This past summer clients took their “4 in hand” (+1) of Friesians for a 6 week trip to New England to drive with friends along the way in PA, NJ, NY, VT, and RI. Prior to leaving I made them a full set of extra shoes with studs that a farrier along the way could use to reshoe them. I had no vested interest in having my shoes used but was trying to make life easier for a busy farrier confronted with 5 Friesians that might have to be shod NOW.
They returned home with new shoes put on by a very competent farrier who by the looks of his shoes sees a lot of warmblood sport horses. These horses were shod accordingly. I am told that he looked at my shoes and opted to make his own. My suspicion is that he thought that my shoes were fairly straight through the quarters and if he provided a bit more width the feet would take on a bit more pleasing shape.
The point of this thread is that you have to fit the foot that you have. The Friesians that I shoe (+/-25 of them) by and large have feet that are rather straight through the quarters.
-The first photo is a comparison of the removed front shoe and the trimmed hoof
- Second photo is of the boxing he did on the shoes to accommodate the extra width
- Third photo is reset reshaped shoe.\
- Last is fuzzy hind comparison.
Due to fact that the shoes were shaped to the farrier’s ideal rather than the actual hoof the nails didn’t line up over the white line with the result that hoof through the quarters split away. I am sure that when he finished shoeing the horse, with all of the highlighted boxing , the feet looked outstanding. Fast forward five weeks and they didn’t look so great. One of the five had rounder feet and was shod with well shaped shoes. As many have pointed out it is all in the trim and the Fit.

Jay,
do ya have a pic of the last farriers nailed up job

smitty88 wrote:
Sorry I don't. Only had cell phone and didn't think to take photos until the shoes were off. I had seen one or two of the horses 2 weeks earlier when they first returned and they appeared well shod.

Jay, I was really bummed out your folks called me with a single horse to do and would bring the team down the following week to do them all. The next phone call I got they said a guy closer to them came in and did the whole team. Still have yet to ever shoe a Friesan, but was looking forward to shoeing yours as I knew their feet would be kept up nice. I have heard before about Farriers that simply will not reset another guys work and alot of times I understand that. Today I reset a horse new to a barn I work in, it was almost like a clinic how a shoe should be shaped and fit to a foot, some of the best work I have ever seen, I actually learned alot from just resetting it. I think alot of times people get away with the type of work you described, because the horses they shoe just don't work hard enough to smash it apart. If he had them for an entire season he would probably learn to shoe the foot he trimmed.

Jim,
Sorry that you didn't to do the guys. They are such gentleman to shoe. I agree with what you say about learning to shoe to hoof over time.

I remember back in my early days (60's)when I first caught one behind a master. The gentleman's name was Bill Cabus (sp) from Topeka, Kansas. I still remember being amazed to take the shoes off, trim an even amount and put them back. Absolutely nothing to fix or change. I realized how much I had to learn. Much better to reset his than my own at that time.

Jack Evers wrote:
That's exactly what I am talking about Jack. Shoe just fell right back onto the hoof, nails all just ended up where you wish they would, nicely pulled clips set flush in the wall with the slightest burn. Was not even a brand of shoe I liked when I tried some out last summer. I guess it was a gentle reminder I still have a ways to go.

I carried 20 or so Friesians on my books in the past and all of them had the straight quarters. They look more like hind feet. I always joked they had cookie cutter feet because all 4 looked a lot alike. But they were some of the nicest horses to work on. Stood real nice and had nice feet.

As you guys know I'm from Holland. That's the country those black horses come from. And yes although I always tried to avoid it as much as I could I shod more Friesians than I like to remember.

One thing to note is that nails are needed only to attach the shoe to the foot. That is there only function. The nail holes should never determine the shape of the shoe!

What we have here is a classical showcase of both the mistakes I used to make. Jay your not entirely right, nor is that shoer that shod your Friesians.

A shoe should support the leg (the leg, not just the foot) evenly and symmetrically. Nails must be placed in the white line (actually a tiny tad away from it, but forget about that). Your shoes align the nail holes nicely with the white line. Your shoes do not support the leg evenly and symmetrically. (Well I don't know for a fact I'd have to see more, but I hope you'll get my drift here). The shoes made by the other shoer may well support the leg in a more even and symmetrical way than your shoes. But he messes up the wall big time by nailing into it in stead of into the white line.

Your take home message: shoe around the COA, try and get the shoe as symmetrical as you can, box and save where needed, AND RE PUNCH where needed. If you do that you have the best of both your shoeing and his shoeings!


Ronald Aalders

p.s. I was trying to find a pic of a re punched shoe, but you know how a re punched shoe looks like right?

Ron,
I am not clear about the point that you are trying to make re. this particular shoeing and/or shoeing in general. The mention of repunching and the allusion to the perhaps better fit of the original shoeing leads me to believe that you would fit the shoe wider than the hoof and repunch it. If so to what end in a hoof that by and large is rather symmetrical? To provide a broader base of support? Perhaps you are referring to AP shoe placement? Always interested in your perspective.

Well, in short I would not simply follow the shape of the white line when shaping shoes for this foot. My shoes would not have really straight quarters 'though the foot has pretty straight quarters. That shape would obviously imply that proper nail placement is impossible. So I would have decided to punch a nail hole or two per shoe to allow proper nail placement.

That's what I was trying to say


Ronald Aalders

Ron,
I now understand what you would have done, but I am unsure why. This hoof shape to me seems to be genetic and not much susceptible to manipulation through shoeing. What is the purpose of making the shoe wider and how would you determine the amount of additional width and the shape of it?

jay;
It is possible that the solar view of the hoof is not necessarily what you want to shoe to.
You did not have a shot of the shape and conformation of the hoof at the coronary band and below.
This proximal aspect of the hoof will let you see the true shape of PIII.
It is appropriate to impose symetery on to bottom of the hoof since the hoof will remodel to the proper conformation over time.
Hope you are well. Good to see that you are still working at it.
Jack Millman

Bryan McElwee wrote:
Jay Mickle wrote:
afajmmcjf wrote:
I understand what you say and I agree. These Friesians, however, seem to have have hoof shape dictated by genetics that I am unlikely to alter. I will take hoof conformation photos of the horse next shoeing. Good to hear from you.

Ronald Aalders wrote:
Respectfully, I would have to disagree. In my own opinion I think Jay is right on here.