Defining Quality

I’ve been reading a number of generic horse periodicals lately and am struck by some of the differences in content versus typical Morgan publications. One of the differences I’d noticed was the regularity of discussions on conformation in other publications. So I was really excited to see the feature in this month’s TMH on defining “quality” in Morgans. It is a bit of an elusive term. What did you think of the answers? And how would you define quality in a Morgan?

2 Responses to Defining Quality

  1. empressive says:

    Quality is trait(s) of superiority or excellence.

    In respect to terminology I will have to kindly disagree with the way in which the article deals with the word. Understand that this is my opinion. I believe that there are numerous “quality” individuals of each gender which separates them from others.

    Quality in horses is like gold, glass, or jewelry. There is a grade, karat, or clarity to these items that makes them “quality” by measure.

    There is though to me “more” after quality, a set of words that defines to me a grade above quality in the class of horses that, while animate objects beckons us back to the inanimate pieces I described before.

    An outstanding individual.

    Maybe more terminology than usual, but I do believe that the breeders mentioned in the magazine and others, across all breeds strive for quality, breed and many times get that quality animal. An animal that is not “run of the mill” or. What we are looking for is a higher level of quality that to me constitutes an outstanding individual.

    This individual is the epitome of what we are breeding for. Now agree to disagree, but quality can be measured. An outstanding individual cannot be measured which allows room for the aesthetic beauty that comprises “take your breath away”, “awesome”, “extreme”, “presence”, etc. Something that moves the heart, catches your eyes, and holds your attention.

    That’s not just “quality” to me, low or high end. That to me is something so much more.

    Oh and I have to add, an outstanding individual in my opinion is exactly that, an individual. That animal is not defined by its progeny as much as the progeny are the additions to the individual. Why? Because those outstanding individuals include, but are not limited to horses who have not reproduced and those who cannot. I find that we look for that outstanding mark on young horses we look at when considering breeding. Or any time we consider breeding for that matter.

  2. RaeOfLight says:

    I agree empressive that the answers in this article were a bit disappointing. Many responses were along the lines of “I’ll know it when I see it” with very little quantifiable statements. Why do you think this is? Are we hesitant to mention certain traits or criticize flaws? Are we hesitant to go out on a limb and say what we really think? (Based on recent discussions that I know are happening in other places I doubt this is the case) Or, more frightening, are we uneducated as to what makes a good horse or a good Morgan?

Leave a Reply