Dear Jason, and All,
I was under the impression that this was an international decision (to have
horses measured in hands of 100 mm). I think this is important when you
decide whether a particular event is for ponies or for horses.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin CAMS
Geelong, Australia
on 2001-03-23 12.31, James J. Wentworth at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The hand is used in equine circles. Didn't the Australians officially
> change their definition of the hand from 4" to 100 mm (particularly in the
> horse racing industry)? That would have made my old one-eyed mare about
> 13.5 hands (1.35 m) tall. She was a chunky gal, though, at a buxom 500 kg.
>
>
> Jason
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nat Hager III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:57 PM
> Subject: [USMA:11770] RE: Fw: Joan Pontius [Yahoo! Clubs: Metric America]
>
>
>>
>>>> Now I know you're all going to groan, but what we need is to
>>> re-introduce
>>> the measure called *the hand*. Granted, the hand is now 4 inches or
>>> something,
>>
>> Actually there already is such a unit. It's called the 100 mm module, and
>> it's darn handy! 300 mm is 3 "hands" stacked on top of one another, and
> 50
>> mm is half a "hand". Some people also like to think in 25 mm modules,
>> which they call an "inch", but that's just a quarter "hand". And when you
>> get to fine work individual millimeters work well, and they're just a
>> hundredth of a "hand".
>>
>> So long as you're comfortable using 100 mm as the base unit for "hand",
> you
>> never use fractions or decimals.
>>
>> Nat
>>
>>
>
