RE: RC: RE: McLellan question...

[Marlene Moss <marlene.moss@wcom.com>]

Haha - I definitely put a saddle cover on that one!  But I have actually
tried an original McClellan on my 5 yr old - thinking he was narrow - well,
his chest was at the time!  Not a chance of that saddle fitting.  The
Stonewall fit great on him and should have been good on my mare, both
described by saddle fitters as having wide backs.  Of course I don't know
where this particular Stonewall fit within the range of Stonewalls, so it
must have been on the wide end.

And yeah, I loved how close I felt to the horse with that saddle.

Marlene

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Tiffany D'Virgilio [mailto:dvirgilio@mindspring.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:19 PM
To:	marlene.moss@wcom.com; 'Sarah McIntosh'; 'ridecamp'
Subject:	Re: RC:  RE: McLellan question...

on 11/13/01 4:45 PM, Marlene Moss at marlene.moss@wcom.com wrote:

> A Stonewall is probably pretty close to the direction of a McClellan.
It's
> light, minimalistic, but likely to be wider.  I had to remove the fenders
on
> mine because I'm too short (5'2) so it's even lighter with just stirrup
> leathers.  It doesn't have a lot of surface area and some horses need more
> surface area regardless of rider weight it seems.  Mine works well on my
> gelding, but my mare hates it even though it looks like it fits her
better.
> They're not that expensive either!

Wow! I'm going to have to disagree with the Stonewall being wider. I bought
one used and it fit nothing in terms of my horses. Not even the fairly
narrow Morab mare. I sold it for 175. However, I did like that it was light,
and I could feel everything my horse did under me. The seat was harder than
a rock-ouch!
Tiffany