# Chestnut or Dark Palomino? also Satin Gene??



## BarrelracingArabian (Mar 31, 2010)

Too me with the not so gokd pictures she looks chestnut all the way
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DrumRunner (Jan 26, 2011)

I'm not a color expert but I do know you'll need better pictures for people to go by.


----------



## lilruffian (Jun 28, 2010)

Looks chestnut to me. All the "cream" areas you are describing are a characteristic of chestnut as well and her mane would be much lighter and a different color if she were any sort of palomino.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Chestnut for sure.

Her coat is too red to be a palomino. Palominos (even DARK DARK palominos and "chocolate" palominos are more gold/yellow than red). Her mane and tail are not the unsullied white blonde color that palominos are. Unless a palomino is sooty, their manes and tails are a solid white blonde, no red or other colors mixed in.


----------



## palominolover (Apr 28, 2010)

Chestnut for sure . Like others have stated she has a red tinge and too dark of a tail and mane. I have NEVER seen a palomino with a red tail or mane, not even if they are sooty.

Better pictures would be the best to go by though.


----------



## Country Woman (Dec 14, 2011)

looks like a chestnut to me


----------



## DrumRunner (Jan 26, 2011)

She looks chestnut to me, but we can be more accurate with better pictures.

As for your other question..While there is a cream gene, as of now there is no such thing as a "Satin Gene".. You're mare just looks like she MAY be champagne. 

There *MAY* be a "Satin Gene" in the future,* IF* it is chosen to investigate and test for, but right now it is *not* a recognized "gene". It is simply JUST a shiny horse...Just because any horse is super shiny does not mean it has a super special gene.


----------



## ChestnutMad (Apr 15, 2012)

yeah i thought she was chestnut too for years as i've had her for almost 8 years now but i've been reading this webpage on the cream gene as i'm sure she has it because she smutts up when fed molasses and there're not sure what to make of her and they suggested that she could be a dark palomino as they sometimes are mistaken for being chestnuts, and they also surgested that she could be a champagne however i don't think she is a full champagne because she doesn't have the freckling around the eye but she does have that shine that most champagnes have but more shiney.
i had read something like a debate on the satin gene and it made me wonder because my pony has such a shine, yes i know well looked after horses/ponies should have a shine because my other one has a well looked after shine but sherry takes it to a different level, if your wondering i don't feed her any supplements etc its all natural, i don't even need to bath her or groom her to have this kind of sheen. i have never used a show sheen on her eighther because theres no need because of her sheen, and i always get asked what show sheen i use and they rarely believe me when i says i don't use one.
i'm not sure if this helps but on her quarters she has a cream/white patch, i always assumed that it was due to an injurey however her breeder and her old owner before us said that she was never injured their and if she scars she scars dark hairs not cream/white. 
Her Cream/White hairs are white down to the root and not sure if this helps but her skin colour is a lightish gray and her freckles underneath are creamy pink.
i have attached some more pictures however they don't do her justice as you need to see her to see her true colouring, they look darker than what she really is, in the picture of her eye is to show that she doesn't have freckling around it (her eyes is brighter in real life), the one of her in the feild is about closest to her real colour (mainly on the neck area and face)


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

Chestnut/sorrel. No cream. No champagne. No "satin."

A champagne horse is either champagne or not. There is no "part" champagne.


----------



## horsemadgirl (Aug 23, 2011)

Chestnut to me.


----------



## DrumRunner (Jan 26, 2011)

I agree with NdAppy.. After seeing the other pictures I'm positive your horse doesn't carry a cream, champagne, or "satin" gene. Chestnuts come in MANY different shades, there is no one color fits all. Some chestnuts are also known to have scattered white hairs throughout their body, mane, and tail..My mare is a light chestnut with a lot of white ticking (lighter color and more white hairs than your mare), and I know that's she's nothing special color wise, even though she's really shiny.. A horse can be really shiny from just a good diet, the way the light hits the horse, and a lot of imagination..It doesn't have to be a lot of grooming, supplements, show sheen..Just love your horse for who she is, not wanting to think she may have a gene that doesn't even exist..Color doesn't make a horse, neither does shine..


----------



## HorseLovinLady (Jul 18, 2011)

I agree with everyone else, she's chestnut and a beautiful one at that! Welcome to the forum!


----------



## ChestnutMad (Apr 15, 2012)

Thanks, its wonderful to see everyone's opinions, and i love my pony and i would never change a thing about her. 
Although i am 99.9% sure that she has the cream gene as she smutts up when fed molasses and only ponies/horses that have the cream gene in them smutt up. i know its smutting as it only appears when fed molasses and its not dirt or mud as it won't come out even when bathed and groomed. 
i'm just worried because if i bred her with a cremalo i would get a 50%+ chance of getting a cremalo if she was a dark palamino and therefore i would need to breed her with a palomino, however if she was a chestnut i could then breed with a cremalo and get 100% chance of getting a palomino
although i think the best thing to do is to get her tested

Does anybody have any experiences with testing?


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

Just pull some tail hair and get her tested. It's simple, inexpensive and then you have no questions. 

Just looking at her though I predict it will be: 
Red/Black Factor: ee
Cream Dilution: nn (meaning no)
Champagne Dilution: nn
Pearl Dilution: nn
Agouti: AA 

If you go to Animal Genetics website, you can print out a test form and you tell them what you want her tested for and enclose the tail hairs. Just make sure you get the root (clear/white bulb at the end of the hair nearest the tail). Send it off and in a few weeks you'll get your response and you will KNOW for sure, not be guessing. 

They can also tell you if she carries any frame, splash or other color marker genes.


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

Even chestnuts and sorrels can have sooty going on. I'm pretty positive that if you tested her she would come back negative for cream. UC Davis and Animal genetics are places I would go for testing.


----------



## trainerunlimited (Jan 26, 2012)

She doesn't look anything other than a chestnut/sorrel to me. Are you talking about dapples? Im not familiar with the smutty part, but I'm sure its just good feed. =) She is a pretty mare.


----------



## Poseidon (Oct 1, 2010)

I have no doubt in my mind that your mare is chestnut. I also don't understand the molasses point you're trying to make. Yes, some foods can affect the coat color, such as paprika, but just because your chestnut has the same reaction to molasses as some other horses of a different color does not mean she is also that color. 

If you want to be 100% sure, test her. The cream test is $25.


----------



## Bridgertrot (Dec 2, 2011)

BTW it's spelled cremello, not cremalo. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but can't cream not hide in chestnuts? I recall reading that the cream gene can visually hide in black, since smokey black looks close to regular black, but if the cream was on a chestnut it'd be a palomino. Also are you confusing the "satin gene" with the pearl gene possibly?


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

You're spot on about cream BT. 

Pearl does not act unless there is cream present or unless it is homozygous. In homozygous form on a chestnut it makes them appear an "apricot" tone of color and in play with cream it mimics double dilutes in appearance.


----------



## Bridgertrot (Dec 2, 2011)

Woo! And I have to take an Equine Genetics class eventually so I just might ace it!


----------



## WyndellaRose (Nov 7, 2011)

I'm no help at all but I want to take a equine genetics class!

Oh and OP your mare is very pretty!


----------



## Nuala (Jan 2, 2012)

Sorrel all the way. Not quite dark/dirty enough to be a true chestnut imo. Although with as light as she is in her clipped pic she might be a red dun but only if she is a lineback otherwise I would stick with Chestnut or sorrel


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

Nuala said:


> Sorrel all the way. Not quite dark/dirty enough to be a true chestnut imo. Although with as light as she is in her clipped pic she might be a red dun but only if she is a lineback otherwise I would stick with Chestnut or sorrel


Sorrel and chestnut are the same colour. And the OP's horse is not a dun - clipped coats are not at all useful for looking at colour.


----------



## Nuala (Jan 2, 2012)

Chiilaa said:


> Sorrel and chestnut are the same colour. And the OP's horse is not a dun - clipped coats are not at all useful for looking at colour.


Not here they aren't Sorrels are straight red basically bright and copper and chestnuts are reddish shades of brown. 

Sorrel









Chestnut


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

Genetically, they are the same. They are both ee as opposed to E_. Shade can vary, just like bay, black and other colours. They are still the same thing.


----------



## Eolith (Sep 30, 2007)

In the case of sorrel/chestnut, we aren't talking genetics. We're talking what different people in different areas learned use in reference to red horses. In my case I always thought a chestnut was a red horse (any shade copper to rust) whose mane and tail matched the body color while sorrels were a red horse with a flaxen mane and tail.

As for the OP's post, I feel that you are trying too hard to convince yourself that your mare's color is something you value more, when in fact she is beautiful and unique even as a chestnut.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

The term used was "true chestnut". That sounds genetic to me. As far as sorrel/chestnut, well the terms can mean different things to different people. That's no reason to continue the ambiguity if you know better.


----------



## Eolith (Sep 30, 2007)

I felt this was most appropriate in this case. Sorrel vs chestnut is a perfectly valid distinction among certain horse communities. It's not an ambiguity being continued because people "who ought to know better" are perpetuating it. This is literally a difference in semantics. No one is right or wrong. Here in my area, the difference between chestnuts/sorrels IS valid and true. Where you're hanging out in Australia, I'm perfectly happy to recognize that it may be equally invalid. Either way, it doesn't really matter does it?


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

It's only valid because people continue to perpetuate a falsehood - that they are different. It's the same as people who still insist on using the term "overo", or "tovero". We KNOW that they are no different. Why continue to differentiate them?


----------



## Eolith (Sep 30, 2007)

No different in what way? Letters on a piece of paper from a lab, or visual difference?

A red horse with a flaxen mane IS visually different than a red horse with matching mane and tail. I would venture to say that it is adding more specificity to call them different things. If my mom told me she saw a chestnut horse running loose near the house, I would know I wasn't looking for a red horse with flaxen mane and tail. It wouldn't be very helpful for me to have to keep in mind that she could have meant a red horse with a flaxen mane and tail OR a solid red horse.

I would also venture to say that they ARE genetically different. Perhaps the base color is the same, but something is going on in the genes to give some red horses lighter manes/tails while others are solid red.

Thus I assert that people are not "perpetuating a falsehood", they are stating the obvious as they perceive it in the immediate and tangible world.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

I agree. There is something going on that changes the shade of red based horses. Same as there are changes in the shade of black based horses. I am not disputing that at all. However, sorrel and chestnut are ambiguous at best. You describe them as sorrel has a lighter mane and tail, correct?

How does this horse fit in?











What about these two?

















They are fairly close in shade, but one has a flaxen mane and tail, the other doesn't. Are they different?

What about horses that are more flaxen in one season, but seem to have "normal" manes and tails in other seasons?


----------



## Nuala (Jan 2, 2012)

Overo and Tovero are even stated as different colors in ANY paint registry. APHA for instance Paint Horse Color Patterns 

They are FAR from the same that is like saying a bald faced solid paint isnt allowed to be registered because it doesnt have any white in the body. The fact is you are trying to base your argument on half truths and science you obviously dont understand. 
Or in another term you are saying that we shouldnt differentiate dogs because a Golden Retriever and a Labrador are technically genetically the same? And a QH and a TB are the same except for one has less arab in its genetics? Or that brunettes and auburn hair is really just different shades of the same gene? There are differences that need to be recognized.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

I clearly don't understand genetics. Clearly. Yet you use the APHA rules to back up your argument. The APHA is decades behind in the way they register horses. Decades. We know so much more now than they did when they started registering horses, but they resist change.

Tovero and overo are stupid, out-dated terms that we should never use. I will repeat this until I am blue in the face. It is downright dangerous for the APHA and the AQHA to continue to register horses as either of these patterns. It is negligent. It is the reason that so many lethal white foals are born each year. People need to educate themselves, and the registering body should be at the forefront of this education. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Don't suggest again that I don't know what I am talking about without substantiating your claims. Eolith and I can debate as adults exchanging opinions without descending to nastiness. I respect her opinion, and hope she returns the respect for mine. Before you too weigh in, make sure you are versed in the current research on equine genetics. I know I am.


----------



## Eolith (Sep 30, 2007)

The entire realm of horse color of any kind is ambiguous at best. There's dark bays that look black, duns that look bay, dark chestnuts that might just be brown... etc etc etc

Not even genetic tests can flawlessly explain the multitudes of variation within the multitudes of shades that horses come in. So why should genetic tests tell us how to refer to our horses? As I said before, it's a matter of individual perception and semantics.

For the record, the pictures you showed would classify as a sorrel, a chestnut, and a sorrel according to my individual perception. Maybe they're all chestnut to you or two are chestnut and one is sorrel for another member of the forum... I don't mind either way, but in my community that is how they would be identified.


----------



## Nuala (Jan 2, 2012)

You clam to be able to argue as and adult yet you have TARGETED two of my color posts? The APHA AQHA and jockey club have all made changes to colors. The fact that people dont stud their horses Lineage is as much the problem as the Genetic color factors. They may have the same genetic indicators but they are not the same and applying paper to a genome is like saying someone who has been building houses all their life is not nearly as qualified as someone who has gone to college and only learned to draw a building. 

Also back to your original argument about my first post I said "Not quite dark/dirty enough to be a true chestnut imo" emphasis on IMO I was not saying that in someone else's opinion it could not be a chestnut LIKE YOU ARE!!! This is an open forum for such opinions. I also said "Although with as light as she is in her clipped pic she might be a red dun" again the emphasis on MIGHT SO you obviously dont not have a RESPECT for others opinions or you would have read through my entire post and made not on the fact that I was not saying it as a Fact. 

Back to my last point let me make a more clear analogy you saying there is no difference between colors of the same genetic marker is saying that a red and auburn hair is the same color or that there is no difference between a bee and a wasp.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

I was not "targeting" you or your posts. I don't target posters. I don't care who posts what. I target inaccuracies. Look at the thousands of posts I have made. None of them are "targeted" at any one person. 

Colour registries have always been, and will always be, unreliable places to do colour research. I could spend all day going through the inaccuracies of the three registries alone that you have pointed out, never mind the thousands of other registries that are also wrong. 

It is reasonable to assume we are all here because of our love of horses. Each of us bring a unique interest to the field though. I would never claim to be an expert in dressage, or in reining, or driving, or breeding practices. I do, however, without any false modesty, have a very deep, current and accurate knowledge of horse colours, and the genetics behind them. When you say "IMO" something that I feel is incorrect, I am not "attacking" you when I correct it. Most of the time, I feel that I am doing something else I love - teaching (primary school teacher here, I can't leave it at work lol). If my responses seem abrupt at times, I apologise. Not only am I busy professionally, but I have three small children who all think the keyboard is something that will steal their mother's soul (can't say I blame them), which makes lengthy replies that cushion people's feelings often unfeasible for me. I apologise if you have felt victimised or anything like it. It was not my intention at all. Sharing my knowledge is the only reason I replied.


----------



## Nuala (Jan 2, 2012)

I apologize for taking offense so quickly. I know that sharing an emotion or tone over the forum is very difficult. I however do stand my point on the difference between Sorrel and Chestnut. Here they are marked as different colors although they do have the same marker. It is simply, for me, the ability to tell the difference in shades or patterns. For instance the main difference in my mind when you say Dun vs Buckskin is that a dun has a dorsal stripes and is darker were as a buckskin has a lighter coat and black points. They are based off of the same brown colors but they have simple difference.


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

Let me throw this monkey wrench in there... since you are determined that chestnut and sorrel must be called different things, do you insist on differentiating the different shades of bay as well?

BTW, I am 110% behind what Chiilaa is trying to get across. Until the genetics are proven to show _what_ causes the different shades, there is no point what so ever in calling a red horse chestnut or sorrel. They are both red.


----------



## Poseidon (Oct 1, 2010)

Nuala said:


> Or in another term you are saying that we shouldnt differentiate dogs because a Golden Retriever and a Labrador are technically genetically the same? And a QH and a TB are the same except for one has less arab in its genetics? Or that brunettes and auburn hair is really just different shades of the same gene? There are differences that need to be recognized.


..what? Last time I checked, golden retrievers and labrador retrievers are two different dogs. Similar, yes, but different. As the owner of one of each breed, I can vouch for that. 

But I'm with Nd and Chiilaa on this argument. We currently do not know what makes the shades of color different, so there is no reason to refer to them as different until some other discovery is made. What we know currently has proved sufficient for the most part in examining and predicting coat colors. 



NdAppy said:


> Let me throw this monkey wrench in there... since you are determined that chestnut and sorrel must be called different things, do you insist on differentiating the different shades of bay as well?


Hell, a boarder at my barn asked what color my mare is. Obviously a buckskin. She replied with saying she was too dark to be a buckskin, in her opinion.


----------

