Mr. Greeley as a stud--game on conformation

tammysinnett · Postby **tammysinnett** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:46 pm

Ok you all-- help me learn...I know that when you go to a sale the breeding is the most important??? but let say you have these two colts pictures in the catalog at the sale(pictures are hard to tell I know) I am not going to fool you they both have the same sire, Mr. Greeley. One of them happens to be my stud.....Can you guess which??? He brought a lower price Of the both ...tell me why you like one better than the other??? I am doing this so I can pick pictures of my sire ...to help me understand a sale ...and what you would look for... :oops:

this is for fun --you all have been my greatest teachers---and I hope you enjoy

Heidilady · Postby **Heidilady** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:26 am

Ooh ooh! I got it! (I think)

Ok so your boy is Summit Climber right? And I'm guessing we're talking top photo. I'm trying to work out who the other one is.

I'll confess I totally cheated by going on stallion register, looking up Mr. Greeley sons at stud, and then went 'ah Illinois, methinks we have a winner' and I checked him on the site and there he was with you as the owner. Being as his pics showed a dark bay I decided either I outfoxed myself or that was it.

I'll admit I guestimated who I thought would look more commercial (since you said one brought more than the other) before I decided on who was who and I guessed the bottom photo would go for more. Just seems like more of what buyers have gone for but I could be blowing smoke up your---er...in your ear

. I'm fixing to turn in for the night but just eyeballing it there's differences in the neck and in various places of the hind end. Of course lighting and coat color differences might be throwing me off. I'm kinda in a fuzz so I'll see y'all tomorrow.

kimberley mine · Postby **kimberley mine** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:37 am

Conformation aside, the photo quality in #2 is much, much better than in #1 for the following reasons:

* Very bright light makes for very harsh shadows and contrasts. Compare how much easier it is to see all the horse, and not just shadow/contrasts, in #2 as opposed to #1.

* Photo #1 is not in focus.

* The horse in photo #2 is stood up awkwardlly. It looks like he is leaning forward. His front legs are so close together that it makes him look tied in in the left fore, although that is likely an optical illusion caused by having his right leg almost directly behind the left leg.

* The horse in #2 is in good contrast with the background, is stood up well, and is in focus. MUCH better.

madelyn · Postby **madelyn** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:39 am

The horse in the top right photo looks awfully light in the hind quarters. It could be just a bad picture.

henthorn · Postby **henthorn** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:47 pm

#1 is all legs and appears light-bodied, looks like a late-bloomer. #2 is somewhat long-backed and much more "meaty". He's more what sales buyers are looking for, as he has bigger bones and muscles. And it also may be that #1 just retired from racing and #2 has been at stud duty for awhile. Stallions get more muscled after servicing lots of mares. I agree about the lighting.

tammysinnett · Postby **tammysinnett** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:35 pm

Ok the reason the photo(top) looks funny is its a picture of a picture

that be my boy who sold for 140,000 at Fasigtipton as a 2 year old and yes he was a late bloomer end of May. Now the bottom picture is of Royal Lord who is also by Mr.Greeley and he went for way more than that....thanks you guys I really learned allot from that, I learn so much from you all :!:

skeenan · Postby **skeenan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:10 pm

I agree with the comments about lighting.

I think you could help out your boy's photo (if he hasn't filled out more by now) by putting his front hind leg more to the vertical and having the back hind a little forward to that. It may help him not look so long and help round out his hindquarter as he won't be stretching. And I like the position of his neck more than #2—I personally like to see more of an arch. When the head is up too high for the natural carriage, it starts to look almost ewe-necked... IMO...

Handsome boy!

Crystal · Postby **Crystal** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:21 pm

The shadow of the coat, and the tree in the back round makes it hard to judge the topline, but #2 looks Very long..most long backs give a sagging belly look, which throws shoulder conformation off. Shoulders give to legs, to knees, and to lower legs and ankles. So weaknesses are forgive, but others leads to bigger problems.

tammysinnett · Postby **tammysinnett** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:43 pm

Hey I really really appreciate your comments....I always thought that picture made him look really long.....and can you believe now he is darkbay almost black...and allot thicker(arent we all these days) anyway the picture may not be all true because I took a picture of a picture and may have distorted a little....giving bad lighting and length....but really have learned allot from this now when we get his professional done I will be sure to ask you all for your wonderful advice thankyou

Heidilady · Postby **Heidilady** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:29 pm

Holy cow I just stumbled on the other horse by some freak google incident. It's Royal Lord. I was googling images of Point Given after reading the thread on his rearing pic and found one that I go "oh that looks like a filly" and found it to be his daughter. There was another colt on the site with the filly and he was by Mr. Greeley. http://dreamteamracingstable.com/_wsn/page2.html
Total deja vu.

Nerd · Postby **Nerd** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:54 am

I'm fairly sure that both photos have been stretched horizontally, making them unsuitable for use as confo shots--that might be why people have noticed them being a little long.

Pedigree Query

Mr. Greeley as a stud--game on conformation

Mr. Greeley as a stud--game on conformation

you all passed 100%

thankyou