About the author
Sue Stewart has collected model horses of all types for over 60
years. She breeds, trains and
shows Arabians, Half-Arabians,
and National Show Horses. She
became active in NAMHSA at
its founding and has judged
NAN multiple times. She enjoys
judging both real and model
horse shows, and enters occasionally, especially in then
china specialty shows; ceramic models are the primary
focus of her collection at this time.
She adds to her collection and ensures the real horses
continue to live in the style to which they are accustomed as the manager of client-facing documentation
for a global ITO corporation.
flaws from least to worst, one though some unimaginable
number.
In fact, in judging schools, prospective judges are taught
that the specifications for the standard of perfection create a perimeter within which there is no wrong answer
as to which is best—one person may feel sickle hocks
are worse than a goose rump, another may disagree—but
within the requirements of a standard, neither is wrong.
Then there are the styles and types current in so many
of today’s breeds. One judge may prefer the halter type,
another the sport type, another a foundation or historic
type, and so on. Once again, none is wrong, but the best
horse on the table may differ in each judge’s estimation.
If “good” judges always agreed, there would be no reason
to take a model to more than one show. The first show’s
“good judge” would place the horse where it was doomed
to be forever. We go to multiple shows, because different
judges do have different opinions!
But it’s too hard to find enough qualified judges.
It’s important that the judges selected for NAN be respected and inspire confidence in the competitors, of course.
Since no one can be familiar with every judge who might
be nominated, the nominations are important.
Perhaps it would remove some of the selectors’ burden
by setting a standard of nominations that result in an
automatic invitation to judge—for example, four total
nominations, with at least one showholder nomination.
Another assistance would be to create a judge selection
committee with members from multiple regions who will
have additional knowledge of judges in their areas.
Showholders usually know about the judges they use—
not just from watching the show, but because if there’s an
issue, the entrants will let the showholder know; if nothing else, they will vote with their feet and wallets by no
longer entering if they object to a judge. I ran one of the
largest member shows in the country for years, and I listened to my entrants regarding judges, and usually asked
their opinions before inviting a judge for a second time.
NAMHSA cannot afford the cost.
Of course, we cannot avoid the elephant in the room: finances. Every NAN this century has lost money. There are
a number of reasons for this, because NAN used to make
money for NAMHSA—if the event were not at least making money, there would never have been a second one.
We went into the first NAN on a wing and a prayer; or I
should say a wing, a prayer, and a loan—which was paid
back in full, with still enough funds left to not have to do
that in future. I say the NAN “event