Found this artifact which is claimed to be of a Qin armoured horse and rider:
http://www.allensantiques.com/store/product286.html

The auctioneer concedes that it could be dated to either the Qin or the Northern Dynasties (Age of Fragmentation), but it is noteworthy that it is quite different from the standard figurines of Northern Dynasties horse armour, such as this one: http://www.allensantiques.com/store/product270.html

If it really is Qin, then it could be an important clue in reconstructing the disassembled stone-made suit of horse armour found in Qin Shihuang's mausoleum.

RE: Found this artifact which is claimed to be of a Qin armoured horse and rider:
http://www.allensantiques.com/store/product286.html

Interestingly, the facial features of the rider reminds me of Han style... But the saddle design... doesn't seem to remind me of the ones I see in Qin terracotta horse figures ..

RE: The auctioneer concedes that it could be dated to either the Qin or the Northern Dynasties (Age of Fragmentation), but it is noteworthy that it is quite different from the standard figurines of Northern Dynasties horse armour, such as this one: http://www.allensantiques.com/store/product270.html

If it really is Qin, then it could be an important clue in reconstructing the disassembled stone-made suit of horse armour found in Qin Shihuang's mausoleum.

As there are professional syndicates in China who are actually collaborating with museum curators to reproduce pottery fakes based on actual museum pieces... I would strongly recommend that buyers exercise caution in buying expensive pieces unless the piece comes with a thermo-luminscence test...

Since I know Tony personally I would say that the piece would almost certainly be real. Ceramics is one thing he doesnt seem to be caught out on despite the independent authentication his higher paying customers no doubt would seek. The general valid commentary on Tony as a dealer is good. He is honest. He does regular TL test pieces at Oxford on select pieces, which is a fairly good indicator although allegedly not foolproof.
His on-line ceramics store has attracted a number of imitators (people selling fakes)...and he is foremost a handler of ceramics (more so in modern times).
I would note however that he identifies the items as coming from a tomb alleged to be from the Qin dynasty, meaning his supplier, and presumably the tomb robber, made the identification.
Even the traces on the face suggest a horse 'mask' just like the other rider from the Northern dynasties.

My impression is it is likely later than Qin, as he notes the appearance of the piece is later.
For a number of such puzzling items we can only rely on the middlemen to inform 'this came all from one tomb' or such. I simply dont agree all the time with anyone, respectfully this includes Tony and my other peers.

With such pieces in the end the best that can be done is interpret it by personal logic.
Unfortunately an unprovenced item like this (i.e; we dont know exactly where it comes from) can offer no insight into the sequence of horse armour as the dating is sketchy. It is now only an ornamental antique.
This is the great shame of the antiques market both in China & the West.
Bear in mind, before any member expresses righteous anger, that the trade of looting tomb objects is actually open and legal in PRC. Once it is on a blanket in the market place it is legal. Just dont get caught digging them up or else you get the chop!.
Even Chinese museums have bought ceramics like this from open air markets (and bought some fakes too)...but I feel the dead who are disturbed probably care little wether the person digging their grave up is a Chinese, or if then the person paying the robber is white or Chinese. The PRC distinction is about pride, not conservation of the items. i.e Chinese Yes, Foreigners, No.
The damage done & any disrespect for the dead is the same regardless of the race of the final owner.

Without wishing to claim any expertise whatsoever in the dating of Chinese ceramics, I am not at all convinced by the dating of this figure as Qin.

(1) As Thomas Chen said, the saddle is not at all like the Qin terracotta examples, or even like those Han examples that I have seen. The arched pommel and cantle rather resemble 4th-century or later examples.

(2) The “armour” at the front of the horse doesn’t seem to cover the neck, but to be an apron covering only the chest, and slung quite low. This reminds me of the figurines from the Jin tomb of AD 302 that Dien uses as evidence for “mounting stirrups” – their horses have similar chest “armour”, though unlike this one they have none on the horse’s rump. It makes me suspect that this may be some sort of transitional stage between the 302 examples and the well-known “Northern Wei” style of horse-armour.

(3) The rear portion of the harness, a double crupper-strap and several pendant straps hanging down from the rear of the saddle, remind me of examples on the Wei or Jin tomb-paintings from Jiayuguan.

(4) The same site has a couple of other mounted figures dated as Qin, neither of which look convincingly Qin to me – see 1681/17/2 and 1681/17/1 on the Qin/Han ceramics list.

I suppose the dealer’s informant couldn’t have meant a Former Qin tomb, could he?

And it doesn’t really affect the date, but since the rider has no armour and apparently no weapon – though we can’t really tell what he was holding – I’m vaguely wondering if it is armour on the horse at all, or just some sort of decorative covering.

Thanks for bringing 1681/17/2 to my attention, Duncan:

http://www.allensantiques.com/store/product326.html

Yeah, that one does look more like an early Age of Fragmentation piece to me, especially the hole for the plume at the armour on the horse's rump, which is a unique AOF feature as far as we know.

It's clothing is orange, or the color that's left of it. Shouldn't it be black since it's Qin?

I suspect the Qin use of black mentioned by Sima Qian only applied to court clothing, not military uniforms. Certainly the terracotta army wears a variety of colours.

Movies promote the idea of these colour associations, but it seems to be mataphorical at best.
Even scholars & administrators from Qin to Han are reprsented in colours that are not in line with the 'auspicious' dynasty colours. The terracota scholars pit found in recent years are painted in varied colours too. Only the equipment identifies them as scholars (their writing equipment & bamboo slips).
Court attendants from Han if anything seem to be white robed more often than not, but even a mix of colours appears on figures attending the deceased lords.
The was a discussion on this under a thread on the movie 'Hero'.