It's time for another guest judging clinic, and we're really expanding outside of our typical breed and collectability niche this month. NAMHSA announced in February that performance workmanship was a new division eligible to earn NAN cards. I'm not much of a performance shower, but I was intrigued by the new division and how to judge it, and I felt other people would be curious too! NAMHSA does have an archived webinar on the subject, but as a person who prefers the written word, I reached out to NAMHSA President Lauren Byun to create a guest judging clinic to point out what aspiring performance workmanship judges should look for.
Performance Workmanship
by Lauren Byun
NAMHSA’s new Performance Workmanship division has brought up a ton of great questions on how to judge performance from this perspective! I’m here to give a demonstration of how I would do so for a class of Western Pleasure Saddles. My name is Lauren Byun and I’ve been in the model horse hobby, focusing on performance for… well lets just say I’m counting now by decades rather than years now, lol. I’ve been a tack maker, a vehicle and prop maker, a painter and sculptor. My work has placed, won, and champed at such notable shows as BreyerFest Live, North American Nationals, and even the BreyerFest Best Customs Contest. I’ve also judged performance for more than 20 years (also at NAN and BFL), and had the privilege to learn and show alongside some of our hobby’s biggest names.
I’m running through this class as I would in a live show, so I’m not looking at the quality of lighting, angles, etc. that I would in a photo show. To be fair, I’m also only judging on what I can see here, I’m not guessing on other sides or views.Big thanks to the members of the Model Horse Performance Shower’s Facebook group who provided a ton of demo photos for me to choose from. All of these were randomly grabbed and anonymized, so I have no idea who the owner or artist is of any of them. In a live show, this is exactly how we should have it as well! Just like a CM or AR workmanship division, do not provide any artist or owner information, to prevent any unintentional bias in judging.
That brings us to: what DO you document in performance workmanship? Just like in AR or CM Workmanship, document the REAL item your entry is modeled after. You might choose to use a picture of the whole item, or even just a portion that matches your entry well. For example, I might whip up something simple like this for entry D in this class.
We’re also not judging adjustment or breed appropriateness in this class. That means I’m not looking at if the girth is tight, whether the saddle is positioned correctly on the horse, or whether the tack style suits that particular breed or type of horse. All those should be considered in your regular performance classes. This is strictly about the workmanship and realism of the tack, prop, or doll itself.
Because this is specifically a saddle class in this example, I’m also not evaluating pads or other tack pieces. Some shows may instead offer “Western Set” classes where the entire setup is judged together, but today we’re focusing only on the saddle. A quick reminder to show holders: the recommended class list is flexible! You can combine or split divisions however works best for your show, and judges can always split classes further if entry numbers justify it.
Since we get this question a lot: performance workmanship classes can not be double judged from your regular performance division! In order to see and properly judge the tack, there can not be a rider in the saddle or other pieces of tack obstructing the item you’re trying to view. Judging should also not be unintentionally influenced by how the item is used in relation to other items. We’re judging strictly the quality and craftsmanship of the item labeled for that class, be it a saddle, a cow, a carriage, or a rider.
So lets get to it! Here are our 4 entries:
Entry A
Entry B
Entry C
Entry D
The Placings:
🥇1st: Entry D
The overall neatness immediately stands apart from the rest of the class. The stamping is straight, even, and beautifully fitted to the shapes of the leather pieces. The stitch marking is also extremely straight, clean, and consistent, and the leather edges are cut in alignment with those stitch lines, which really emphasizes the precision of the workmanship.
I especially liked the choice and placement of the silver plates. Their shapes complement the leather corners nicely and help create a cohesive design.There are still a few small critiques. The horn is slightly thick for a pleasure saddle, and the cantle is perhaps a touch high or long relative to the skirts. However, that could realistically represent a larger seat size for a bigger rider, so it doesn’t cross into unrealistic territory for me.
The stirrup hobble hardware is a little oversized, and I would have liked to see tread detail added to the stirrups for extra realism.
Overall, this saddle simply demonstrated the cleanest and most refined leatherwork in the class.
🥈2nd: Entry C
This saddle feels like a very solid beginner or schooling show setup.The overall shapes of the pieces are correct, but it lacks carving or stamping detail compared to the other entries. That isn’t necessarily wrong — simpler saddles absolutely exist — but in a Western Pleasure show setting it does feel stylistically plain unless documented as an intentionally simpler schooling saddle.
The jockey fit below the cantle could be cleaner, and while the silver plates are a nice decorative addition, their curves don’t quite match the seat piece shapes underneath and the amount of skirt showing between the plates and edges gives a less professional look.
The biggest scale issue here though was the back cinch hardware. The buckle ring and holes are much too large. While oversized hardware can make miniature tack easier to handle, in a real saddle it would create legitimate safety concerns because the cinch could more easily slip or loosen during riding.
The stirrups look just slightly undersized compared to the fender proportions, and there also appears to be either an unintended silver stud, dirt, or damage in the center of the jockey.
Overall though, this feels like a very promising saddle maker developing solid fundamentals.
The biggest issue for me however was the silver placement. While Western saddles can absolutely have tooling or decorative details on the lower fenders, silver plates in that area are unrealistic. Silver is quite thick in both real life and miniature scale, and this placement would have those sharp edges rubbing constantly along the rider’s calf. It also would prevent any flexibility in the leather in the exact place where a rider needs it most from their saddle to properly cue their horse with their legs.
The silver plate shapes also don’t fully match the curves of the leather pieces underneath in several areas.
This saddle is additionally missing the hobble strap on the stirrups, and the cantle again feels a bit high for a pleasure saddle.
🥉3rd: Entry A
The basketweave stamping is extremely straight and clean, and the dye work is beautifully even. I also loved the darker edge coating detail, which gives the whole saddle extra realism and depth.
The cut leather edges themselves are very straight and neatly done. Ironically, the stitch marking actually distracts from that neatness a bit because there’s visible backtracking around many of the corners. Once you notice it, your eye keeps getting drawn back to it.The biggest issue for me however was the silver placement. While Western saddles can absolutely have tooling or decorative details on the lower fenders, silver plates in that area are unrealistic. Silver is quite thick in both real life and miniature scale, and this placement would have those sharp edges rubbing constantly along the rider’s calf. It also would prevent any flexibility in the leather in the exact place where a rider needs it most from their saddle to properly cue their horse with their legs.
The silver plate shapes also don’t fully match the curves of the leather pieces underneath in several areas.
This saddle is additionally missing the hobble strap on the stirrups, and the cantle again feels a bit high for a pleasure saddle.
Even with those critiques, this was still an exceptionally polished entry with strong overall workmanship.
The first thing that stood out was the tooling scale. The stamp pattern on the jockey appears oversized for the saddle itself, and the depth of the stamping looks like it would create significant discomfort for a real rider. Elsewhere, the stamping lacks consistency and clarity.
The cantle construction appears somewhat bulky and uneven, and the silver plate on it doesn’t seem properly fitted to the shape or length of the piece, creating an overly curved appearance.
The leather edges are rougher here as well, with unfinished areas visible. The stitch marking is spaced very far apart, which unintentionally makes the entire saddle feel out of scale.
The stirrups also appear oversized, though that may partially be influenced by the camera angle.
Another issue was the fit of the jockeys around the seat and swell. They don’t appear to lie smoothly against the saddle and instead create a visible ridge that looks uncomfortable for a rider.
Finally, the girth holes appear oversized compared to the rest of the tack, which again affects the sense of scale realism.
4th: Entry B
This saddle unfortunately struggled in several areas at once, which pushed it to the bottom of the class.The first thing that stood out was the tooling scale. The stamp pattern on the jockey appears oversized for the saddle itself, and the depth of the stamping looks like it would create significant discomfort for a real rider. Elsewhere, the stamping lacks consistency and clarity.
The cantle construction appears somewhat bulky and uneven, and the silver plate on it doesn’t seem properly fitted to the shape or length of the piece, creating an overly curved appearance.
The leather edges are rougher here as well, with unfinished areas visible. The stitch marking is spaced very far apart, which unintentionally makes the entire saddle feel out of scale.
The stirrups also appear oversized, though that may partially be influenced by the camera angle.
Another issue was the fit of the jockeys around the seat and swell. They don’t appear to lie smoothly against the saddle and instead create a visible ridge that looks uncomfortable for a rider.
Finally, the girth holes appear oversized compared to the rest of the tack, which again affects the sense of scale realism.
I do appreciate that the leather skirt corners were mostly cut to match the curve of the plates - a noticeable detail!
D – C – A – B
Photo D was the clear winner thanks to its exceptionally clean and consistent craftsmanship.
Photo C felt like a great starter saddle with correct basic construction
Photo A was lovely but that incorrect plate on the fender dropped it down as something I would not want to ride in.
And finally, Photo B landed at the bottom because several elements collectively appeared messy, oversized, or inconsistently scaled.
One of the things I love most about Performance Workmanship is that classes like this often come down to tiny details. A judge may spend just as much time appreciating thoughtful realism and clean execution as they do looking for mistakes. My best recommendations to future judges are to think about your priorities in order before you go up to your first class, and try to stay consistent with them throughout your day. For me, I try to stay with Correct>Quality>Detail, however in close placings I often stop to think which piece would be more usable or enjoyable if I were to need it in real life.
No comments:
Post a Comment