Say you have a horse that is 16.1 tall. Now, say you have that exact same horse, but it is 15.3. I’m not looking for the pros and cons or anything, but I’m looking for what you would say the difference in price would be. Let’s go easy. Say the 16.1 horse’s fair market value is 5,000. Remember, we are assuming these two horses are identical otherwise. What would you value the 15.3 horse at? Again, say that the 16.1 horse is valued correctly. Or if it is easier, use a percentage.
Thanks.
Need more information to offer a useful assessment.
Is the horse a hunter? Jumper? Eq horse?
How is the horse built? Does the 15.3 hand horse take up a lot of leg?
What sort of strides do they have?
In general I’d pay more for the 15.3 hand horse IF - big IF - it had a longer stride than the “taller” horse, assuming it was pretty deep through the heart girth and took up enough of my leg for me to not look ridiculous. And that is coming from someone who generally prefers a taller horse.
It will be interesting to see what people have to say about it and whether the percentage change is difference as the base price increases or as the discipline changes.
A good horse is a good horse, regardless of height. However, I would imagine that for some disciplines like the equitation, I assume 16:1 would carry a premium over the same horse at 15:3 since riders of varying height could look good on the taller horse.
Both would value the same in this hypothetical example. Horses are identical in all aspects including step and scope.
Thats assuming they gave been sticked and actually are the stated height. Lots advertised at 16, 16.1 actually measure closer to 15.3. In some cases, like a Junior Hunter, the Smalls go for more then the Larges.
However, if both these horses are unstarted? The larger would likely price up over the smaller since there is no proof the 15.3 one has the same step and scope as the 16.1 horse is likely to have.
IME if you get below 15.3 there is more of a size bias because it becomes more likely the step and scope are not there. IMO, the 1 or 2 inch difference here is not going to make a huge difference in suiting a rider. Now, if you go 16.2 +, different ball game.
At 5,000 no difference. Once you get to 50,000 you may see the slightly smaller one going for more if it’s a top of the line small jr. It also depends on how much leg it will take up. The difference is minimal until you get way up in price and even then it’s almost inconsequential. For example, I know a large jr who recentally got measured down when they changed smalls to under 16 hands. His old card was at 16 3/4. They raised asking price from 115 to 130, but some of the change may also have to do with it winning a year end award.
Thanks, all, so far.
Seriously, this is hypothetical. What if you got this average horse as a resale project? Would you say the same thing? Since it’s fictitious, I can’t tell you about getting down the lines. 
But say it’s just a general average horse. Is there any value to that 16.1 versus 15.3? Again, thanks for the input, all.
I do understand what you all are saying though. I know it depends on the horse and the rider. I just was wondering if there is a general consensus that a taller horse is worth more, the rest being equal. Why would one buy the shorter horse if the taller one was just as nice? We’re talking the general riding public. I know some riders LIKE shorter horses, but does the general riding public?
Thanks.
In a hypothetical resale, I would opt for 16.1 because many people THINK they need a horse that is bigger, and hence you would get more interest. The price, though, would remain the same for the two heights.
While I think it’s nonsensical, the average lower to mid level sporthorse will sell for more $ if it’s 16.1 instead of 15.3. I’d hazard about 1/4 of it’s price as a possible difference.
Of course there are niche markets and educated buyers who would defy this trend.
For resale, the 16.1H horse will be worth more than the 15.3H horse as a general rule. However, in your example, at a $5000 price point, they probably would be pretty equal, but you would put your asking price for the 16.1H one about a thousand higher than the 15.3H one…I probably wouldn’t price the 15.3H one below $5000, but would ask $6000 for the 16.1H one.
I think it’s more the 17h+ range that tends to spike the price.
Most 15.3 horses are advertised as 16.1, so I’d say there’s no noticeable price difference there.
Thanks, all. Sounds like, if anything, the 16.1 horse might just sell quicker because the market is bigger.
Many older adult amateurs (in any discipline) might be willing to pay more for the 15.3 than for the 16.1. Easier to groom, tack up, and - especially -mount. :o :sadsmile:
If you have a choice and are buying an average horse strictly for resale? The 16.1 horse might sell faster to an average buyer but may not get a penny more for it, just generate more traffic. Buyers tend to gravitate to the 16h+ category…which is why most 15.3 horses are advertised as 16 hands anyway. And live their lives listed an inch or more taller then they really are because nobody measures them.
I did measure most of my leased and owned horses since getting into Hunters. The 16.2 was barely over 16, both 16 handers were 15.3, the 15.3 was 15.2. Only the one advertised as 16.1 was actually 16.1 and had the ASHA card to prove it, he was a former Large Junior and had been measured.
Think 2" is not such a huge deal in horses. It’s ginormous in Ponies and it does represent a greater percentage of total height with less height to start with.
When shopping I would be more likely to trust that the 16.1 hand horse was 16+, whereas it seems 15.3 hand horses are more often to be under 15.3 but just advertised as such to be marketable.
When selling I have definitely found anything over 16 hands is easier to get people to look at, regardless of the size of rider that can look good on the horse.
So not sure the value would be different, but I think the taller horse would be easier to sell.
It’s really hard to say. I think a 15.3 hand horse with a kid/petite adult ammy temperament is going to be easy to sell, just the same as a 16.1 hand horse with the same qualities. Likewise, between two horses with a proven show record, I think the 15.3 hand size wouldn’t cause much of a discount. There are a lot of petite riders out there who have come to the realization that they look better and ride better on a more suitably sized horse, and nice horses in the smaller size range can be hard to find. Plus, there isn’t going to be much difference in stride length between two horses with two inches of height difference.
However, if it is a more difficult horse, a horse with other flaws, or an upper level competition prospect, I think the 15.3 hand horse would be harder to sell.
I will also add that it depends on your market! 15.3h will go for more money marketed towards someone concerned with getting them to measure as a small junior where as 16.1 is going to generally appeal to more people in a local market.
My OTTB was being advertised by an A circuit trainer and marketed as “15.3 3/4.” Clearly she was thinking small junior hunter (and he does have a huge stride and a lot of scope.) But for the local resell market mentality of “bigger is better”, I would advertise him as 16+ or “should mature to over 16 hands” since I think he will grow maybe one more inch.
If they are the EXACT same horse across every other qualifier one uses when horse shopping… absolutely zero value difference for me. Same step? Same jump? Same brain? NBD (and I’m very long legged).
Assuming they truly are the EXACT same horse and can both EASILY make it down the lines, they should be worth the same amount. The catch is, some people won’t even come look at the 15.3hh horse. So, your pool of potential buyers will be smaller for the 15.3hh horse.
But, it is a good point that the 15.3hh horse will qualify as a small junior so perhaps your pool of potential buyers will just be DIFFERENT.
Thank you all.
This thread seems like a disconnect with reality, honestly. I wonder how many of you have successfully sold sub-16 hand horses for the same price you would if they were 16.2? It is great to hear you say that you like them just as much, but the reality is the market just isn’t there. And I say that with nothing but love in my heart for my 3 sub-16 hand TBs myself, so it’s not me with this bias. I don’t walk around thinking they are super valuable though. Inca has it right, most hunter/jumpers won’t even consider one.
I would love to be wrong! And hope I am. I also hope the success of small jumpers will change some minds about what you need to jump around (Via Volo, Myself de Breve, Oohlala, all tiny and it’s not a problem).
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
