Skip to main content

Due to decreasing use over the years, I have decided to disable the forum functionality of the site.

Forums will still be available to view but new posts are no longer allowed.

In a previous post...

It was brought up that a certain colt may have been varnish instead of few spot. I was under the impression that few spots where born and varnish happened with age. I'd like to hear opinions on this.

peruvianpasogal Tue, 03/17/2009 - 22:14

Varnish does take time but it can mess up foal coat colors. My colt was born varnishing and was varnished out by 4 yo.

NZ Appaloosas Wed, 03/18/2009 - 01:00

Varnish removes colour in fleshy parts, leaves colour "dumps" in bony parts (hip point, thin parts of leg, cheeks, bridge of nose, etc.). A totally varnished out appaloosa, if it has no spots, will look "dirty" with the few colour smudges left on it. A varnished out appaloosa, who has spots, looks like this

[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h116/…]

Diane

rabbitsfizz Wed, 03/18/2009 - 11:48

Badger face???
Yes, I have had foals born white, with Varnish on the knees and...I think...the face.
Sorry, long time since I have actually bred Appies (as opposed to had them happen!!) but I have had two foals born, both Red based males, that were almost pure white at birth, and neither actually could have been Fewspot.

NZ Appaloosas Wed, 03/18/2009 - 18:17

:sabino Ahh, but when sabino jumps into the mix, you can get false fewspots and snowcaps. Plus, if these were minis, Rabbit--all bets are off! :laugh1

Now, you say that they could not be fewspot--based on what? Were you 100% sure that there was a non-Lp carrying parent? Remember, Lp [i]can[/i] hide, otherwise the AQHA wouldn't have registered half a dozen appaloosa-marked QHs once they removed their white restrictions. There's one called Reminic In Spots (or something like that) that apparently has quite a lovely blanket with spots...I've not seen a picture of him, but he's "appaloosa enough" for some people to think he should be allowed ApHC papers (altho' apparently his owners are more interested in his QH papers).

As for other, more well known, "hidden" appaloosas--Wapiti, Cooterville Norrel's Little Red (registered with AQHA as Brown Buck, IIRC, and had was bred as a QH stallion until he roaned out to spots at the age of 8, when he had a name and registry change...), the Riker horse (whose proper name is dodging my every attempt to pin it down...), and if I'm not mistaken Joker B as well--we'll leave Colida out of the mix since there's a belief of fence jumping there.

Diane

accphotography Wed, 03/18/2009 - 19:52

You have GOT to be kidding me!!!??? I have an acquaintance who has a full blown leopard from two AQHA parents and he was DENIED registration even after parentage verification and after the white rule change!!! *thud*

NZ Appaloosas Wed, 03/18/2009 - 20:51

Tell them to try again (or check with ApHC, since I'm not 100% sure how the discussion went this weekend regarding the issue of definitely-appy-marked QHs). I believe DNA PVing is required for both, and that this is something that just happened within the past few months (year?) with AQHA.

Barring that, if the leopard spotted QH is a gelding, he can always be hardshipped with ApHC, which might be a less-expensive route to choose.

More than having pictures, do you have pedigree? I'd be curious to see where the one you're talking about, ACC, has his appy-ness hidden...

Diane

accphotography Wed, 03/18/2009 - 21:20

He is a gelding, and he is hardshipped ApHC.

I don't have his pedigree and I only have one photo:
[img]http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.com/pi…]

Diane you may know of him or the person who bought him (who is heavily into Apps and is only the App Project's website alot).

This is what was said about him:

[quote]We didn't buy him for his AQHA bloodlines (which aren't spectacular but are decent for a working/using horse), we bought him for his Appyness as I knew we could ApHC Hardship him, once gelded. His breeders told me that they had been in contact with AQHA when he was foaled and were told that the sire and/or dam could loose their AQHA papers IF they sent in to TRY to register Jelly - Appaloosa not allowed! After we got him, I was in contact with AQHA myself and basically they told me the same thing - as Jelly is obviously spotted - he ain't NO AQHA (AQHAX).[/quote]

[quote]Jelly has no AQHAX papers because he is appaloosa characteristic/pattern. Period! According to AQHA when I talked to them [b]a year and a half ago[/b].! I didn't buy him to get an "AQHAX" but bought him because he is an "appaloosa".

If DNA had been done/could be done according to what AQHA told me then a lot of other horses would have lost their AQHA papers if it was proven Jelly is AQHAX and a dreaded appaloosa. [/quote]

I was mistaken, DNA was not done because AQHA point blank told them not to or many horses would be losing their papers.

NZ Appaloosas Wed, 03/18/2009 - 21:44

Yeah, that sounds like it was definitely done prior to the AQHA loosening up even more--that's only been within the last 12 months, max. Basically, they opened a can of worms when they decided to rescind their excessive white rule...everyone thought it would be just the paint-patterned horses that would want AQHA papers, but...

The reason why I was interested in the pedigree was to see if I could find the "missing" appaloosa. From what I have seen, these "cropups"seem to pretty much all have one thing in common--a "roan" mare in the background. Would be interesting to see if this guy has the same thing.

I'm not sure if I know these people, but the name "Jelly" does ring a bell, albeit somewhat dimly at the mo'.

Diane