This site requires the Adobe Flash Player.
straightegyptians

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Mashaan (machaan,michan) C.1920, in regard to El Deree- SOFI
Nadj al Nur
post May 21 2007, 10:50 PM
Post #121


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 5019
Joined: 2-January 06
From: Prince George, B.C. Canada
Member No.: 3074



Ray, read my post again and you will see that you and I are in fact in agreement, and therefore have nothing to argue about. Hansi has cleared up who this person was. That is it .
Cathy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HLM
post May 21 2007, 11:19 PM
Post #122


Advanced Senior Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1275
Joined: 21-March 03
Member No.: 192



please see my post to Tracy. Sid abouhom was not El Dere's first foal. And indeed, Dr Banch retired in 1932 and apparently went to England. the latter I can not prove. However, on my next trip to the eAO I will try to solve more puzzles and hope it is not considered garbage.. rolleyes.gif

Hansi biggrin.gif
Serenity Arabian Farms
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Avalondales Egyp...
post May 21 2007, 11:45 PM
Post #123


Senior Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 8-July 06
From: Ellsworth, Michigan
Member No.: 3641



Thank you Hansi,

Your dates put El Deree at RAS even earlier and consistant with 1934...As you can probably tell I am having some trouble with the dates... We have a span of dates from 1932 to 1935 that a man and three horses were at a site... The man retired and two of the three horses are considered SOF and the other just SE.. I don't know the politics, but I suspect them as being the issue in this case...But again I thank you... I think the first foal mentioned on this thread has been Sid Abouhom in 1936...


Tracy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robert 1
post May 22 2007, 12:18 AM
Post #124


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2814
Joined: 14-November 05
From: Pennsylvania USA
Member No.: 2895



QUOTE (HLM @ May 22 2007, 12:19 AM)
please see my post to Tracy. Sid abouhom was not El Dere's first foal. And indeed, Dr Banch retired in 1932 and apparently went to England. the latter I can not prove. However, on my next trip to the eAO I will try to solve more puzzles and hope it is not considered garbage.. rolleyes.gif

Hansi biggrin.gif
Serenity Arabian Farms
*

DEAR HANSI,
YOUR INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE GATHERED ON PAPER AND THE FIRST HAND STORIES YOU HAVE TOLD ABOUT MANY OF THE IMPORTED HORSES COMING INTO YOUR QUARANTINE HAS BEEN GREAT, AND ONE WILL SORT THIS OUT AS THEY SEE FIT AND THIS IS ALL THAT CAN BE DONE, JUST LIKE READING A GREAT BOOK, FOR EACH TO INTERPRET IN THEIR OWN WAY AND TO LEND AS MUCH TO FACTS OR FICTION AS THEY PLEASE AND I FOR ONE ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS DO THANK YOU FOR THIS. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
WITH RESPECT,
ROBERT,
ECHO HILL ARABIANS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Echo1
post May 22 2007, 01:35 AM
Post #125


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1901
Joined: 5-May 03
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Member No.: 394



QUOTE (Kimberli Nelson @ May 21 2007, 02:11 AM)
When Al Khamsa 1 came out in 1982, it listed foundation horses for the country of Egypt as  “Egypt”, “Blunt” and “Inshass”.

Jay Gormley, Edna Weeks and Julia Byfield were the founders of The Sheykh Obeyd Foundation, SOF, not to be confused with SOFI. The choice of horses for these three breeders were the Egypt/Blunt horses. They choose NOT to include any horse listed under the Al Khamsa designation of "Inshass". These horses were El Deree, El Samraa, El Khahila, El Shahbaa, Hind, Mabrouka and Nafaa.

This is very simple to understand. It does not matter when any of the Inshass horses went to the RAS, when they were bred for the first time, when they raced or whose auspices they were under.  They were not chosen for inclusion in SOF by the three founders.

I hope this answers your question.
*



Thank you Kimberli,
Al Khamsa updated the way they catalog horses, however SOFI did not.


NO INSHASS???? Really ?


The following horses came from Inshass and are included by SOFI*

Bint Bint Dalal
Bint Zareefa
El Zafir
Ibn Fayda
Rasheed
Saada
Zahra


All these horses can be found as registered with the Inshass Original Herd Book.

*Edited to add, " The following horses came from Inshass and are NOT included by SOFI
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kimberli Nelson
post May 22 2007, 01:43 AM
Post #126


Advanced Senior Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 923
Joined: 16-March 03
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (Echo1 @ May 22 2007, 02:35 AM)
Thank you Kimberli,
Al Khamsa updated the way they catalog horses, however SOFI did not.
NO INSHASS???? Really ?
The following horses came from Inshass and are included by SOFI

Bint Bint Dalal
Bint Zareefa
El Zafir
Ibn Fayda
Rasheed
Saada
Zahra
All these horses can be found as registered with the Inshass Original Herd Book.
*


The Al Khamsa foundation horses listed as INSHASS are El Deree, El Samraa, El Khahila, El Shahbaa, Hind, Mabrouka and Nafaa. These are the horses that Al Khamsa designated as INSHASS.

Many horses were owned by Kings Farouk and Faud, from the RAS and other sources.

The only horses that the original SOF founders did not included are those listed as Inshass in the AK 1 book. This had nothing to do with the overall breeding program at Inshass.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Echo1
post May 22 2007, 02:48 AM
Post #127


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1901
Joined: 5-May 03
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Member No.: 394



QUOTE (Kimberli Nelson @ May 22 2007, 02:43 AM)
The Al Khamsa foundation horses listed as INSHASS are El Deree, El Samraa, El Khahila, El Shahbaa, Hind, Mabrouka and Nafaa. These are the horses that Al Khamsa designated as INSHASS.

Many horses were owned by Kings Farouk and Faud, from the RAS and other sources.

The only horses that the original SOF founders did not included are those listed as Inshass in the AK 1 book. This had nothing to do with the overall breeding program at Inshass.
*



Correction, I should have said, NOT included by SOFI but are considered by Al Khamsa as Original Egypt I horses.

I am sure that it has nothing to do with the breeding program of Inshass , however the breeding program of Inshass is considered by Al Khamsa as being one of the main breeders of the original Egypt 1 horses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kimberli Nelson
post May 22 2007, 03:00 AM
Post #128


Advanced Senior Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 923
Joined: 16-March 03
Member No.: 41



Not entirely correct Kelly, all the horses you listed are descendants of Egypt (AK 1) and Egypt 1 (AK 2) and therefore SO horses although bred at Inshass.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Echo1
post May 22 2007, 03:12 AM
Post #129


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1901
Joined: 5-May 03
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Member No.: 394



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ May 21 2007, 04:58 PM)
Quote Hansi:
"Ray explained well how research, new eras can change many a conclusion of long ago. Interlects will have an open mind for it, because their intelligence would not allow them to do otherwise. Like the world is not flat, etc."

Well, this is very true. However, there has been no new information whatsoever presented about Mashaan here by either Hansi or Kelly so I don't see the relevance.

Caryn,  Correct, this is not 'new' information on Mashaan, it is just that your definition of 'under the auspices of Dr Branch", does not fit this horse.



In fact, much of the existing information which they referenced (and has been published for decades) was either reported inaccurately, partially omitted, misstated, and/or misinterpreted.

Incorrect.  I would like you to post where I misquoted, reported inaccurately, or partially omitted, misstated and /or misinterpreted.  I quoted my sources and copied it as such.  What I did was point out your misinterpreted information pertaining to Mashaan and how Dr Branch had retired before his arrival at the RAS, and let you know that Dr Branch did not make the executive decision on all horses, that was done by committee.  So you definition that you use , which you wrote' is inaccurate, partially omitting the truth, and misstated causing others to misinterpret the cataloging of horses according to their history. 


I'm sorry that those who don't have the books which contain this data are unable to verify this; I realize that for them this becomes a "she said - she said" issue, which is unfortunate.

Please know when I say I do not 'have' a book, it means that I do not have it with me while I am traveling.  But I will be sure to pull them from the shelf when I get home if you like.

However, I have given exact and complete references and, if interested, perhaps you may wish to save these. At some time there may be a way for you to gain access to this material, and if so, I believe many things will become quite clear. I feel that all that can be said pretty much has been said on this topic, and that to continue would only be viewed as argumentative -- and would be counter-productive to whatever clarity may have been achieved thus far.

You  have basically not given a direct answer though.  I hope you are able to consider this, and if you will consider the close similarities to the horses of El Deree, Nabras, Mashaan and realize that the whole 'under the auspices of Dr Branch is not what any reasonable person would consider to define a blood group of horses. 

The subject line of this thread is Mashaan. I am not going to address anything about *Exochorda here as it has been hard enough for many to follow this subject alone. I  don't want to add to the confusion by going off on another tangent, but will be glad to address it on a separate thread if that is acceptable to the site owners.

I feel everyone is able to understand what is being written, and I don't feel that people are as easily confused as you would like them to be.

I was under the impression that people have forum members have heard enough about it, and that further debate was discouraged. I understood that readers were being encouraged to use the search function to access archived threads on the subject rather than continuing to rehash.  However, since Hansi continues to bring the subject up and to harass this bloodline just about daily, perhaps I misunderstood. In the event that such a discussion is approved, I am readily available and willing to participate.

When I have time, I would like to provide more information on Dr. Branch in a separate thread for the sake of those who are interested, but don't have the research materials to confirm the extent of his influence at the RAS and his ultimate impact on the SE Arabian horse.

How did you write an entire definition based on Dr Branch's auspices if you don't have information on him?

For now, I would only say that to claim that he "has never been a person of consequence other than he was a director of the RAS" is so absurd that it is embarrassing. It is a fact that NO ONE participating in this discussion knew Branch personally, nor did they visit the RAS during his tenure there. Judith Forbis, however, has not only visited the Middle East very frequently over the past five decades, but also lived and worked there and clearly knows quite a lot about the culture and the history of the region. Her access to information on the ancestry of the Arabian horse in its origins was, and is, far-reaching. I would venture to say that she has likely spent more time there and has had more extensive and closer relationships with significant people involved with the evolution of the Egyptian Arabian horse than any living person of Western origins. Her depth of knowledge on this subject is remarkable, as anyone who has actually read her works would realize, and gratefully, she has shared it with the world. Now, Mrs. Forbis didn't personally know Branch either. She did, however, personally know and interviewed many who knew him quite well, and she has collected (and published) documentation in that regard. Apparently her opinion of the "consequence" of Dr. Branch's service to Egypt and the Arabian horse over his 35 year career there is quite contrary to Hansi's statements on the matter. Certainly no author would devote 9 pages of a very important book on the development of the Arabian horse in Egypt to a person of insignificant consequence, as Judith Forbis did in the case of Dr. Branch. I would also add that the significance of Dr. Branch is referenced in many, if not most, important literary works by many authors on the subject of Arabian horse breeding in Egypt spanning many decades.


I am happy to hear you support and endorse Judi Forbis, she in fact supports and endores El Deree and Morafic.


Caryn Rogosky
*


Would you be willing to say that your defintion of 'under the auspices of Dr Branch needs to be reconsidered based on the fact by your admission you arent' sure about Mashaan and Dr Branch now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Echo1
post May 22 2007, 03:13 AM
Post #130


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1901
Joined: 5-May 03
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Member No.: 394



QUOTE (Kimberli Nelson @ May 22 2007, 04:00 AM)
Not entirely correct Kelly,  all the horses you listed are descendants of Egypt (AK 1) and Egypt 1 (AK 2) and therefore SO horses although bred at Inshass.
*


This is the sticky part Kimberli, if that is so, and those horses are SOFI, then you need to be aware that one is sired by El Deree.
As I said, if this is so, how can it be that SOFI endorses these horses and one is sired by El Deree who SOFI does not endorse?

Shall I continue?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marilyn Lang
post May 22 2007, 03:13 AM
Post #131


Senior Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 256
Joined: 7-August 04
Member No.: 1571



I have spent the last three hours going over all the post on this thread since my post very early this morning before leaving for Houston.

First, I would like to say I was blown away by the statement from Hansi that Dr. Branch's administrative duties at the RAS were insignificant or inconsequential, whatever term she used. How could anyone who claims to be a serious scholar and student of Egyptian Arabian horse history make such a horrible claim against a man of such great importance to the Arabian horse, in particular the Egyptian Arabian horse? A little history is in order here for those of you who are not familiar with Dr. Branch.

He was a graduate of the British Royal College of Veterinary Medicine and Surgeons. He was hired by the RAS in 1892 to oversee the new administration. He was an advisor to all the royal family on their Arabian breeding and a very close friend of HRH Prince Kemal El Dine Hussein and HRH Prince Mohammed Aly Tewfik. He cared for and took care of all the royal family's horses as well as those belonging to the RAS. Judi Forbis states in her book AAB that he was more closely connected with the breeding and developement of Arabians in Egypt than anyone of his era. Judy also states in her article on Dr. Branch that "he was much respected, was totally dedicated and his word was vertually law."

When Henry B. Babson went to Egypt in 1932 to find his ideal Arabian horse, it was Dr. Branch with whom he met and Dr. Branch who assisted him in his eventual purchase of all the important Babson imports. Dr. Branch was able to help him in the acquisition of *Bint Serra from Prince Kemal El Dine that he other wise probably would not have been able to purchase. As a result of Dr. Branch's intervention, some of us are fortunate enough to have horses with the *Bint Serra blood. All straight Egyptian breeders in the US should be grateful for this man of supreme foresight and breeding knowledge. Who knows what very important breedings he suggested and were initiated? If you have not read the bio on Dr. Branch in Judi's book, then you must do so even if you have to borrow the book or go to the library at the PS office and make a copy. I promise you will not be disappointed. Oh, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that period of time. Better yet, Lady Anne Blunt's assistant. Most of the historical info in my post is taken from AAB. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Judi Forbis for spending over half her life collecting, sorting and sharing all of her information.

I personally find this very painful that a person with such a mean spirit would denouce someone of such great importantance to Egyptian horses as Dr. Branch. Then again, what would you expect from someone who would run a full page ad in AHW declaring that all of their horses would be put down if not sold by a certain date.? I was shocked when I read that ad but even more shocked at her critical remarks concerning Dr. Branch. And I am not easily shocked.

Actually, this is all very depressing to me. I have spent the last 25 years of my life devoted to the Arabian horse and do not understand why there are those who feel the need to hurt others and their breeding programs. I am sorry but I find Ms. Hansi Heck Melnyck's ethics extremely questionable. Actually, I did a long time ago.

SOFI has a root stock list that I find to be completely satisfactory. I do not ask approval nor do I ask that anyone conform to my breeding program or anyone's breeding program for that matter. There is not doubt in my mind that *Exochorda is Asil, straight Egyptian, Al Khamsa and SO. God bless *Exochorda.

Respectfully,
Marilyn Lang
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Echo1
post May 22 2007, 03:23 AM
Post #132


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1901
Joined: 5-May 03
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Member No.: 394



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ May 21 2007, 06:36 PM)
Quote Tracy:
"...why isn't Sid Abouhom considered a foundation horse as he was born at the RAS during the time of Dr. Branch's tenure and was used as a breeding stallion at RAS..."

I'm sorry Tracy, I missed this before. To answer your question, Sid Abouhom was not born at the RAS during Dr. Branch's tenure.
Caryn
*



Nor were Mashaan's foals. Nor were Nabras' foals. Yet they are foundation horses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kimberli Nelson
post May 22 2007, 03:32 AM
Post #133


Advanced Senior Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 923
Joined: 16-March 03
Member No.: 41



My mistake Kelly, maybe this will be clear for all those who do not understand.

If the horse is Straight Egyptian but the pedigree contains El Deree, El Samraa, El Khahila, El Shahbaa, Hind, Mabrouka or Nafaa (all Inshass foundation horses according to Al Khamsa) do not qualify as SO horses regardless of who bred the horse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kimberli Nelson
post May 22 2007, 03:34 AM
Post #134


Advanced Senior Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 923
Joined: 16-March 03
Member No.: 41



Kelly what part of the foundation horses are Al Khamsa designated Egypt and Blunt foundation horses don't you understand?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Echo1
post May 22 2007, 03:43 AM
Post #135


Gold Member
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1901
Joined: 5-May 03
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Member No.: 394



QUOTE (Caryn Rogosky @ May 21 2007, 09:36 PM)
Quote Tracy:
"This being during the same time frame...I fully understand that the dates are approximates, but the foaling records tend to follow a specific pattern which shows El Deree at the stud probably a year before Mashaan.. I really don't see how you can guide anyone past that snag..."

Tracy, it is not correct that El Dere was a the RAS before Mashaan. If you or anyone else has some information that shows that Dr. Branch was at the RAS was El Dere was gifted, I would be be very interested to look at it. 

Perhaps you miss Tracy's point.  Which is how can Mashaan be qualifed by Dr Branch and El Deree not qualifed, if El Deree went to the RAS before Mashaan? Mashaan went in 1935, El Deree went in 1934


But nothing, in all of the books or records that I have reviewed over almost twenty years has even suggested such a link.

Al Khamsa II,  Page 74 for Mashaan, Page 57 for El Deree


With regard to the breeding records you mentioned; what records exactly are you speaking of? There is no information that I know of which provides the dates for when Mashaan was first used at stud.

Perhaps the birth dates of his foals


It is certainly not contained in the RAS History.

I believe it was you who posted this earlier in this thread, giving all of Mashaan's foals and birthday's taken from the RAS History

It would not be a sound research process to assume an acquisition date of a stallion or even for when breeding began with a stallion, strictly from foaling dates of first recorded get.

I am so glad you said this yourself.  IT would not be accurate to assume whem a horse is acquired.....or for that matter 'introduced into the genetic stream under the auspices of Dr Branch'


For one thing, this would not take into consideration any breeding that could have taken place for which a recorded foal was not produced.  Many mares slip or abort foals, foals die after birth and are not recorded, etc., etc., etc.

Are we stretching things here a little

The RAS had a number of stallions in their possession. In fact, in 1948 the figures were 47 Stallions (including those who were annual sent to various breeding stations) and 35 mares. I don't know if you have stallions or not, but I had 10 at one time. We made decisions on what stallions we would use during certain seasons based on a variety of reasons. If you were to conclude a date for when we acquired, or even first started using some of the stallions we owned based upon recorded foal dates of get, you would not have drawn an inaccurate conclusion. I don't know the exact circumstances of Mashaan, no one here does, we weren't there and the records are sketchy at best.

Sketchy?  We do have information on this stallion which is in Al Khamsa for one, and if he is sketchy than how do you view El Deree now?

But the only solid evidence we do have is Judith Forbis' written word that states that he was leased by the RAS under the management of Dr. Branch.

As you can see from the past arguments against the inclusion of Mashaan by SOFI, the first line of fire was that it was "proven" and recorded in the RAS History that he went there after 1935, after Dr. Branch retired. That was a false statement proven by the actual quote from the RAS History book. Either Kelly and Hansi don't have the book or didn't check it, I don't know which. Apparently both were also either unaware of the information provided by Judith Forbis, or they simply don't accept it as credible. However, now that the quote from her interview has been given, the argument has shifted to discrediting the importance of Dr. Branch. A very foolish approach for many reasons, and so very easy to disprove.

No , I believe I asked you if this was in reference to him being approved for RACING ? 

I'm sorry that I can't satisfy you with a short, simple answer without including background history. The fact is, that to understand the philosophy behind the creation of SOFI and the criteria used for root stock selection, one needs to understand the nature of the links between the 7 Foundation breeders and the era they defined. This is not something that can be summed up in a few short sentences, but can be discovered through reading many important books by many very credible authors, spanning many years. I've mentioned that the people responsible for initially selecting and approving the root stock for SOF were highly studied and far more knowledgeable than myself on this subject. They understood the overview of historic factors involved, and believed that there was a very sound reason for subgrouping these horses in order to preserve and concentrate their blood within a closed genepool.

We seem to understand SE okay.  Why would this be different ?

I do feel badly that I am not able to be more helpful to you, but I hope that you will keep your mind open to additional information as you may come across it.

I hope you can keep your mind open to additional information as it becomes available too.

As time passes, you may find that many little bits of information begin to come together and finally create a complete and satisfying picture.

As in El Deree?

On the other hand, that may never happen and I strongly believe that no one should support or participate in any type of breeding program which doesn't make sense to them.

Well said

Whatever choices we make, we have to believe in what we are doing to make it work.
Regards,
Caryn
*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th August 2014 - 20:26
This site requires the Adobe Flash Player.