From: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com (hist_text-digest) To: hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #1241 Reply-To: hist_text Sender: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-hist_text-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk hist_text-digest Monday, September 15 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1241 In this issue: -       Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags -       MtMan-List: Saddles -       MtMan-List: Snide remark -       RE: MtMan-List: Rocky Mountain House -       Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags -       Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags -       RE: MtMan-List: Rocky Mountain House -       Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags -       Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags -       MtMan-List: Authenticity -       Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:50:22 -0600 From: "Wynn Ormond" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags From: Dale Nelson All this being said, I still > agree with you, I'm sure the latigo's on the St. Louis/ Santa Fe saddles > were done with a knot. Just don't try and date it using buckles and rings > because you are on very thin ice. Then we are in complete agreement. I never claimed buckles weren't used esp on English saddles or 1000 other places. Just that in some general knowledge sort of way it was not common on early spanish style saddle cinches. > Also the saddle is full rigged > > which without a back cinch can be pretty scary to ride down hills. > > I'm going to disagree with you again.. . If you still think the full forward rig isn't authentic, what one do > you think is? I think I erased your other question but almost every saddle I have ridden, western, McLellan, and period, has been 3/4 to center and I have never found the knot to be the uncomfortable problem you described. It has been my understanding that most guys believe the saddles in Miller etc are center to 3/4 rigged. That is also one of the things that I believe seperates a California saddle from others, and is one of the reasons that I asked about the referance to that specific name. I also wonder if the original source used the term California saddle to mean that mountaineers had access to saddles from California or if it was more a style type because I just can't see how they would have gotten them form Cal in enough quantity to matter. I will admit you have much greater experience with full rigged saddles maybe I will have to rethink it. > This picture was going to be used to > > justify using monkey faced taps. I am simply pointing out that it just > does > > not appear to be that great of a source. > > Well, maybe not, but it's certainly a place to start, and I would bet most > of my poke that there were at least some monkey faced taps used . . . . > . If you use Miller paintings to lay the law down about what was > used and what wasn't, or what took place in the mountains prior to 1840, > then there were never any white women wearing calico dresses at the > rendezvous. Miller never drew them, but from another source I found out > they were there every year from 1836 to 1840. See what I mean? Then you have documentation right? Miller has his weaknesses no doubt. He aint the only one but he was there. > One question. You said someplace that "cowboy stirrups" are > wrong. What does a cowboy stirrup look like. I'm serious, we need to be on > the same page to talk about this stuff. I would be surprized if I used that term. I try to refer to modern western saddle equipment as western not cowboy. The bent wood sturruips sometimes wrapped that we see on most saddles in the department store. They may a 1000 years old and used elsewhere but I haven't seen much to support them in the Rocky Mtn fur trade. Dale, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. And it is in large part because I made a statement that I should not have. When it comes to authenticity I ussually just say live and let live. There is more wrong with my stuff than right so I aint one to preach to much. But I knocked everyone's saddles and those saddles represent some cherished accepted ideas in period saddlery. I have got some guys so mad they could spit nails at me. I reckon I need to stick to saying this is why I do what I do and leave at that. If someone else wants to use other sources to authenticate the opposite then maybe I better not publicly question those sources. I am not going to back off my personal beliefs but I should n't be trying to push them on everyone else. I reckon I am starting to sound as old and opinionated. - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:49:50 -0700 From: Rick Guglielmi Subject: MtMan-List: Saddles I just want to say I have been enjoying the discussion that has been going on concerning saddles and associated gear such as saddle bags and taps. We all have opinions and access to different research material, thats what this lists is all about (at least I thought it was). I may not agree with everything but it gets me thinking and digging deeper into what sources I have available. I went back to my copy of "Man Made Moble" and reread the section on "Spanish" saddles. From what I understand the term "Spanish" is prety much interchangable with "California". There seems to not be a big difference in the types of trees used on these saddles, more in the fancy decorations with the "California" rigs leaning on the more fancy (At least for the upper class of the area.) It looks like "Spanish" style saddles were coming out of St Louis and surrounding areas by at least the mid 1820's although I still don not have a clear picture of what those saddles actually look like. I also feel pretty confidante that saddles from Northern Mexico:ie, Texas, New Mexico, Upper California were making there way into various trappers camps of the Rocky Mnts and Far West. There was a definate "Americanizing" of the "Spanish" saddle going on by the saddlers of the St Louis area. This included incorporating "English" features on a Spanish tree. By the picture I see of this type of saddle it just does not look like it would hold up under the harsh, everyday conditions of the Western regions. I am in the saddle a lot both making a living and for pleasure, and am pretty hard on my outfit. It seems I am always repairing something that has broken either from a wreck, blow up, fall, exposure to weather, porky's damage-you name it. Those men were either on their animal or exposed to any and all weahter conditions, and other enviornmental condions which would be pretty hard on their outfit. It wouldn't take long to weed out the equipment unsuitable to mountain conditions. Have some other thoughts I would like to share but am running out of time for now,until later, keep the discussions coming, play nice, we can all learn something. Rick - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:17:58 -0500 From: "Glenn Darilek" Subject: MtMan-List: Snide remark Can someone tell me how to get off this dog discussion list and get back on the mountain man discussion list? Glenn Darilek Iron Burner - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:56:03 -0600 From: "Angela Gottfred" Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Rocky Mountain House I'm pretty familiar with Rocky Mountain House; here's a review of it. Historic Site Profile: Rocky Mountain House N.H.S. http://www.northwestjournal.ca/II9.htm If you have any more questions after you read the review, just ask! Your very humble & most obedient servant, Angela Gottfred - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:08:50 -0700 From: "Dale Nelson" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wynn Ormond" > > then there were never any white women wearing calico dresses at the > > rendezvous. Miller never drew them, but from another source I found out > > they were there every year from 1836 to 1840. See what I mean? > > Then you have documentation right? Miller has his weaknesses no doubt. He > aint the only one but he was there. Yes, we have documentation on white women, and also on horse gear via the Smithsonian, and others that have researched this same topic, not just Miller's drawings. The trouble is when it comes to taps you won't accept the source as being valid so I reckon that's what all this has been about anyhow. Valid sources. You might not like the idea of taps, but I'm satisfied that taps were used not just because they protect the feet and it keeps one's moc clad foot from ending up through the stirrup and hung up, but because we all agree that they were used in the southwest and in California at that time. There might not be any proof that taps were used on the Upper Missouri by someone actually saying or a painting showing them. But I'm not going to change my mind either, because so far I've seen more proof that monkey faced taps are of that era than I have that they are wrong on the frontier. I think any kind of taps would more likely be wrong in Penn. or New Jersey than on the upper Missouri. One fact we shouldn't forget, and I tend to not think about myself, but the trade was also in what was then Mexico. The border with Mexico wasn't far south of Denver, and these guys were traveling far and wide. And just the fact the Mexican horse gear was better than anything else has to mean something. If it was made in Santa Fe and Taos, and being used there, and the mountain men were there, then they were using it as is. If the maker put taps on the stirrups, I'd bet they weren't taken off. Also, Spanish bits were in use by the Nez Perce when Lewis and Clark arrived, and they were the first white folks the Nez Perce had seen (I think). I don't think anyone knows if they were spade bits from Calif. or came via Comanche then Shoshone to Nez Perce, but they had them. We know the stuff was there, being used by Indians, so why not whites? > > What does a cowboy stirrup look like. > The bent wood sturruips sometimes > wrapped that we see on most saddles in the department store. They may a > 1000 years old and used elsewhere but I haven't seen much to support them in > the Rocky Mtn fur trade. The ones nowdays on cheap saddles that are lined with metal would certainly be wrong. But bent wood stirrups are shown -- covered in rawhide in some cases -- on Indian saddles. So why not on the Sante Fe saddle also? Miller's painting of the lost greenhorn looks like the guy is on an Indian pad saddle, and the stirrups are bent wood, with the foot part looking like a stirrup from a Knights in Armor saddle. Almost the full length of the foot. That's also a good painting to get an idea of how small the Indian ponies really were. And he's using a snaffel bit on the pony. Now this is where Miller gets to be really disappointing -- because there is always a person, or grass, or brush in front of what you want to see. Never enough detail, like he avoids detail by covering it up. I've gone back and looked at some of his paintings that I have prints of, and there just isn't that much detail. First there is "Pierre, Rocky Mountain Trapper" by Miller. Pierre is riding a mule, with a Spanish saddle and with a bit with shanks, like probably a curb bit of some sort, but he is sitting in front of the stirrups. Same thing in Millers "Lost Trapper" -- he's riding a mule that's bridled with what looks like a store bought outfit. Miller's got you in close enough to see the brow band, throat latch and the buckle above the bit, but grass covers the bit, that is just a hint of what might be the shanks of a curb bit, and the trapper is standing in front of the stirrups. Then there is the "Trapper in his Solitary Camp" cooking a rack of ribs and cleaning or loading his rifle. You can't see a horn on the saddle on account of the mule's head is in the way, again a bit with shanks, a brow band on the bridle and what looks to me like bent wood stirrups. It very well could be an Indian pad saddle and Indian stirrups, there is no way to prove differently, but he has what looks to be the white man's bridle. Then there is the "Trappers Starting for the Hunt". Three of themn are heading out. One looks like an Indian (he has bow and arrows but he could well be white) with a large Mexican style cantle on his saddle and he looks to be riding a horse. Another is riding a shaved tail, no doubt a mule, with a crupper under his tail. It's a color painting done in black and white, and I can't see any kind of a stirrup. When you look at artists that are up 30 years after 1840, like Russel and other painters of the 1850's to '70's they show the sawed cottonwood stirrups. Anytime that I've been able to find a stirrup done by Miller it looks like a curved wooden one like the Smithsonian shows on Indian saddles. I've not seen a sawed cottonwood stirrup on a Miller saddle. Does that mean they weren't their either? We know Santa Fe saddles used them also. > Dale, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Naw, I don't think it's out of hand. You sure have driven me back to the books, and it's been kind of fun. You think you sound old and opinionated, shucks, I am old and opinionated. I researched this stuff years ago, until I had pretty well satisfied myself what would be right. But that was a long time ago, and you have made me go back and look again. Divorce got the ranch, and I no longer have horses, so it is no longer that important to me, but fun to remember anyhow. Haven't shod a horse sense my belly got too big to bend over it. Last time I nailed on shoes it was like I was diving under water every time I bent over. Had to come up for a breath before I could drive the next nail. Don't worry about things getting out of hand, do all you can now, on account of life is too short, and looking back I didn't get done half what I wanted to. I aint dead yet, but there aint enough time or money to do it all now. I have gotten almost 60 pounds off my gut though, and I'm feeling good enough I just might saddle up and head for the back country one more time. Sold my shoeing tools and anvil to buy this stupid computer that I keep screwed up half the time. I still have my roping saddle, and I keep thinking that I need to get mounted and get back to team roping, that's a really great old guys sport. Enough of this. > not going to back off my personal beliefs but I should n't be trying to push > them on everyone else. It's a lot more fun to have all your ducks in a row and let them come to you. Dale Nelson Roseburg, OR - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:54:52 -0700 From: "Ben" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags Hello the camp, Just a note to tell you how much I'm enjoying the conversations on this list. I've learned a bunch, had a lot of memories jogged, and just generally had a good time. Only thing missing was the smoke from the campfire....ohhh...and the liquid libations :) Dale, I gotta ask, how in the hell did you loose sixty pounds? I got the same problem (can't breathe when bending over) but having a heck of a time loosing any weight. I'm gainin' weight on 1200 calories and damn near starving to death. I know, more exercise, but it's hard to do when you're old, got diabetes, and workin' on half a heart. On a lighter note, the only saddle I ever remember using when we were back on the ranch was the old cinch/latigo strap type. You'd have to get off and tighten it after riding thirty minutes or so. Damned horses were smarter than we were:) Ben - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Nelson" To: Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:08 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wynn Ormond" > > > > then there were never any white women wearing calico dresses at the > > > rendezvous. Miller never drew them, but from another source I found out > > > they were there every year from 1836 to 1840. See what I mean? > > > > Then you have documentation right? Miller has his weaknesses no doubt. > He > > aint the only one but he was there. > > Yes, we have documentation on white women, and also on horse gear via the > Smithsonian, and others that have researched this same topic, not just > Miller's drawings. The trouble is when it comes to taps you won't accept > the source as being valid so I reckon that's what all this has been about > anyhow. Valid sources. You might not like the idea of taps, but I'm > satisfied that taps were used not just because they protect the feet and it > keeps one's moc clad foot from ending up through the stirrup and hung up, > but because we all agree that they were used in the southwest and in > California at that time. There might not be any proof that taps were used > on the Upper Missouri by someone actually saying or a painting showing them. > But I'm not going to change my mind either, because so far I've seen more > proof that monkey faced taps are of that era than I have that they are wrong > on the frontier. I think any kind of taps would more likely be wrong in > Penn. or New Jersey than on the upper Missouri. One fact we shouldn't > forget, and I tend to not think about myself, but the trade was also in what > was then Mexico. The border with Mexico wasn't far south of Denver, and > these guys were traveling far and wide. And just the fact the Mexican horse > gear was better than anything else has to mean something. If it was made in > Santa Fe and Taos, and being used there, and the mountain men were there, > then they were using it as is. If the maker put taps on the stirrups, I'd > bet they weren't taken off. Also, Spanish bits were in use by the Nez > Perce when Lewis and Clark arrived, and they were the first white folks the > Nez Perce had seen (I think). I don't think anyone knows if they were spade > bits from Calif. or came via Comanche then Shoshone to Nez Perce, but they > had them. We know the stuff was there, being used by Indians, so why not > whites? > > > > What does a cowboy stirrup look like. > > > The bent wood sturruips sometimes > > wrapped that we see on most saddles in the department store. They may a > > 1000 years old and used elsewhere but I haven't seen much to support them > in > > the Rocky Mtn fur trade. > > The ones nowdays on cheap saddles that are lined with metal would certainly > be wrong. But bent wood stirrups are shown -- covered in rawhide in some > cases -- on Indian saddles. So why > not on the Sante Fe saddle also? Miller's painting of the lost greenhorn > looks like the guy is on an Indian pad saddle, and the stirrups are bent > wood, with the foot part looking like a stirrup from a Knights in Armor > saddle. Almost the full length of the foot. That's also a good painting to > get an idea of how small the Indian ponies really were. And he's using a > snaffel bit on the pony. Now this is where Miller gets to be really > disappointing -- because there is always a person, or grass, or brush in > front of what you want to see. Never enough detail, like he avoids detail > by covering it up. I've gone back and looked at some of his paintings that > I have prints of, and there just isn't that much detail. First there is > "Pierre, Rocky Mountain Trapper" by Miller. Pierre is riding a mule, with a > Spanish saddle and with a bit with shanks, like probably a curb bit of some > sort, but he is sitting in front of the stirrups. Same thing in Millers > "Lost Trapper" -- he's riding a mule that's bridled with what looks like a > store bought outfit. Miller's got you in close enough to see the brow band, > throat latch and the buckle above the bit, but grass covers the bit, that is > just a hint of what might be the shanks of a curb bit, and the trapper is > standing in front of the stirrups. Then there is the "Trapper in his > Solitary Camp" cooking a rack of ribs and cleaning or loading his rifle. > You can't see a horn on the saddle on account of the mule's head is in the > way, again a bit with shanks, a brow band on the bridle and what looks to me > like bent wood stirrups. It very well could be an Indian pad saddle and > Indian stirrups, there is no way to prove differently, but he has what looks > to be the white man's bridle. Then there is the "Trappers Starting for the > Hunt". Three of themn are heading out. One looks like an Indian (he has > bow and arrows but he could well be white) with a large Mexican style cantle > on his saddle and he looks to be riding a horse. Another is riding a shaved > tail, no doubt a mule, with a crupper under his tail. It's a color painting > done in black and white, and I can't see any kind of a stirrup. When you > look at artists that are up 30 years after 1840, like Russel and other > painters of the 1850's to '70's they show the sawed cottonwood stirrups. > Anytime that I've been able to find a stirrup done by Miller it looks like a > curved wooden one like the Smithsonian shows on Indian saddles. I've not > seen a sawed cottonwood stirrup on a Miller saddle. Does that mean they > weren't their either? We know Santa Fe saddles used them also. > > > Dale, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. > > Naw, I don't think it's out of hand. You sure have driven me back to the > books, and it's been kind of fun. You think you sound old and opinionated, > shucks, I am old and opinionated. I researched this stuff years ago, until > I had pretty well satisfied myself what would be right. But that was a long > time ago, and you have made me go back and look again. Divorce got the > ranch, and I no longer have horses, so it is no longer that important to me, > but fun to remember anyhow. Haven't shod a horse sense my belly got too big > to bend over it. Last time I nailed on shoes it was like I was diving under > water every time I bent over. Had to come up for a breath before I could > drive the next nail. Don't worry about things getting out of hand, do all > you can now, on account of life is too short, and looking back I didn't get > done half what I wanted to. I aint dead yet, but there aint enough time or > money to do it all now. I have gotten almost 60 pounds off my gut though, > and I'm feeling good enough I just might saddle up and head for the back > country one more time. Sold my shoeing tools and anvil to buy this stupid > computer that I keep screwed up half the time. I still have my roping > saddle, and I keep thinking that I need to get mounted and get back to team > roping, that's a really great old guys sport. Enough of this. > > > not going to back off my personal beliefs but I should n't be trying to > push > > them on everyone else. > > It's a lot more fun to have all your ducks in a row and let them come to > you. > Dale Nelson > Roseburg, OR > > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:58:34 -0600 (MDT) From: beaverboy@sofast.net Subject: RE: MtMan-List: Rocky Mountain House Thank you, I will make a trip just to see it! It's only a few hundred miles north of me. I will also stop again at Head-smashed-in Bison jump on my way. Rocky Mountain House! Just the name invokes visions of fur trappers gathered around a fireplace discussing beaver prices and the foothills of the Northern Rockies they would take them in. I took my son to Canada for our vacation this summer, we viewed Head-smashed-in jump from the road but it was closed as it was so early in the morning. We then simply passed by Rocky Moutain House as it is well off of the main road to Edmonton. We were on our way to see Jasper and Banff. Jasper and Banff National Parks are a must see too for all travelers. True gems of the Canadian Rockies as is the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, which had an Inuit display when we were there. Excellent! I look forward to going back just to see Rocky Mountain House and visiting our neighbors to the north once more. Thanks again, bb > I'm pretty familiar with Rocky Mountain House; here's a review of it. > > Historic Site Profile: Rocky Mountain House N.H.S. > http://www.northwestjournal.ca/II9.htm > > If you have any more questions after you read the review, just ask! > > Your very humble & most obedient servant, > Angela Gottfred > > > > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:02:13 -0600 From: Todd Glover Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags Dale, Thanks for all your efforts on this topic, it has been valuable and interesting. I tend to agree with what you've said and your opinions. Teton On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:08:50 -0700 "Dale Nelson" writes: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wynn Ormond" > > > > then there were never any white women wearing calico dresses at > the > > > rendezvous. Miller never drew them, but from another source I > found out > > > they were there every year from 1836 to 1840. See what I mean? > > > > Then you have documentation right? Miller has his weaknesses no > doubt. > He > > aint the only one but he was there. > > Yes, we have documentation on white women, and also on horse gear > via the > Smithsonian, and others that have researched this same topic, not > just > Miller's drawings. The trouble is when it comes to taps you won't > accept > the source as being valid so I reckon that's what all this has been > about > anyhow. Valid sources. You might not like the idea of taps, but > I'm > satisfied that taps were used not just because they protect the feet > and it > keeps one's moc clad foot from ending up through the stirrup and > hung up, > but because we all agree that they were used in the southwest and > in > California at that time. There might not be any proof that taps > were used > on the Upper Missouri by someone actually saying or a painting > showing them. > But I'm not going to change my mind either, because so far I've seen > more > proof that monkey faced taps are of that era than I have that they > are wrong > on the frontier. I think any kind of taps would more likely be > wrong in > Penn. or New Jersey than on the upper Missouri. One fact we > shouldn't > forget, and I tend to not think about myself, but the trade was also > in what > was then Mexico. The border with Mexico wasn't far south of Denver, > and > these guys were traveling far and wide. And just the fact the > Mexican horse > gear was better than anything else has to mean something. If it was > made in > Santa Fe and Taos, and being used there, and the mountain men were > there, > then they were using it as is. If the maker put taps on the > stirrups, I'd > bet they weren't taken off. Also, Spanish bits were in use by the > Nez > Perce when Lewis and Clark arrived, and they were the first white > folks the > Nez Perce had seen (I think). I don't think anyone knows if they > were spade > bits from Calif. or came via Comanche then Shoshone to Nez Perce, > but they > had them. We know the stuff was there, being used by Indians, so > why not > whites? > > > > What does a cowboy stirrup look like. > > > The bent wood sturruips sometimes > > wrapped that we see on most saddles in the department store. They > may a > > 1000 years old and used elsewhere but I haven't seen much to > support them > in > > the Rocky Mtn fur trade. > > The ones nowdays on cheap saddles that are lined with metal would > certainly > be wrong. But bent wood stirrups are shown -- covered in rawhide in > some > cases -- on Indian saddles. So why > not on the Sante Fe saddle also? Miller's painting of the lost > greenhorn > looks like the guy is on an Indian pad saddle, and the stirrups are > bent > wood, with the foot part looking like a stirrup from a Knights in > Armor > saddle. Almost the full length of the foot. That's also a good > painting to > get an idea of how small the Indian ponies really were. And he's > using a > snaffel bit on the pony. Now this is where Miller gets to be > really > disappointing -- because there is always a person, or grass, or > brush in > front of what you want to see. Never enough detail, like he avoids > detail > by covering it up. I've gone back and looked at some of his > paintings that > I have prints of, and there just isn't that much detail. First > there is > "Pierre, Rocky Mountain Trapper" by Miller. Pierre is riding a > mule, with a > Spanish saddle and with a bit with shanks, like probably a curb bit > of some > sort, but he is sitting in front of the stirrups. Same thing in > Millers > "Lost Trapper" -- he's riding a mule that's bridled with what looks > like a > store bought outfit. Miller's got you in close enough to see the > brow band, > throat latch and the buckle above the bit, but grass covers the bit, > that is > just a hint of what might be the shanks of a curb bit, and the > trapper is > standing in front of the stirrups. Then there is the "Trapper in > his > Solitary Camp" cooking a rack of ribs and cleaning or loading his > rifle. > You can't see a horn on the saddle on account of the mule's head is > in the > way, again a bit with shanks, a brow band on the bridle and what > looks to me > like bent wood stirrups. It very well could be an Indian pad saddle > and > Indian stirrups, there is no way to prove differently, but he has > what looks > to be the white man's bridle. Then there is the "Trappers Starting > for the > Hunt". Three of themn are heading out. One looks like an Indian > (he has > bow and arrows but he could well be white) with a large Mexican > style cantle > on his saddle and he looks to be riding a horse. Another is riding > a shaved > tail, no doubt a mule, with a crupper under his tail. It's a color > painting > done in black and white, and I can't see any kind of a stirrup. > When you > look at artists that are up 30 years after 1840, like Russel and > other > painters of the 1850's to '70's they show the sawed cottonwood > stirrups. > Anytime that I've been able to find a stirrup done by Miller it > looks like a > curved wooden one like the Smithsonian shows on Indian saddles. > I've not > seen a sawed cottonwood stirrup on a Miller saddle. Does that mean > they > weren't their either? We know Santa Fe saddles used them also. > > > Dale, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. > > Naw, I don't think it's out of hand. You sure have driven me back > to the > books, and it's been kind of fun. You think you sound old and > opinionated, > shucks, I am old and opinionated. I researched this stuff years > ago, until > I had pretty well satisfied myself what would be right. But that > was a long > time ago, and you have made me go back and look again. Divorce got > the > ranch, and I no longer have horses, so it is no longer that > important to me, > but fun to remember anyhow. Haven't shod a horse sense my belly got > too big > to bend over it. Last time I nailed on shoes it was like I was > diving under > water every time I bent over. Had to come up for a breath before I > could > drive the next nail. Don't worry about things getting out of hand, > do all > you can now, on account of life is too short, and looking back I > didn't get > done half what I wanted to. I aint dead yet, but there aint enough > time or > money to do it all now. I have gotten almost 60 pounds off my gut > though, > and I'm feeling good enough I just might saddle up and head for the > back > country one more time. Sold my shoeing tools and anvil to buy this > stupid > computer that I keep screwed up half the time. I still have my > roping > saddle, and I keep thinking that I need to get mounted and get back > to team > roping, that's a really great old guys sport. Enough of this. > > > not going to back off my personal beliefs but I should n't be > trying to > push > > them on everyone else. > > It's a lot more fun to have all your ducks in a row and let them > come to > you. > Dale Nelson > Roseburg, OR > > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: > http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > > - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:35:01 -0700 From: "Dale Nelson" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben" To: Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:54 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags > Dale, I gotta ask, how in the hell did you loose sixty pounds? I got the > same problem (can't breathe when bending over) but having a heck of a time > loosing any weight. I'm gainin' weight on 1200 calories and damn near > starving to death. I know, more exercise, but it's hard to do when you're > old, got diabetes, and workin' on half a heart. Ben, Dr. Atkins diet sense before last Thanksgiving. I'm still loosing only slowly now. Eating meat and eggs, heavy cream, real butter, and never go hungry. Here's the best part, I was taking 5 different water pills each day, none now and no swelling ankles, no wheezing, blood pressure normal, blood sugar is 82, bad cholestrol is down and good up. I've been denied steak and eggs so long I feel like I died and went to heaven. No taters, rice, sugar, bread, ice cream, cookies, chips, etc. Fried pork rinds and sour cream type dip are OK. Oh yeah, I walk 2 miles a day, 6 days a week. If you want to talk to me about this some more, contact me off list or we'll have people mad at us. I have heart problems also, and my Doc. didn't like this diet, but he says it's working so keep it up. Dale - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:03:10 -0400 From: "Bruce and Mary Nail" Subject: MtMan-List: Authenticity All the discussing the finer points of articles "documented" by paintings and such causes me to recall the time I was in the "convenience" store a while back and happened to notice a couple of gents standing there with cups of coffee discussing some topic or other when I realized that they were lumberjacks steeling themselves for the day's work in the northern Michigan woods. I couldn't help notice their attire, flannel, denim, sorrel boots, and the ubiquitous carhardt coats. These were men who were very comfortable with the woods, and not one was any glamorous "woodsman" but I bet any one of them could tell you anything you wanted to know about the woods in which they worked. My point is that they took off the shelf everything they needed for working the woods, and so too should we. If it was available, then use it; it doesn't work out, then discard it. It's what our modern-day woodsmen do, and I guarantee it's what the trappers did too. For my twoo cents, utility+availability equals authenticity. Hope to see y'al on the trail - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:25:53 -0700 From: "roger lahti" Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags Ben, Listen to Dale. I've messed with the Atkins diet a bit this year and when I stick to it I loose. Capt. Lahti' - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben" To: Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:54 PM Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags > Hello the camp, > Just a note to tell you how much I'm enjoying the conversations on this > list. I've learned a bunch, had a lot of memories jogged, and just > generally had a good time. > Only thing missing was the smoke from the campfire....ohhh...and the liquid > libations :) > Dale, I gotta ask, how in the hell did you loose sixty pounds? I got the > same problem (can't breathe when bending over) but having a heck of a time > loosing any weight. I'm gainin' weight on 1200 calories and damn near > starving to death. I know, more exercise, but it's hard to do when you're > old, got diabetes, and workin' on half a heart. > On a lighter note, the only saddle I ever remember using when we were back > on the ranch was the old cinch/latigo strap type. You'd have to get off and > tighten it after riding thirty minutes or so. Damned horses were smarter > than we were:) > Ben > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dale Nelson" > To: > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:08 PM > Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wynn Ormond" > > > > > > then there were never any white women wearing calico dresses at the > > > > rendezvous. Miller never drew them, but from another source I found > out > > > > they were there every year from 1836 to 1840. See what I mean? > > > > > > Then you have documentation right? Miller has his weaknesses no doubt. > > He > > > aint the only one but he was there. > > > > Yes, we have documentation on white women, and also on horse gear via the > > Smithsonian, and others that have researched this same topic, not just > > Miller's drawings. The trouble is when it comes to taps you won't accept > > the source as being valid so I reckon that's what all this has been about > > anyhow. Valid sources. You might not like the idea of taps, but I'm > > satisfied that taps were used not just because they protect the feet and > it > > keeps one's moc clad foot from ending up through the stirrup and hung up, > > but because we all agree that they were used in the southwest and in > > California at that time. There might not be any proof that taps were used > > on the Upper Missouri by someone actually saying or a painting showing > them. > > But I'm not going to change my mind either, because so far I've seen more > > proof that monkey faced taps are of that era than I have that they are > wrong > > on the frontier. I think any kind of taps would more likely be wrong in > > Penn. or New Jersey than on the upper Missouri. One fact we shouldn't > > forget, and I tend to not think about myself, but the trade was also in > what > > was then Mexico. The border with Mexico wasn't far south of Denver, and > > these guys were traveling far and wide. And just the fact the Mexican > horse > > gear was better than anything else has to mean something. If it was made > in > > Santa Fe and Taos, and being used there, and the mountain men were there, > > then they were using it as is. If the maker put taps on the stirrups, I'd > > bet they weren't taken off. Also, Spanish bits were in use by the Nez > > Perce when Lewis and Clark arrived, and they were the first white folks > the > > Nez Perce had seen (I think). I don't think anyone knows if they were > spade > > bits from Calif. or came via Comanche then Shoshone to Nez Perce, but they > > had them. We know the stuff was there, being used by Indians, so why not > > whites? > > > > > > What does a cowboy stirrup look like. > > > > > The bent wood sturruips sometimes > > > wrapped that we see on most saddles in the department store. They may a > > > 1000 years old and used elsewhere but I haven't seen much to support > them > > in > > > the Rocky Mtn fur trade. > > > > The ones nowdays on cheap saddles that are lined with metal would > certainly > > be wrong. But bent wood stirrups are shown -- covered in rawhide in some > > cases -- on Indian saddles. So why > > not on the Sante Fe saddle also? Miller's painting of the lost greenhorn > > looks like the guy is on an Indian pad saddle, and the stirrups are bent > > wood, with the foot part looking like a stirrup from a Knights in Armor > > saddle. Almost the full length of the foot. That's also a good painting > to > > get an idea of how small the Indian ponies really were. And he's using a > > snaffel bit on the pony. Now this is where Miller gets to be really > > disappointing -- because there is always a person, or grass, or brush in > > front of what you want to see. Never enough detail, like he avoids detail > > by covering it up. I've gone back and looked at some of his paintings > that > > I have prints of, and there just isn't that much detail. First there is > > "Pierre, Rocky Mountain Trapper" by Miller. Pierre is riding a mule, with > a > > Spanish saddle and with a bit with shanks, like probably a curb bit of > some > > sort, but he is sitting in front of the stirrups. Same thing in Millers > > "Lost Trapper" -- he's riding a mule that's bridled with what looks like a > > store bought outfit. Miller's got you in close enough to see the brow > band, > > throat latch and the buckle above the bit, but grass covers the bit, that > is > > just a hint of what might be the shanks of a curb bit, and the trapper is > > standing in front of the stirrups. Then there is the "Trapper in his > > Solitary Camp" cooking a rack of ribs and cleaning or loading his rifle. > > You can't see a horn on the saddle on account of the mule's head is in the > > way, again a bit with shanks, a brow band on the bridle and what looks to > me > > like bent wood stirrups. It very well could be an Indian pad saddle and > > Indian stirrups, there is no way to prove differently, but he has what > looks > > to be the white man's bridle. Then there is the "Trappers Starting for > the > > Hunt". Three of themn are heading out. One looks like an Indian (he has > > bow and arrows but he could well be white) with a large Mexican style > cantle > > on his saddle and he looks to be riding a horse. Another is riding a > shaved > > tail, no doubt a mule, with a crupper under his tail. It's a color > painting > > done in black and white, and I can't see any kind of a stirrup. When you > > look at artists that are up 30 years after 1840, like Russel and other > > painters of the 1850's to '70's they show the sawed cottonwood stirrups. > > Anytime that I've been able to find a stirrup done by Miller it looks like > a > > curved wooden one like the Smithsonian shows on Indian saddles. I've not > > seen a sawed cottonwood stirrup on a Miller saddle. Does that mean they > > weren't their either? We know Santa Fe saddles used them also. > > > > > Dale, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. > > > > Naw, I don't think it's out of hand. You sure have driven me back to the > > books, and it's been kind of fun. You think you sound old and > opinionated, > > shucks, I am old and opinionated. I researched this stuff years ago, > until > > I had pretty well satisfied myself what would be right. But that was a > long > > time ago, and you have made me go back and look again. Divorce got the > > ranch, and I no longer have horses, so it is no longer that important to > me, > > but fun to remember anyhow. Haven't shod a horse sense my belly got too > big > > to bend over it. Last time I nailed on shoes it was like I was diving > under > > water every time I bent over. Had to come up for a breath before I could > > drive the next nail. Don't worry about things getting out of hand, do all > > you can now, on account of life is too short, and looking back I didn't > get > > done half what I wanted to. I aint dead yet, but there aint enough time > or > > money to do it all now. I have gotten almost 60 pounds off my gut though, > > and I'm feeling good enough I just might saddle up and head for the back > > country one more time. Sold my shoeing tools and anvil to buy this stupid > > computer that I keep screwed up half the time. I still have my roping > > saddle, and I keep thinking that I need to get mounted and get back to > team > > roping, that's a really great old guys sport. Enough of this. > > > > > not going to back off my personal beliefs but I should n't be trying to > > push > > > them on everyone else. > > > > It's a lot more fun to have all your ducks in a row and let them come to > > you. > > Dale Nelson > > Roseburg, OR > > > > > > ---------------------- > > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html > > > > > > ---------------------- > hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html - ---------------------- hist_text list info: http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/maillist.html ------------------------------ End of hist_text-digest V1 #1241 ******************************** - To unsubscribe to hist_text-digest, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.