Princequillo, Fourth Generation

Last week we examined Nasrullah (tenth among these 20 sires in terms of overall popularity in the fourth generation). Turn-to was 11th, Intentionally 12th, and Princequillo 13th. I am gonna skip Turn-to and Intentionally for the time being and take up Princequillo this week because Nasrullah and Princequillo are thematically related. They are like yang and yin, opposite reflections of each other.

So let us now examine Princequillo as a name in more current pedigrees, specifically in the fourth generation of all weanlings, yearlings, or two-year-olds sold at public auction in North America in 1999-2002.

Nasrullah showed an even 5,000 times in the fourth generation of these 54,000+ foals. At P1 in the fourth generation (the male line) Princequillo had a Price Index of 0.70 (14th) and a PPI (result) of 0.77 (also 14th), a slight improvement in absolute terms. He had 122 foals at P1, including four stakes winners (3.28%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P2 in the fourth generation Princequillo had a Price Index of 0.84 (ninth) and a PPI (result) of 1.02 (also ninth), a good improvement in absolute terms. He had 608 foals at P2, including 24 stakes winners (3.95%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P3 in the fourth generation Princequillo had a Price Index of 0.88 (13th) and a PPI (result) of 0.32 (20th), not very good at all. He had 478 foals at P3, including eight stakes winners (1.67%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P4 in the fourth generation Princequillo had a Price Index of 0.95 (ninth) and a PPI (result) of 0.86 (12th), a slight retrogression on both scores. He had 751 foals at P4, including 23 stakes winners (3.06%), including Elloluv (2,497) and Mandy’s Gold (2,382). Both Elloluv and Mandy’s Gold were fillies by Gilded Time, whose second dam was Luquillo (dam of 1970 Belmont winner High Echelon), by Princequillo.

At P5 in the fourth generation Princequillo had a Price Index of 0.82 (16th) and a PPI (result) of 1.12 (sixth), a pretty serious improvement on both scores. He had 690 foals at P5, including 22 stakes winners (3.19%), including Roses in May (6,790, accounting for more than a third of Princequilo’s 18,002 Performance Points at this position). Roses in May was out of a mare by Speak John, by Prince John, by Princequillo.

At P6 in the fourth generation Princequillo had a Price Index of 1.05 (fifth) and a PPI (result) of 0.61 (18th), not very good at all. He had 1,214 foals at P6, including 31 stakes winners (2.55%), including Adoration (3,951). Adoration was out of a mare by Key to the Mint, by Graustark out of 1980 Broodmare of the Year Key Bridge, by Princequillo.

At P7 in the fourth generation Princequillo had a Price Index of 1.09 (ninth) and a PPI (result) of 0.52 (19th), not good at all. He had 677 foals at P7, including 21 stakes winners (3.10%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P8 in the fourth generation Princequillo had a Price Index of 1.06 (15th) and a PPI (result) of 1.61 (fourth), excellent improvement on both scores. He had 460 foals at P8, including 14 stakes winners (3.04%), including Harlan’s Holiday (5,533), Burning Roma (3,300), and Ocean Drive (2,004). Those 14 stakes winners averaged 1,231 Performance Points. Princequillo achieved good results at P8 through quality of stakes winners, not quantity (3.04% from foals).

The third dam of Harlan’s Holiday was Princessnesian, by Princequillo. The third dam of Burning Roma was Discipline, by Princequillo. The third dam of Ocean Drive was Ludlow, by Princequillo.

Overall, counting all eight positions in the fourth generation, Princequillo had a Price Index of 0.96 (16th) and a PPI (result) of 0.83 (19th). He had 5,000 foals overall, including 147 stakes winners (2.94%).

Unlike most of the sires profiled so far, Princequillo was fairly well balanced in terms of popularity by sex. Almost 40% (1,967) of those 5,000 foals involved sons of Princequillo in the third generation. Those 1,967 foals had a Price Index of 0.92 and a PPI (result) of 0.70. The remaining 3,033 foals involved daughters of Princequillo in the third generation. Those 3,033 foals had a Price Index of 0.99 and a PPI (result) of 0.91. So the daughters of Princequillo in the third generation were definitely better than the sons of Princequillo in the third generation (no surprise at all), but even the daughters were not good in either absolute or relative terms.

To recapitulate, about the best thing you can say about Princequillo in the fourth generation of this population is that he was not quite as bad as Nasrullah. He did have positive results at P2 (0.84 to 1.02), P5 (0.82 to 1.12 thanks to Roses in May), and P8 (1.06 to 1.61) and a marginally positive result at P1 (0.70 to 0.77).

Aside from ranking 13th himself among these 20 sires in overall popularity, Princequillo also sired Prince John (17th) and Round Table (21st). That qualifies him is “influential” (see last week’s discussion of “influential versus “valuable), which is not saying very much.

I have been admonished from time to time not to be afraid to repeat myself to make a point clear. So I will repeat myself. I am sure that at one point in time Princequillo was both “influential” and “valuable.” That point of time might have been 20 or 30 or more years ago though (in terms of the fourth generation).

The two oldest sires among these 20 were Nasrullah and Princequillo (both foals of 1940). Nasrullah had an overall result of 0.66 (last). Princequillo had an overall result of 0.83 (19th, second last).

The youngest sire among these 20 was Secretariat (a foal of 1970 and a grandson of both Nasrullah and Princequillo). As noted two weeks ago, Secretariat had an overall result of 1.36 (the best among these 20 sires). I would not expect those positive results to continue indefinitely for Secretariat. Thirty years from now I would expect his results to look a lot more like those of Nasrullah and Princequillo right now.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s