Subject: hammer marks-horseshoes

From: [email-masked] (Roger Olsen)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 08:49:49 -0800

>some place in my stack of articles to be filed is one on the making of
>horseshoes for the army.  hammer marks were completely not acceptable.   if
>hammer marks were not ok for something that would be replace in a few months
>then how could they be acceptable for something that was to last forever

>From: [email-masked]

hammer marks were likely considered unacceptable not from a view-point of
asthetics, but for the more practical standpoint of equine soundness, a
hammer mark noticeable to the eye may well be noticeable to the horse; this
is assuming the uneven surface is on the hoof side of the shoe and not the
ground side. it is important that the hoof be trimmed perfectly flat, and
the shoe be perfectly flat prior to nailing.

all this aside i feel hammer marks are often a sign of a missed hammer
blow, similar to a missed note in music, a nicely forged piece will
certainly have the wonderful look of being hand worked, but even if all
sides have been hand worked that missed lick will stand out, sometimes
hardly noticable, other times quite blatant, again much like a missed music
note.