HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:39:31 -0800
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Subject:
Re: Horseshoe help
From:
Stephen Austin <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-transfer-encoding:
8bit
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines) 
Horse is 'usually' rounder and has less thickness - a mule is 'usually' longer at the heel, occasionally recurved outward for stability, and is thicker (because they daisy cut and wear the shoes vey fast.  I know a few asses that could use a shoe nailed to them but I have not done that yet...

Marty Pickands <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Oddly enough, I was just about to seek help on horseshoes myself. Can anyone give me some pointers on telling between horse, mule and ass shoes?

Marty Pickands

New York State Museum

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/16/05 4:30 AM >>>
What about the legendary miniature horses in the Grand Canyon?



S.P. Austin

ATOM RSS1 RSS2