It sure is, which is why it behooves people to actually learn about saddle fitting from sources not associated with single saddles.
I was willing to do the due diligence and find a perfect fit…some are not as willing.
And their horses suffer for it 
[QUOTE=JB;3974842]
Sure they do. Most treeless makers say this. CWD even says it - they say their flexible tree points will adjust to fit any horse.[/QUOTE]
I’ve never shopped for a treeless saddle so I can’t comment on that. If CWD says it too-- shame on them, because it’s not true. I have no idea if CWD makes that claim or not, I’ve also never shopped for a CWD saddle. But the fact that 2 companies do something wrong doesn’t make it right or, in my opinion, make any one company less culpable.
Not to mention, to me there’s a difference between saying “XYZ design makes it more likely to fit a range of backs” (that’s a statement which could be true) and saying “this saddle FITS EVERY HORSE… now, why not come by 1, 2, or 3 of my majikal $100+ thin pieces of leather and neoprene that help your saddle defeat the laws of physics.” Two very different claims. A saddle CAN have a versitile design. It cannot fit every horse, even with the insertion of thin pieces of padding.
When I got a demo Tad, there was a DVD that came with it and the “fits all horses” claims were made on that DVD. I also corresponded with Tad himself (super nice, very generous with his time) and was told that the saddles fit every horse and therefore he couldn’t explain why it didn’t fit mine (which it clearly did not). So I can confirm that the “fits every horse” sales pitch was made, at least to some people.
[QUOTE=horse-loverz;3974918]
I personally love mine and it fits my horse so all is good, I liked my Butet too but unfortunately my horse did not. This does not make the Butet’s pieces of crap. [/QUOTE]
The difference, and to me it’s a fundamental one, is that Beval didn’t tell you “this saddle will fit every horse” or market the Butet as having that quality.
People (myself included, almost) spend big bucks on the Tad not just for the name, or because they like the cushy seat or styling etc.-- they buy it because they think, and they are told by the company, that they are buying not JUST a nice saddle but a saddle that will fit every horse. Of COURSE I’d pay extra for that, if it was a true statement. Wouldn’t you? To never have to buy another saddle again? I’d pay $1,000 more than other saddles, sure!
But the sales gimmick isn’t true and I have to think the company knows. Part of the reason people were willing to pay $$$ for the Tad was for a unique quality that the company claimed the saddle had, that it did not. It’s the same as if they marketed the saddle as calfskin but it was really buffalo. People thought they were buying one thing, but they were getting another. Perhaps buyers were gullible, I will be the first to admit that I WANTED to believe the hype but couldn’t get of some serious skepticism-- but that’s not an excuse for making clearly untrue marketing statements.
Beval never sold you an exaggerated bill of goods with your Butet. That’s the difference.
Agree that doesn’t make it right, was merely stating that TC is not the only one who has said that. I have no idea if CWD in general has that philosophy, or if just the couple of reps I’ve talked to say that. But the fact that CWD only has 2 tree widths - regular, and super wide (which is really huge, at least the demo saddle I saw), seems to fit with there being a company philosophy of that nature. The really push the flexible tree points as being the “savior” in fitting horses.
Not to mention, to me there’s a difference between saying “XYZ design makes it more likely to fit a range of backs” (that’s a statement which could be true) and saying “this saddle FITS EVERY HORSE… now, why not come by 1, 2, or 3 of my majikal $100+ thin pieces of leather and neoprene that help your saddle defeat the laws of physics.” Two very different claims. A saddle CAN have a versitile design. It cannot fit every horse, even with the insertion of thin pieces of padding.
Agree :yes:
When I got a demo Tad, there was a DVD that came with it and the “fits all horses” claims were made on that DVD. I also corresponded with Tad himself (super nice, very generous with his time) and was told that the saddles fit every horse and therefore he couldn’t explain why it didn’t fit mine (which it clearly did not). So I can confirm that the “fits every horse” sales pitch was made, at least to some people.
And that is a very bad thing :no:
There is no FDA of the saddle world
I’m confused about why a clever, ambitious and somewhat effective marketing claim made by Tad Coffin or any other saddle company raises hackles.
They can claim whatever they want, right? There is no regulating body that makes sure saddle companies’ assertations are true, and we all know this. So why take this kind of advertising as anything other than what it is?
Second, there are at least a few genuine, good reasons for modern claims about better fitting saddles or even universally fitting saddles-- whether they come from Tad Coffin, CWD, Bates, or whomever.
I think people who grew up using close contact saddles in the PdN era genuinely had lower standards for saddle fit. So perhaps those remain and these undeniably more-horse-back-friendly saddles are a comparative improvement. We all try to choose good fitting saddles and actually get better fitting saddles over time if we are trying to learn.
If this is true, then any new innovation–air panels, the shape or material of a tree does (or might hopefully) be a useful improvement from the producer’s/marketer’s perspective.
Some people would also tell you that saddle fitting has gotten “harder” because the infusion of warmbloods to the traditionally TB H/J world has, indeed, created a wider variety of back shapes to fit. Others will refute this. But notice that Crosby didn’t start making wide trees or QH shaped saddles like the Lynn Palm (I think?) until the 90s. Combine that with raising standards and you can see that “affirmative action” in the saddle fitting world is pretty young so far as major saddlers go.
In addition, I think dressage people (and maybe competitive distance people) always thought harder about saddle fit than did the average H/J rider. Perhaps with good reason: Each of these disciplines spends more time in the saddle per day on average and all the sitting work in dressage might (I say might) demand a better saddle fit. I think the dressage enthusiasts’ attention to fit has percolated out to other show-ring disciplines and that’s great for horses, an expensive PITA for those of us (me included!) who previously lived in blissful ignorance.
Last, I truly think the arrival of hard-core marketing to the tack world has also changed things. Maybe I’m unusual or wasn’t paying sufficient attention in the '80s and '90s, but I don’t think there was the same variety of saddles on the market. I also don’t think saddlers introduced new saddle or modified designs quite so rapidly, inviting consumers to constantly trade up. Finally, I think both leather, craftsmanship and the average person’s knowledge about leather care were better back in the day, so saddles were a big but infrequent purchase.
So if I am right about at least some of these things, then saddles have become a product to be touted any way possible just like any other. Caveat emptor certainly applies, not just because manufacturers aren’t accurate or honest in their claims but also because fitting saddles is (now) genuinely hard… and perhaps always should have required the skill we are just now in the H/J world trying to make more common.
[QUOTE=mvp;3975769]
I’m confused about why a clever, ambitious and somewhat effective marketing claim made by Tad Coffin or any other saddle company raises hackles.
They can claim whatever they want, right? There is no regulating body that makes sure saddle companies’ assertations are true, and we all know this. So why take this kind of advertising as anything other than what it is?[/QUOTE]
At least in my state, there are statutes that give consumers a cause of action for fradulent/deceptive trade practices.
I am NOT asserting that anything discussed on this thread rises to the level of a violation of the statutes… just pointing out that the mere fact that there’s no “saddle advertising governing body” doesn’t mean that anyone can say anything they want.
There’s a difference between a LIE and PUFFERY in sales. Sometimes that line is blurred, but it’s dishonest and often actionable to lie about a product as part of a sales tactic. What gets my hackles up is that I know that the Tad Coffin company KNOWS that one tree can’t fit every horse. It’s not like this is some little fly by night mom and pop outfit that is truly uneducated. This is a company with a team of experienced designers and riders. They have to KNOW that the saddle can’t fit every horse. It’s not some subtle, hard to evaluate claim they make-- it’s a bold, fairly testable conclusion that has repeatedly been proven not to be correct. They know it. They know better!
Substitute “car” for “saddle.” There is no regulatory body that prevents Chevy from saying “our cars the airbags will always deploy in a collision, without fail.” But you can bet if they said that, there’d be a whopping load of lawsuits after people had accidents and the airbag didn’t deploy. Similarly, if you’re McDonalds-- you can’t publish a list of ingredients that says your french fries have no beef tallow when, in fact, the fries have beef tallow and you know it. You can’t say anything under the sun in advertising, you can’t outright lie.
I have ridden at least 20 different horses in my Tad, some I have had to use the Tad Pad with (which I think is ugly), but for the most part, it has fit every one.
IMHO, the increase in attention paid to widened gullets and widened trees in general isn’t necessarily due to the influx of WBs - after all, WBs have been around the Dressage and Jumper scene for eons. I think it has a LOT more to do with companies realizing that the narrow channels of the past, even if on a slab-sided TB, were doing nothing to protect the spine of the horse. And at least a few people are realizing that the medium Crosby PDN really did NOT fit all those horses they plopped it onto every day, 20 years ago.
I looked into trying a medium tree dressage saddle a while ago, and the owner was adamant that it “fit every horse we put it on”. Well, sorry, either all your horses were all the same shape and width, or you don’t know what a properly fitting saddle looks like. Too many people think that if they have a least 3 fingers clearance at the withers, then the saddle “fits”, period :no:
1 Like
…so you think! Unfortunately, that is an uneducated statement. Now, if you were an expert saddle fitter with no ties to Tad Coffin, I might believe you, but ANY competent and experienced saddle fitter can likely show you that is not true. There is so much that goes into a proper saddle fit; width of the tree and width of the horses back, where their last rib is located, the slope of their back and length/height of the wither, what the paneling is like underneath, how the horse is physically built - skeletal and muscle, whether the saddle sits balanced on the horse, whether it’s pinching the shoulder blades, etc., etc. I’m sorry, but just because you think the saddle fits all 20 of the horses you’ve ridden doesn’t make it true…which is why dishonest companies like Tad Coffin continue to stay in business! :no:
Uh, no they can’t…it’s called false advertising. Stretching the truth or embellishing might be one thing and walks a fine line, but down right false claims about a product are punishable by law in most States.
I personally would not call a company that is OK with false advertising clever and ambitious…other choice words come to mind! :no: As to why it raises so many hackles…spending your hard earned money on a product because of the “specific” claims made about the product, and then finding out the money has gone to waste, potentially damaging a horses back, which can lead to chiropractic and massage therapy bills. Not to mention saddle fitting bills and potential vet bills. Many veterinarians and top equine practitioners theorize that up to 90% of all front end lameness may be as a result of a poor fitting saddle.
As with everything in life, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. Why should claims of “saddle will fit every horse” be any different? People believe those claims, of whatever, product, because they want “it” to be the answer to all their problems, and they don’t want to have to actually think about what they are really looking for.
I wonder what people would think if a saddle company said their saddles fit every rider?
[QUOTE=JB;3974842]
Sure they do. Most treeless makers say this. CWD even says it - they say their flexible tree points will adjust to fit any horse.[/QUOTE]
JB, please PM me with the name of the rep who said that. Somebody needs a refreshing on their training!
I’ve never heard such nonsense in the 4 years that I’ve worked here and this is not what we teach the reps either.
The CWD tree point is made of flexible material and gives more freedom of movement to the horses’ shoulders over the jumps. This is a fact. It doesn’t mean the saddle fit every horse and no CWD representative should say so.
Thanks for sharing the interesting info. If you let me know who said this nonsense, I will make sure to talk to the rep ASAP.
Thanks
Amandine
Office manager
i was interested in a tad coffin saddle, emailed the company, tried to get in touch multiple times - and never got a single response. i moved on to Antares, ADORE my saddle and Antares customer service as well - and have never looked back.
just wanted to share that experience because i was really amazed that i was making an effort to give them my money, lol, and they could not make the effort to return a single email or phone call! i shudder to imagine what the customer service must be like if that’s how they handle potential sales! lol
Read the rest of my post and cut saddlers some slack!
To the posters who pounced on my defense of innovative saddlers, I think you ought to reread the whole thing.
I think saddlers are trying hard with innovative designs and materials to fit moving horses and riders better, and that our standards are getting higher. That’s all great and thanks, in part, to savvy, caring horse owners.
But more to the point, I don’t think the line between salesmanship and lying is clear at all. You can find consumers and professional saddle fitters in vehement and reasoned disagreement about when a given saddle officially fits. So it would be exceedingly difficult to establish some universal standard that might be used to separate fair from false advertising. Best of luck getting your better business bureau or whatever agency to decide whether or not a saddle actually does fit!
But vote with your wallet. So long as consumers are ready to buy expensive saddles on a seller’s say so-- no matter who it is-- saddle companies will still keeping making them. If you educate yourself and raise your own standards, things will sort themselves out.
That must be rare, because I’ve dealt with Tad in that I just wanted him to add D’s to the side of my saddle and he was very responsive.
I think there are a few people on this board that just have their panties in a bunch because they bought the Tad, expected it to do magical things, and it didn’t (and they post on every thread about the TC saddles, and bash them). I have a Tad, love it. I know how to fit a saddle and it fits most, but not all the horses in our barn. Anyone going in has to know that it can’t fit ALL horses. Even with that sort of sale pitch. You aren’t going to with a false advertising case, because honestly, if someone tells you they’ll sell you ocean front property in Montana, are you gonna buy it just because they says it’s so even if it’s impossible??
I sort of find it necessary to point out that Tad Coffin was actually partly responsible for the idea of the wider gullet and additonal clearance for the spinous process. The Tad Coffin Equilibrium that crosby made was one of the first commercial saddles to offer a wider gullet and panels for the horse’s comfort.
2 Likes
I think if one of the few that just traded in my CWD SE03 for a New Tad Coffin A5 with the new theta tree. After using the theta tree demo on my 2 OTTB’s one with advanced kissing spine who is semi retired now, due to the disease and a young fresh off the track. The difference I. The attitude and way my horses moved in the saddles who no comparison. They were so much more comfortable. On a side note I had my CWD’s fit checked twice a year to ensure it fit well.
Yes the Tad is less cushy but I didn’t find it uncomfortable. But the response my horses had to it is what made me switch.
Just an FYI, you commented on a thread from 2009 (ten years ago).
I myself ride in a TC A5 that I bought used. Fits my horses great and fits me well too. Been very happy with it.
I had a friend who is an advanced beginner get one because the barn where she takes lessons requires them if you want to ride a school horse in your own saddle. She came out and was riding one of my horses that just needed exercise and she couldn’t hold her position, had issues with getting behind the motion at the trot along with other things. She said that the saddle actually hurt her. I got in it and had the same feeling you did. If felt like a wide block of wood was at my crotch. I didn’t last 5 minutes in it.
1 Like
When I was riding for a tad devotee in Florida, I referred to them as the it’s ok, I didn’t want to have kids anyway saddles. Thank God when I moved to Europe I rode in Doda’s saddle, otherwise I wouldn’t have my son :lol:
3 Likes
