fraternal" brothers/sisters: the "buckskin" cases?
All things in time.
An interesting story:
In the late 90's I listed Glitter Please for breeding with AQHA and APHA in anticipation of producing foals in those registries. To list with APHA, you send in copies of the JC papers and the fee. For AQHA, add photos of the horse. In both cases I wanted to make sure he was identified as a palomino, since if he was listed as chestnut and produced a dilute foal out of a non-dilute mare the registration would be flagged for a color error.
So I send off my requirements (in the AQHA case, this means sending photos of a palomino horse to go with his chestnut JC papers.) In both cases, there was a problem about color. After all, why would the JC call a palomino a chestnut? I had to send both of them copies of GP's PHBA (Palomino) papers to convince them. I have since had to do the same thing when listing other palomino TB stallions with the ApHC (Appaloosa)and IAHA (Anglo-Arabian). These registries did not understand why the JC's color definitions were not in line with every other major breed association. There are standard, generally acccepted definitions of color--and then there's the JC definition of color. They're different. That's the problem.
If you go with genetics, you'll have to add buckskin, cremello and perlino to the mix of available colors.
Yes, just as many other registries (including the other major registries APHA and AQHA) have done as new information became available--with no major issues. And many of these registries offer racing as a recognized breed activity and tattoo racehorses. They also use the registration papers for identification purposes at the tracks.
In particular, APHA and AQHA both register tens of thousands more foals every year than the JC. Both race and tattoo horses and use papers for identification at the track. They have both worked the new colors into the same racetrack ID protocols.
If new information causes one to update procedures and nomenclature to reflect the current knowledge base, how is this a bad thing? If the staff, directors, members, owners, trainers and racing fans affiliated with other registries can figure it out and still manage to race horses, I'm confident the connections of the Thoroughbred can do it too.
We may agree or not on opinions, but it is very important to keep channels of understanding wide open with good retro-communication, especially with these institutions.
If I where to establish an official table on Thoroughbred coat colors I would use the following:
chestnut (1) == from non-marked bays up to discreet head markings and
discreet white markings below fetlocks (the vast majority
of normal cases)
chestnut (2) == from more than discreet head markings and near hocks
and or knees white markings; or sporting socks on three
legs (Seven Corners and Secretariat).
chestnut (3) == from heavily-marked head markings and heavy marked
on hocks and knees; or atypically solitary-marked cases
(Airdrie Apache and Marquetry)
The rest of the colors (with the same 3 subdivisions for each) would be:
"bay",
"dark-bay",
"chestnut",
"dark-chestnut",
"gray",
"black",
"palomino",
"buckskin",
"cremello",
"perlino",
"white",
"st-white" (sabino-based very stained semi-white phenotyped like Colorful
Gambler and many of Puchilingui's)
"A-roan" (standing for future Authentic genetic roans. If finally proven,
Odd Colours may fit into this category)
"sp-pattern" ("special pattern". If they don't want to individualize the
overos and tobianos etc., they may use a catch-all adjective
for all of these and put the prefix "spp" before the
predominant base color, like say,
"spp-bay" or "spp-chest"
If I where to establish an official table on Thoroughbred coat colors I would use the following:
chestnut (1) == from non-marked bays up to discreet head markings and
discreet white markings below fetlocks (the vast majority
of normal cases)
chestnut (2) == from more than discreet head markings and near hocks
and or knees white markings; or sporting socks on three
legs (Seven Corners and Secretariat).
chestnut (3) == from heavily-marked head markings and heavy marked
on hocks and knees; or atypically solitary-marked cases
(Airdrie Apache and Marquetry)
The rest of the colors (with the same 3 subdivisions for each) would be:
"bay",
"dark-bay",
"chestnut",
"dark-chestnut",
"gray",
"black",
"palomino",
"buckskin",
"cremello",
"perlino",
"white",
"st-white" (sabino-based very stained semi-white phenotyped like Colorful
Gambler and many of Puchilingui's)
"A-roan" (standing for future Authentic genetic roans. If finally proven,
Odd Colours may fit into this category)
"sp-pattern" ("special pattern". If they don't want to individualize the
overos and tobianos etc., they may use a catch-all adjective
for all of these and put the prefix "spp" before the
predominant base color, like say,
"spp-bay" or "spp-chest"