ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/hist_text/archive/v01.n1241

Internet Message Format | 2003-09-15 | 46KB

From: [e-mail] (hist_text-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hist_text-digest V1 #1241
Reply-To: hist_text
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


hist_text-digest      Monday, September 15 2003      Volume 01 : Number 1241



In this issue:

-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags
-áááááá MtMan-List: Saddles
-áááááá MtMan-List: Snide remark
-áááááá RE: MtMan-List: Rocky Mountain House
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags
-áááááá RE: MtMan-List: Rocky Mountain House
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags
-áááááá MtMan-List: Authenticity
-áááááá Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 22:50:22 -0600
From: "Wynn Ormond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags

From: Dale Nelson <[e-mail]>


   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 <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Wynn Ormond" <[e-mail]>

> > 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" <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wynn Ormond" <[e-mail]>
>
> > > 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: [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wynn Ormond" <[e-mail]>
>
> > > 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" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: MtMan-List: Fw: Saddle Bags
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wynn Ormond" <[e-mail]>
> >
> > > > 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
"[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe hist_text-digest" in the body of the message.