I agree that type of an individual is becoming more and more important as the bloodlines are becoming more refined.
A lot of yearlings on offer today that are now considered 'just OK' would have been standouts in a catalogue 10-15 years ago.
The quality has risen dramatically.
When buying a yearling, the weight I put on type is significantly greater than it was when I started off buying yearlings. That doesn't mean it'll work but I find there are more and more horses with pedigrees I'd consider 'acceptable'.
The truth is I don't have the answers - not even close. I just trust my instincts and some experience (not that I have a huge amount) when it comes to the selection process. Sometimes it has worked well, other times not so well.
And when I've managed to snare a yearling that has developed into a good horse, I reckon I've been blessed with a very healthy dose of luck, too.
There are certain aspects of a pedigree that I find important ... but a lot of the time it just comes down to some commonsense and not being swept up in the latest 'fad'.
I know I've written somewhere before how I've been amazed to see some fairly experienced people spend big bucks on a yearling based purely on pedigree, though a quick inspection of that horse would suggest its conformation is going to be a major hindrance in its chances of making a good racehorse.
How many times do you see a close relation to a horse that's racing really well at the time of a sale sell for top dollar? And if the sale had been a month earlier, that yearling quite probably would have brought half the price.
Anyway, I'm far from an expert ... but I think it's great we all have opinions and are happy to voice them.
I love sales time every year - and the chance to compare my assessment of a horse with someone else. It's an exciting time for me.