i feel like your logic is faulty. ;). “Worth it” and “outrageous” are not mutually exclusive. I’ve purchased things that I felt were WAY overpriced but I still wanted them, bought them and felt like the outrageous price was worth it because of the limited availability or the perfectness of the item or what have you.
3 Likes
$50k in 1983 is about $125k today thanks to inflation, so that price is not at all out of line for a good young horse.
Is inflation really the answer, I mean, board hasn’t changed that astronomically. I know dollar-for-dollar, but inflation only hit the purchase prices?
it has to do with the consumer price index. To buy what $50k would buy you in 1983, you’d need to spend $125k today, based on price inflation. It goes to what the money could buy that is NOT a horse, if a loaf of bread in 1983 was $0.50 today it would be $1.25. My point was that a horse priced at $125k today and a horse priced at $50k in 1983 consume the same amount of available resources and therefore are actually priced the same.
At least in my sphere of experience, board has indeed changed that much. Full board in 1999, the furthest back year I could find a bill for, was $385. Now it’s $775.
2 Likes
Because the hunter world in particular is by definition tinier than international showjumping or dressage, such prices seem even more absurdly astronomical. And, as one young dressage pro once observed to me (not a big name, but someone who had been very successful as a junior), “I could spend a million dollars on a horse, do everything right, and that horse could go lame tomorrow.”
Even for other status items that are arguably inflated in price by the market, like cars and jewelry, horses are animals and can fall prey to accidents and illnesses. You can’t put a horse in a box like a diamond, or a garage the horse like a car. Which might be why at some top barns their lives are so constrained, making me think this type of pricing is not the best thing for the horses in the end–at least, if they’re not in a discipline that demands a high degree of athleticism and conditioning.
I’m poor, but I’ve worked with people who I’d consider moderately rich and had friends who showed on the A-circuit. I think sometimes buying a very expensive horse, even for a child, is a status symbol for some people, like purchasing a fancy first car for a teen, or having an elaborate Sweet 16 party. The point isn’t that you need a mount that went to Pony Finals to do crossrails or a horse with a $xxx,xxx price tag to do the 2’6, but that you can buy such a horse.
I don’t get it, personally. I’m the type of person who has always believed that although I can tell the difference between $20 and $100 shoes, I’ve never been able to see the difference between $100 and $500 shoes (not tall boots, obviously, but that’s another thread :D).
5 Likes
well not exactly , when it comes to the CPI. I mean yes, the CPI has increased over the years, but it is an aggregate standard that loses a lot of accuracy when tied to a specific item/area. It might not fully account for gained/lost efficiencies, subsidies/taxes, supply surplus/shortfall that dramatically impact individual items but barely register across an entire economy. In other words, there are winners and losers in the CPI and what a horse costs to breed, train and compete now versus then may cost more or less than the aggregate CPI over the same period (or if it does line up, it’s sheer dumb luck)
[QUOTE=Impractical Horsewoman;n10280053]
I’m poor, but I’ve worked with people who I’d consider moderately rich and had friends who showed on the A-circuit. I think sometimes buying a very expensive horse, even for a child, is a status symbol for some people, like purchasing a fancy first car for a teen, or having an elaborate Sweet 16 party. The point isn’t that you need a mount that went to Pony Finals to do crossrails or a horse with a $xxx,xxx price tag to do the 2’6, but that you can buy such a horse.
Truer words rarely spoken!
Truer words rarely spoken!
1 Like
There was so much here that I agreed with. However, one statement stuck out that I do not – the “best rider does NOT usually win” - the truth is that it does not matter how well the rider rides if they are not on a quality horse. There may not be a way to solve that problem because not everyone has the resources to buy a horse that is competitive. However, the quality mount is an essential factor and we need to acknowledge that riding skills alone will not make a winner.
2 Likes
But it is not a problem, it is a misunderstanding of the division. The rider is not being judged, the horse is.
2 Likes
Not a misunderstanding of the division - it is judged on the horse. But a reality nonetheless Riding well is not the key ingredient in hunters. It may be necessary but it is not sufficient.
@juststartingout You are correct and I wasn’t careful with my words! In my experience, the best rider often wins when they are on a quality horse. You are right to clarify - a great rider on a bad horse isn’t going to win. Likewise, a lousy rider on a great horse is also not going to win.
@Midge I don’t quite understand your comment about “misunderstanding” the division. I’ve competed in hunter divisions for more than two decades. I’m reasonably certain that I understand the concept. Yes - the horse is being judged. And, if the rider pop chips a jump, it doesn’t much matter how beautifully the horse snaps his knees over it. Likewise, if the rider can’t find a distance and leaves from a spot that elicits gasps from the crowd, that round won’t win no matter how willingly or brilliantly the horse covers the distance.
I was sharing my experience about a very nice hunter that I previously owned. Compared to some of the horses that have been mentioned, I wouldn’t call him “elite.” He did go on to be a reserve champion at Harrisburg and has been champion at several shows at WEF - just not with me. He was the most expensive horse that I’ve ever bought. Very high quality. Great mover. Won most under saddles. Terrific jumper. For multiple reasons, I could not reliably get my distances on him. Nothing to do with the horse - he was lovely in every way. I simply wasn’t a good enough rider to showcase him. I wish that I was “misunderstanding” the division, because had that been the case then I would have won a lot more as I most often had the highest quality, most talented horse! Alas, my understanding of the division was sadly correct - my mediocre riding unfortunately mattered to the judges.
2 Likes
I didn’t quote you.
1 Like
And I didn’t quote you. I referenced your comment - which I happened to find baseless and uninformed. This time quoting you: “…it is a misunderstanding of the division. The rider is not being judged, the horse is.”
Your comment is summarily incorrect.
I beg to differ.
In hunter classes, it is absolutely the horse who is being judged.
In equitation classes, it is absolutely the rider who is being judged.
In both classes, the horse or rider with the best partner is more likely to be successful. That doesn’t change the judging criteria for the class.
2 Likes
sigh Here is he sentence I was referring to when I said ‘problem’
the “best rider does NOT usually win” - the truth is that it does not matter how well the rider rides if they are not on a quality horse. There may not be a way to solve that problem because not everyone has the resources to buy a horse that is competitive.
There is not a ‘problem’ if the best rider is not winning. If the person I quoted thinks that is a problem, they misunderstand the division, which is that the horse is judged.
2 Likes
Midge’s comment was correct in how the division is judged. It was apparently incorrect in stating the OP had a misunderstanding of how the division is judged.
And now for something you don’t see too often: EVERYONE is correct!!! Woot!
3 Likes
Except the person who took umbrage with my comment was not the OP.
1 Like
That is a rare treat, especially around here! Setting aside everything else, that comment made me literally laugh out loud. :lol:
and the people who can afford to winter in florida at WEF and show there are some of the wealthiest. This isn’t the playground for the blue collar people.
4 Likes
