|
-
4th July 12, 09:45 AM
#31
 Originally Posted by Tobus
Heels down, Jamie! Heels down!
OK, since we're posting pics, here's the one I've posted before. I don't know how Ron manages to tuck his pleats before sitting, but when you mount bareback (as I am here), you get what you get. And there's no standing in the stirrups to adjust pleats. So mine end up behind me, with me riding... uh... 'close contact'.

It may not be comfortable but it sure looks sexy!
I myself have retrieved my brother-in-law's horse many many times in my nightgown and I've got to say I think bare back is much comfier when you don't have pants handy.
This post is a natural product made from Recycled electrons. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
-
-
4th July 12, 12:50 PM
#32
Ummm, I just sort of stand in the stirrups and sweep the pleats - much like in a car or sitting down in a chair.
Ol' Macdonald himself, a proud son of Skye and Cape Breton Island
Lifetime Member STA. Two time winner of Utilikiltarian of the Month.
"I'll have a kilt please, a nice hand sewn tartan, 16 ounce Strome. Oh, and a sporran on the side, with a strap please."
-
-
10th July 12, 06:41 PM
#33
Had an unplanned ride on an Irish Conemara named "Spooky" about 7 years ago, in a 19th century English cavalry type saddle. It was...Well, I lived. For those unfamilier with the late English cavalry variety, see photo below (the one I was on didn't have the slot full length). Observations-I hate western saddles, and cannot imagine sitting one kilted. The insides of your legs chafe-doesn't matter what variety of saddle you use. Steer with the reins if at all possible, unless the mount is exceptionally receptive to knee steering. If you sit upon your kilt, beware sliding on a smooth seated saddle. If you do not sit upon your kilt, beware sliding on a sweaty bum.
Last edited by Mark E.; 10th July 12 at 07:38 PM.
A pitchfork is a polearm too!
-
-
10th July 12, 07:56 PM
#34
Mark, that's actually a U.S. "McClellan" Cavalry Saddle. I belive it's a Model 1904 which was produced in quantity for WWI. The McClellan was introduced during the Civil War and went through a number of modifications through the years, but was an excellent Cavalry saddle and remained in service until the Cavalry was dismounted at the dawn of WWII. I rode a McClellan as a horse mounted Deputy Sheriff a few years back and they're still in service with a number of police mounted units.
Sorry, I didn't intend a thread hijack so to bring it back on track I still don't recommend riding in a kilt regardless of the saddle!
Mike Nugent
Riamh Nar Dhruid O Spairn Lann
-
-
10th July 12, 08:03 PM
#35
Well, the one I sat had British markings from the Boer War (1880-81), and the central gap was only halfway to the back. SO...could have been a similar model. Illustration was for rational, not an exact representation. I am still trying to figure out how to build one of the durn things.
Thanks for the clarification (maybe now can properly google the model!), and will agree with the no kilts and horses mix.
A pitchfork is a polearm too!
-
-
11th July 12, 01:50 PM
#36
On a point of clarification, Mark E, the Boer War (so-called) of 1880-81 is formally described in South Africa as the First Anglo-Boer War or, in Afrikaans, die Eerste Vryheidsoorlog.
It involved only the Transvaal (or the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek, as the Boer protagonists preferred to calll it) and Great Britain.
The Second Anglo-Boer War (Tweede Vryheidsoorlog) involved both the ZAR and the Oranje Vrij Staat, and began in 1899.
It ended with the annexation of the two republics by Britain as the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal Colony, annexations later denounced by the League of Nations as being illegal. (General Jan Smuts motivated for the resolution.)
Regards,
Mike
The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life.
[Proverbs 14:27]
-
-
11th July 12, 02:41 PM
#37
 Originally Posted by Mike_Oettle
On a point of clarification, Mark E, the Boer War (so-called) of 1880-81 is formally described in South Africa as the First Anglo-Boer War or, in Afrikaans, die Eerste Vryheidsoorlog.
It involved only the Transvaal (or the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek, as the Boer protagonists preferred to calll it) and Great Britain.
The Second Anglo-Boer War (Tweede Vryheidsoorlog) involved both the ZAR and the Oranje Vrij Staat, and began in 1899.
It ended with the annexation of the two republics by Britain as the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal Colony, annexations later denounced by the League of Nations as being illegal. (General Jan Smuts motivated for the resolution.)
Regards,
Mike
You betcha, Mr. South Africa-I won't dispute your expertise in the slightest. Most of us ingnorant Yankees gonna keep calling it the Boer War #1, though. 
Moral of my initial posting-If yer gonna try and ride a horse in a kilt, do it on a saddle with appropriate architecture!
Also, a lot of us over here in the con-federal states call the American civil war the War of Yankee Agression.
Last edited by Mark E.; 11th July 12 at 02:45 PM.
A pitchfork is a polearm too!
-
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks