Monday, December 17, 2007

Discussion: What defines quality?

Forthefutureofthebreed wrote this guest blog, and I think it's a great topic to address. We all have our preferences regarding breed and discipline, but what in your mind defines real quality - the sort of horse who should breed on, even if his/her breed/style/discipline is totally not your cup of tea?

After seeing all the debates on various subjects regarding horses, we can basically narrow down many of the disagreements to the definition of QUALITY.

What defines a quality horse? The term "quality" means different things to different people. It’s one of the most subjective words out there when talking about horses today. It’s something you can’t measure or precisely define, yet it’s the one thing that separates the high priced horses from the inexpensive ones.

Does QUALITY define a horse that pleases only you, or one that pleases others as well?

Does it define a horse that is perfect in every way?

Do you believe that the level of quality should be determined by the buying public or prices realized at an auction?

How about pedigree? Does a great pedigree guarantee a quality horse?

If a horse has no major conformation faults, does that mean it’s a quality horse?

Does an exceptional disposition determine quality?

Do registration papers guarantee a quality horse?

Does the lack of papers guarantee a poor quality horse?

What level of quality does a horse need to be in order to be of breeding quality?

If a horse is successful, either as a performer or producer (or both), does that mean it’s a quality horse that should breed on?

How much value do you place on eye appeal?

What faults would you forgive in a horse?

What is your definition of quality, and why?