# Foundation type



## Norah

Can someone please post some photos of Foundation type shetlands from USA, that are still in USA ? . I would like to see a true Foundation , not mixed with any other breed . I would also like to compare it with my Classic ... also if you have a finer boned classic and a heavier boned classic but still a classic ...id like to see that too . and same goes with a foundation. just trying to educate myself , I want to know in my mind the exact difference between the 2 ... same goes with a classic looking modern ... can you also write what you have , so I know what I am looking at ?

Thanks for educating me : ) and sharing your pretty horses


----------



## muffntuf

Good pics on ASPF.


----------



## Lewella

Foundation is first pedigree, then height, then type. To be Foundation a pony must FIRST be eligible for Foundation certification (4 generations of no B papered ponies in its pedigree). Second to show Foundation a pony MUST be 42" and under. Then comes correct type, a Foundation pony should have more bone and substance than other Classics. You are friends with Holly on Facebook correct? She posted a photo in the last couple of days of a 3 year old mare named Plattes Revelation. She IMO is a beautiful example of Foundation type (and the judges always seem to think so too!). Very balanced, smooth bodied, still shows refinement but has a little more bone. Her dam also did very well in Foundation halter (Hopwood's Silver Peace Rose) as did a half sister (Plattes Pictograph) who are both on my website.


----------



## Minimor

I would post that photo here Lewella but I can't do it from my phone and I havent been on my PC inthree days! Maybe later tonight...


----------



## Leeana

This is a foundation mare we've been showing this year, this is Graham's Painted Pearl she is by Graham's Noble Prince (Town & Country Noble Cat x Red Rock Bullseye Taffy Lee) and out of a mare that is foundation bred but most would not reconize the breeding on that half. She is 42" and just completed her Halter HOF (took just over a month of showing to complete her hof). To me she is a foundation mare, just a real stylish one. She raised a colt last year and showed this year and will be bred back after Congress to one of my stallions. She is real nice and as foundation as they come, yet upright and pretty and hooky. Just not nearly as exteme as some of the classics we are showing.


----------



## Norah

these are all very pretty Foundations .... and suprisingly more refined then I thought ...Thank you for sharing ..... then what are the really heave boned horses .... and what about the heavy boned horses without Foundation certification ?


----------



## Norah

ok another question ... these are my mares both classic , one obviously nicer then the other , but I like them both .... the "hackney" looking one is a "very very fine bones Classic " ?


----------



## Minimor

Here is the photo of Reva:






More later!


----------



## Minimor

IMO this mare, Dora, is very Classic:






This mare, Ava, is also a Classic, but I don’t see her as being quite the show pony that Dora is—she is a little bigger bodied/bigger boned—a very nice mare, but I suspect that the majority of judges will prefer a slightly more refined mare.






This is Zoom (LMJ Who’s Zoomin’ Who) my 3 year old Foundation gelding.  This fellow is much too chubby in these photos, but he is an ideal Foundation pony.   Even fit he is a solid built pony—he has more bone than Reva pictured above, yet he is not heavy boned.  He is a very pretty mover—lots of extension, and he can pick his knees up nicely.











And this is Tim, my Classic gelding who needs only 5 more points to finish his Classic halter HOF:






To answer the questions above—what about the heavy boned ponies, and in particular what about the heavy boned ponies that are too tall for Foundation (or who simply do not qualify for a seal).  In my view, a very heavy boned pony probably isn’t a candidate for halter showing.  There may be some judges who like heavy built ponies, but in the judges I have seen so far mostly seem to prefer the finer built ones.  If the pony fits into Foundation then more bone is acceptable, but even there I would say there are limits—Foundation ponies are meant to have more substance, but that doesn’t mean they are to be coarse or big boned.  If your pony is big boned and too tall for Foundation it is likely that he will not be a successful Classic show pony.  There may be some performance classes he can be competitive in—jumper or hunter, obstacle driving, carriage driving, depending on his exact build and the sort of movement he has he may do okay in the regular driving classes.  It will depend on where you show—what your competition is—and who is judging.  Owners have to realize, though, that not every pony or horse is meant to be a show horse.

There are others here who are more qualified than I am to answer your questions so I won’t say more!


----------



## disneyhorse

It's my understanding that when the first Shetlands were imported to the USA, they selected the finer boned ponies with the intent of making them fancy little carriage horses. So since they started with refined stock and then bred towards refinement, the American Shetland is far removed from the native island ponies in Europe, and although some are hefty, the desired show ponies are never coarse.


----------



## Lewella

Here's a great example of an early refined pony - registration #4 in the ASPC back in the 1880's.


----------



## paintponylvr

Norah -

I wanted to comment on this one.

My "wants" for a Foundation pony do run to the heavier boned pony. I LOVE the ponies that Holly/Lewella have - haven't managed to go that route yet. I always seem to go a slightly different way when doing my purchasing, LOL.

Just got back from Congress and I don't think I saw any two ponies showing in the Foundation Division that looked the same - except for many that I personally felt should have been in the Classic classes (except that that can be taken as "...you're just upset because your colt placed 3rd..." and I'm not!). However, can't complain as my less refined and much heavier built YEARLING did extremely well - placing 1st in his yearling class, Reserve Champion Jr Foundation stallion & Reserve Champion Foundation stallion overall. Several folks were upset that he placed third in the Futurity - but that's OK. He works for me and I'm thinking that he is EXACTLY what I need/wanted to cross back to some of my more refined Foundation mares. I believe he will add just a bit of extra pretty too! We'll have to wait and see if he does what I think he will - but I've seen these ponies do what I want when crossed with the bloodlines I have in my mares...

I'm still learning what is "acceptable" for the showring vs what might be "true" Foundation, too. And I have two fillies that don't qualify as Foundation due to having Captains' Showman in their pedigress - close up (either he or his sire is a "B" registered Shetland). BUT they sure won't show as Classics!! One also has a winning Modern (as a foal) sire and a winning Modern Grandsire - both from Taylor pony farm breeding - but again - she's a Foundation in my opinion. We'll see - she might "clean up" to go as a Classic. She's two this year and has just started her basic "heavy harness" training for driving as a pair/3 abreast & 4 abreast farm/working hitch with her dam and aunt and several other ponies I have. I don't have any decent photos of her - though got several today - she's standing up under herself rather than either square or slightly stretched (she was tied at her feed bucket).

At Congress, I saw several Modern mares & stallions that I wondered about! They had b-u-tiful bodies and heavier frames and more substancial legs. They had "cute", short "pony" heads - not the longer straighter profiled "hackney" head (though weren't dished). I wonder now how they would cross on some of my Foundation type mares - briinging in more bone, substance - but w/o the extravagant and higher movement (which I don't want!). Again - I'm very new at this game and will be asking more questions overall of the many long time breeders of Shetlands... Also, the type that I personally like may be off standard for the actual Foundation Shetland...

Here is MY picture of our colt. To see his pro pics that I haven't received yet (I'm only ordering 3 - don't like most of them & have other things to purchase) - go to https://www.caseymcbridephotography.com/ and look at Class 5 (Tues morning), 121 - last morning class Wed), 126, 128 & 129 - Wed afternoon. You can also see what was shown and what won/placed - in those judges opinions. I was disappointed not to see more Foundation ponies. (there were 21 fillies in the WEANLING combined Foundation/Classic Futurity class, not sure how many carried thru in the other classes - seemed the older they got - the smaller the numbers!).






He is related to Leanna's ponies on the topside (Grahams' Pony Farm breeding) and is 100 % Arenosa breeding on the bottom. The Graham's had ponies winning some of the first Foundation Classes at Congress IF I'm remembering right? Not sure about that! He looks very pretty and "araby type" at this angle, but very stocky built, less "araby" in his pro pics. Pretty amazing to me to see this in the various photos and now I REALLY UNDERSTAND why folks say take photos in different position and see how they look in each - then decide how to pose them in the ring!

Here is a filly that I really LIKE. She didn't make it to Congress, but she is Foundation, Futurity nominated. She is from my breeding program. She will go to two more shows in TX this year, I will make some decisions about her and we'll aim for Congress next year... She "tickles" my fancy and her full sister is built like a Sherman tank! I will have clipped photos of the 2012 full sister in a couple of weeks... Where I personally fault this filly (she's a yearling) and where I feel I WILL HAVE to be CAREFUL with my future breeding choices - is she lacks substance AND muscling in her legs. She's built like I love them to be built (and a little on the hefty side?) up in her body - she moves the way I like (or did - didn't really see her move when I took these photos at the barn she's at) - but she's standing a little lite in her "underpinning". For me, that's a problem! She does, however, stand with a leg at each corner and they are straight. She also moves straight... Stepping underself and into her front hoofprint at a walk, and slighly in front at a trot... I personally feel she has both too much heel and too much toe, but that is where she is at the trainers barn right now. We'll see how she does... AND she has a wonderful personality - which as an amature owner/breeder and a family oriented handler (with two new granddaughters) that is also VERY important and ties into our choices.




and





Here is an unclipped photo of her full sister - studying the photo - she, too, is "lite in her underpinning"... Again, we'll see in the future how these two do in the showring as well as in the breeding shed after I DRIVE them. They are not as refined in the throatlatch as most like - but they work for me. That may be "cleaned up" depending on what they are bred to in the future...


----------



## chandab

Paula,

I very much like all three of hte horses you posted pics of.


----------



## paintponylvr

Thanks, Chanda!

Are you anywhere near Wolf Point? When I visited my mom & stepdad in 1992/1993 they lived in Wolf Point and I seem to recall a bunch of Minis in that area. Wish I'd stopped and talked to folk then but it would be at teh end of my visit that my Stepdad would have my 3 yr old daughter in with him while caring for a full size Paint horse stallion and he reared over the top of my daughter. I grew up around horses and am not normally faint of heart but that was more than I could deal with. I wasn't yet into the Minis, tho... It would be two years before I purchased my first Shetlands (still have the daughter of the first pair and she's produced two mini sized Foundation shetlands, too).

Those two fillies pictured above are sired by the silver dapple spot in my avatar. He, known as "Iggy" - registered as All That Style N Class - was shown as a Classic and earned his HOF as a youngster. I know that he was shown in 2000 and 2001 (2 & 3 yrs of age). Not sure when he earned his HOF. He's a small and very refined pony. Thinking about seeing if he'd measure in as a B Mini.


----------



## chandab

paintponylvr said:


> Thanks, Chanda!
> 
> Are you anywhere near Wolf Point?


Yes, I am. I live 50 miles NW of Wolf Point out in the boonies. Most of the time, even people in state don't know where Wolf Point is. [i lived in WP for about 5 years when I was a kid, then Dad's job transferred us to the other end of the state, after high school my dad retired and moved back to the general area to take over my Mom's parents farm. And, I moved back 13 years ago.]



> When I visited my mom & stepdad in 1992/1993 they lived in Wolf Point and I seem to recall a bunch of Minis in that area.


I think are a few minis still in the area, but I dn't think they are registered, but not certain. I've just seen a few driving down the road. I take it your mom and stepdad no longer live in this area? But, if they do and you visit, look me up, I'd love to visit.


----------



## cassie

what a great topic, has helped me alot with my mare... I never knew what foundation meant before now so thank you,

on my mare's papers it says she is foundation stock... but we are in Australia... so could it mean the same thing? or could it have a different meaning? sorry for being a bit dumb about it... here is a pic of her might help you decide





she is in total paddock condition and these are all natural photos no show photos as I haven't shown her yet... (still deciding if I will or not lol) what do you think?


----------



## Norah

Minimor said:


> Here is the photo of Reva:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More later!


Hi Renee , I see you the judging : )


----------



## Norah

cassie said:


> what a great topic, has helped me alot with my mare... I never knew what foundation meant before now so thank you,
> 
> on my mare's papers it says she is foundation stock... but we are in Australia... so could it mean the same thing? or could it have a different meaning? sorry for being a bit dumb about it... here is a pic of her might help you decide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she is in total paddock condition and these are all natural photos no show photos as I haven't shown her yet... (still deciding if I will or not lol) what do you think?
> 
> View attachment 10833
> 
> 
> View attachment 10834
> 
> 
> View attachment 10835
> 
> 
> View attachment 10836
> 
> 
> View attachment 10837
> 
> 
> View attachment 10838


How tall is she ? She looks to be about 33 inches , what are her registries?


----------



## cassie

Norah said:


> How tall is she ? She looks to be about 33 inches , what are her registries?


she is 36" she was registered AMHA (Australian version) by her previous owner, and I'm about to register her IMHR, I had never heard of the foundation stock before I saw it on her registration papers...

Her grand sire was coat O Chrome (dont know if you have heard of him...) he was an imported american stallion... so I don't know if that means anything...? still so new to this... :/


----------



## Norah

I thought foundation was an ASPC thing. Do you have ASPC papers on her or just AMHR.?


----------



## cassie

just AMHA... lol I'm so confused now LOL I'll msg a friend of mine who is big in the mini's here


----------



## JennyB

Concerning Foundation and Classic ponies there are big differences in each pony and bloodline. To be quote a "foundation pony" the pony must have all "A" ponies to the 4th generation. By the way the registry decided they would no longer put "A" or "B" designation on the papers...I personally would like to see the foundation and classic ponies shown square at the shows, BUT they all insist on parking out in one degree or another. That I can't do anything about....I like to see a more distinct difference between a Foundation pony and a Classic pony at the shows. What I see is Classics being shown as Foundations and Moderns shown as Classics. There are of course exceptions to the rule here as I am not saying they are all being shown wrong(again in my opinion).. I have some examples of what my perception of a Foundation pony should be with more body structure and more bone in the legs. Now these pictures are not ponies in the show ring, but standing natural or semi-natural. They might be lacking in neck and a prettier head, but what I am trying to show you is the basic body structure and leg bone.

=========

This first pony has the right amount of bone and body I like and what I consider MY ideal Foundation style pony. This pony is however not considered by the registry as a Foundation pony because his dam is a "B" pony which means her grandsire was a Hackney. This pony is an example of an extreme Foundation pony yet his great grandsire was a Hackney. Does he look like a Hackney..No






This second pony is also what I would call a Foundation pony and I am looking at the bone in the legs.






This third pony is also a Foundation pony and although I don't like the way the pony is posed, it has the correct body structure and bone that I like. This pony could also be shown Classic.






Okay now I need to post another one because it said I had posted too many pictures, so here is the next post


----------



## JennyB

This fourth pony is also a Foundation pony and has good body structure and leg bone. This pony could also be shown Classic






This fifth pony is also a Foundation pony and has good body structure and leg bone. This pony could also be shown as a classic.






This sixth pony is also a Foundation pony and has good body structure and leg bone. Again is stretched out. This is as far as I would like to see a Classic posed and but would rather see both Foundation and Classic squared up, especially squared for the Foundation classes and absolutely NO stretching what so ever.






This 7th pony is also a Foundation pony and could also be shown as a Classic, BUT this is the way I would like to see them be shown. Completely square. This shows their true conformation and would do away with the body flaw I feel is most seen and needs to be nipped is the slopping croup. Standing parking out hides this conformation fault and and others. The neck can be stretched slightly, but not too the extreme snakiness on the surrent show Arabians of today.






These are just a few examples of the ponies I consider to be of the Foundation type and what I would like to see more of in the show ring. This doesn't mean that the pictured ponies don't need conformation help in the body or legs. Again I was just trying to point out the basic body structure and bone in legs which I am not seeing much of in the show ring.

Also again this post is only My Opinion...

Thanks,

Jenny


----------



## cassie

what a great example Jenny, thank you for explaining, so with regards to my mare being foundation stock... I know its probably different for Australia... but is it due to the 4 generations A?

she is a heavier set mini to the type that are like here at the moment... but its very interesting about the foundation and classic. We do have classic classes here but haven't heard of foundation...

gorgeous ponies by the way


----------



## Minimor

I disagree that a stretched pose hides conformation faults. In truth it emphasizes some, particularly hind legs that are poorly set on or a poor croup.


----------



## JennyB

Well we can certainly agree to disagree


----------



## JennyB

cassie said:


> what a great topic, has helped me alot with my mare... I never knew what foundation meant before now so thank you,
> 
> on my mare's papers it says she is foundation stock... but we are in Australia... so could it mean the same thing? or could it have a different meaning? sorry for being a bit dumb about it... here is a pic of her might help you decide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> she is in total paddock condition and these are all natural photos no show photos as I haven't shown her yet... (still deciding if I will or not lol) what do you think?
> 
> View attachment 10833
> 
> 
> View attachment 10834
> 
> 
> View attachment 10835
> 
> 
> View attachment 10836
> 
> 
> View attachment 10837
> 
> 
> View attachment 10838


I think your mare is very nice..I would have to know her full registered name to know if she is Shetland. You say she is 36" then her AMHA papers would not hold up as they only go to 34". Does she have ASPC/AMHR papers? She is of the foundation/classic type. Are you going to show her?

Blessings,

Jenny


----------



## cassie

JennyB said:


> I think your mare is very nice..I would have to know her full registered name to know if she is Shetland. You say she is 36" then her AMHA papers would not hold up as they only go to 34". Does she have ASPC/AMHR papers? She is of the foundation/classic type. Are you going to show her?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Jenny


Thanks Jenny, her registered name is Raylee Park Classic Touch, she is 36" but is classed as a small horse over here in Australia



very confusing but we used to have an AMHA over here as well, they are now no longer... she was only ever registered AMHA that I am aware of, I am registereing her under my name in another australian registrar.

I would like to show her... I don't know how she would go as she is a bit heavier then the ones that are in the show ring at the moment... but I could maybe show her classic...





I'm going to do some performance with her as she loves to jump and its alot of fun, but she isn't ready yet so maybe next year.

Thank you for your lovely words on my girl, she is a character for sure


----------

