# Showing cream colored golden retrievers



## tobypuppy (Dec 7, 2020)

Question. Are cream colored goldens ever being shown in the U.S.? If so, do any ever place in the top four? It seems like the very light colored goldens are not acceptable in U.S. showrings, but maybe that is just a misconception.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Yes, but not the ones from byb's and puppy mills. And generally not owner handled.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Absolutely. In fact a boy I have my eye one just needs one more major to finish his Championship. 

Golden Retrievers are one of the most challenging and competitive breeds to earn the AKC Championship. Pale color is undesirable but not a disqualification. There are no perfect dogs and every dog has its undesirable traits. If the judge believes the dog is the best in the ring regardless of any of their faults they will win. 

The big problem for most with pale dogs is that they are very faulty beyond just being pale. Most of the dogs imported as breeding dogs from Eastern European would not be successful in the show ring if they were a mid-gold color.


----------



## Emmdenn (Jun 5, 2018)

Yes. I show my very light girl. I need to be specific about choosing judges as a lot of all breed judges will not give her a fair look because of her color (she’s often the only light dog in the ring and some judges think that because her color is different she must be “wrong”). The whole color debate is frustrating to me, because shade of gold should be the last thing to judge an otherwise correct dog on. Maybe some disagree, but Goldens have always always always come in a wide range of shades. Dark to light. The Eastern euro imports often are poor also poor representations of the breed and are never shown.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Sure they can and are successfully shown. A well bred, correctly structured dog of any color can win. However, Goldens are extremely competitive and professional handlers are common. As with the extremely dark dogs, there are some judges who will not put up dogs of “extreme” colors, so knowing your judges is important.

These are two of my very favorite stud dogs, independent of color. One imported and one American bred. 



Pedigree: AmGCH/CanGCH Goldtreve Sydney Traveler





Pedigree: GCHS Splendid Chatham Stars And Bars OS


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Tahnee GR said:


> Sure they can and are successfully shown. A well bred, correctly structured dog of any color can win. However, Goldens are extremely competitive and professional handlers are common. As with the extremely dark dogs, there are some judges who will not put up dogs of “extreme” colors, so knowing your judges is important.
> 
> These are two of my very favorite stud dogs, independent of color. One imported and one American bred.
> 
> ...


Beautiful boys!


----------



## tobypuppy (Dec 7, 2020)

Why are there many pale (cream) goldens that obtain champion status in Canada, England and Northern Europe? Is it just they have lower requirements? 
I understand that Eastern Europe and Russia titles/pedigrees are suspect, but lumping Canada and England in with them seems like a mistake.
In my search for a puppy I was seeking one close to the original type, which is why I ended up looking at Canada/England lines. I was surprised by what appeared to be a bias against these. I ended up finding only one midwest breeder (Cedar Goldens WI) successfully breeding/showing what I was looking for. Sadly the breeding I was hoping for didn't take. But in the end I found a line with the attributes I was seeking but with Canadian championships. I was lucky that one breeding produced 14 puppies so I was able to get a puppy. And he is great. But it seems that if he turns out to an exceptional dog and I wish to show him, I will probably do so in Canada.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tobypuppy said:


> Why are there many pale (cream) goldens that obtain champion status in Canada, England and Northern Europe? Is it just they have lower requirements?


Not sure on Europe, but Canada (CKC) - yes. 

CKC -

10 points total
Earned under at least 3 different judges, in either the breed or group level.
One win must be a 2pt or higher win at either the breed or group level

AKC -


15 points total
2 Majors (3 point wins)
Here in MI - a major requires your dog beat 15 dogs / 22 girlies. 

CKC - last time I looked this up (I don't think it changes year to year like AKC), you just have to beat 3-5 dogs in order to get a 2 point win.


----------



## ArkansasGold (Dec 7, 2017)

Here is another light colored dog that finished his CH easily AND was owner-handled: Pedigree: CH Sunnyside's Journey Of Discovery RI CGCA TKA 

He does tend to do better at specialties than all-breed shows, but he is very correct dog in terms of structure and movement. He is not from European lines either, he just happens to be on the lighter side.

But like the others have said, some of the BYB “English Creams” are just awful structurally. Their front feet point out instead of forward, they are often cow-hocked, have weak rears, weak pasterns, have incorrect heads, and bad top lines.


----------



## annef (Feb 23, 2008)

In the UK and Europe we have a different breed standard. The US changed their standard so that the size is different and cream is not included, but the standard was changed in 1936 in the UK to include 'any shade of cream or gold excluding mahogany. Mahogany would be 'red' or Irish setter colour which is incorrect but a very dark gold is certainly acceptable. 
To be a show champion in the UK the dog has to win 3 CC's (or best of sex) at a championship show under 3 different judges and be over 1 year of age. They have to beat the champions as well, as they are also in the open class. To give you an idea of numbers, both my dogs which have won Best of Breed at Crufts beat over 500 golden retrievers, but recently our numbers are now lower, but nearly every entry in females at championship shows is over 100 with males around 90. In Europe the champions do not compete for the CAC 

Annef


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Anne - just curious.... if UK changed the breed standards to limit extremes (fat dogs, too short dogs, too light dogs), wouldn't that be better for the breed? Particularly regarding the top section of the breed standard? 

Then the other thing is why is the extreme end "cream" part of the breed standard, but not mahogany? They are both opposite extremes. Why allow one extreme but punish the other? 



> A breed standard is the guideline which describes the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance including the correct color of a breed and ensures that the breed is fit for function. Absolute soundness is essential. Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed.
> 
> From time to time certain conditions or exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the Breed Watch information related to this breed for details of any such current issues. If a feature or quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure. However if a dog possesses a feature, characteristic or color described as undesirable or highly undesirable, it is strongly recommended that it should not be rewarded in the show ring.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

I know this is controversial but I truly believe light gold and cream are being used to describe the same color. Cream as in true cream from a cow is not white and indeed carries quite a bit of yellow color. One could reasonably call it light Golden in color. See what I did there. 😉

The US did accept the original breed standard but did not adopt the changes to the color in 1936 specifically naming cream as if it is separate from the gold spectrum. (Again personal opinion, I think we Americans are stubborn and likely thought why change when “light gold” is the same thing) Changes going forward are different between the two but only minimally so. I think the biggest differentiator is not the written standards but the interpretation of that standard. The sparsely worded UK/FCI standard by its nature assumes more general structure knowledge of the reader and allows much more variety in interpretation. But regardless all standards are subject to interpretation which is why different judges pick different dogs as winners and therefore closest to the ideal for that judge. 

I personally wish the US would just add cream so all the breeders with low quality/high fault dogs would have to stop blaming color for the lack of success. Good dogs can win in the US even if they are extreme in the Golden range of color and this has always been the case.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

LJack said:


> I personally wish the US would just add cream so all the breeders with low quality/high fault dogs would have to stop blaming color for the lack of success. Good dogs can win in the US even if they are extreme in the Golden range of color and this has always been the case.


Wishful thinking.  You obviously do not have friends in other breeds that have more than one color specified in their breed standard. While multiple colors are allowed in some breeds, judges still pick certain colors over others.

Unless I'm wrong, this is why the different color/markings in breeds like cockers get their own classes.

Borzoi and GSP people get extra aggravated on color judging that happens. Haven't heard the same re other breeds like FCR where you almost never see the liver color - but suspect it is the same.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Oh I do have friend in many breeds. I even tried in the 90’s to get a Black and Tan Min Pin (guess what I got, that’s right...a red).

I highly doubt most of the breeders who blame color would even try to show. But if it was in the standard they couldn’t just give the poor “woe is me, my cream dog isn’t allowed to show” response. We already know they can compete but the general public buys that line from the color breeders all the time. 

The Golden ring will always be tough and regardless of what the registration says (light gold or cream) the extreme colors will always be more of a challenge to win with.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

LJack said:


> I highly doubt most of the breeders who blame color would even try to show.


But there you go - why change a breed standard for people who wouldn't even show the dogs?

We already have many people who breed golden retrievers in this country but don't show because their excuse is "show ring is too political and you have to be rolling in the money to finish a dog".

It won't fix anything.

It will just encourage people who DO show the dogs to cross over to more extremes while breeding and showing. Right now in order to succeed in the show ring, you have to play games with the whole "compare my dog to a piece of white paper and you will see it's not the same color" game, which among else shows they have never seen a "whites" paint card at Home Depot.... 

And fwiw - I have been in the position where a judge clearly favors darker dogs and puts them up without looking at the other dogs in the ring. There was a show recently where I went into the ring with my Jojo and glanced back and saw the golden behind us was almost red and his eyes were lighter than his coat creating a harsher expression that most of us would like in this breed.

That dog won the class... and the points... and the breed.

And that was not the only show I saw him winning it all. I can't begin to figure what judges like about the dog other than imagining that his movement and structure must be supernatural to overcome the expression and uber dark color! It just goes to show that extremes do win - but everything else needs to be there.


----------



## tobypuppy (Dec 7, 2020)

I find this discussion very interesting and informing. Thanks to all who have participated.

I admit to a bias. My first 2 goldens were trained for hunting (out of Topbrass). But for the last 20 years, after I gave hunting I had 2 Bernese Mountain Dogs (Swiss Farms line). After putting down my 11 year old BMD my wife insisted on a smaller dog. So we decided to get another golden. I was surprised at how the breed seemed to have changed over the last 2 decades. The field type (now almost all red colored and streamlined) and show type (looked liked a slightly larger gold cocker spaniel with a retrievers head) looked like two different breeds. Thank goodness their personalities seemed to be the same as always.

The negative comments made by some reputable breeders about creme colored goldens seemed prejudical and down righrt snooty but they did offer some good advise to buyers (but I still think were too centered on color). The shortage of dogs, because of covid, made a fertile selling ground for scam artists and poor breeders to hoodwink prospective buyers.

I searched for 5 months but finally did get what I think will be a good dog, with the attributes that the original Scottish dogs were bred for. Hopefully!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tobypuppy said:


> The field type (now almost all red colored and streamlined) and show type (looked liked a slightly larger gold cocker spaniel with a retrievers head) looked like two different breeds.


🦄 🦄 🦄 🦄 🦄



















^^ Field type










^^^ Show type

































^^ Vintage art/photo of goldens at turn of century


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

tobypuppy said:


> The negative comments made by some reputable breeders about creme colored goldens seemed prejudical and down righrt snooty but they did offer some good advise to buyers (but I still think were too centered on color). The shortage of dogs, because of covid, made a fertile selling ground for scam artists and poor breeders to hoodwink prospective buyers.


I honestly believe if you had an in depth conversation the snooty breeders (probably me 😉), it is that it is very likely not the color but the atrocious breeding practices in the US by breeders focused solely on producing that color for profit. Hopefully it would make sense that when about 95% of US breeders using the term cream cannot be bothered to follow the responsible health testing standards of our country that right or wrong the term cream becomes a hot point issue. Hence why though I personally would be fine with updating the standard to include that light gold does include what other countries call cream, others in this thread and certainly in the wider US dog world would not. 

We all have color preferences, but no responsible breeder I know would choose to breed to a faulty dog over a correctly structured based on that preference. Sadly, color over quality is too often the case in pale dogs in the US.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

LJack said:


> Hopefully it would make sense that when about 95% of US breeders using the term cream cannot be bothered to follow the responsible health testing standards of our country that right or wrong the term cream becomes a hot point issue.


But changing the breed standard to specifically state a different color is allowed... won't change a thing at all.

There are already breeders in the US who actually have put AKC CH titles on their super light dogs and they pick and choose what health clearance system/code of ethics to follow depending on what they have in their dogs. I actually vaguely remember a whole conversation a few years ago where every single person who bred european line goldens essentially claimed that the GRCA COE did not apply to them. These were what many of us would consider "reputable" breeders. This isn't just clearances, but it also is breeding dogs on prelims (before 24 months) habitually.

Dog fails elbows? That's OK. They will just use (or claim to use) a different grading system which hides the failed elbows. It's not a problem with the dogs they breed - it's OFA's fault.  Why! - they won't use OFA anymore because OFA is just so _inconsistent_.

Right now the AKC breed standard doesn't specifically say extremely light or extremely dark colors are a fault. They stop short at identifying either extreme as "undesirable". That should be enough to get people to show their dogs if they want to put their money where their mouth is.

Many of these people claim they are breeding show quality dogs - despite not having a single point on their breeding dogs. Getting majors with a very light golden is extremely tough because the type of judges who will hand wins to very light dogs... do not draw enough entries to build a major. But these dogs should be able to get points here or there. Many of these dogs don't even have that - because there is no effort or expense put into showing these dogs.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Megora said:


> But changing the breed standard to specifically state a different color is allowed... won't change a thing at all.


And here is where you misunderstand what I am saying or you just disagree which is fine too. As I have mentioned I know my opinion that “light gold” and “cream” are two terms defining the same color is likely unconventional. If you don’t agree, again that is fine and is your right. 

I am just saying to me personally (my opinion) that we are fighting over a nut... you say hazelnut! And I say filbert! Regardless it is the same nut from the same tree and neither term is wrong. I am just of the mind that as that nut is the same, that pale colored Golden is the same dog regardless of if it is an American registered light gold or a Canadian registered cream. 

I am not suggesting we add any other colors, not liver or white or black. I am saying I feel we have a semantics issue. I think clarification in the standard with language to the effect that our “light gold encompasses what other countries call cream” in my opinion (again you are free to disagree) could be something to consider.


----------



## tobypuppy (Dec 7, 2020)

I found that in the midwest where I live, there are bad and good breeders. Many of the breeders I talked to that had "English" style dogs had legit heath clearances and were very concerned about breeding quality dogs, but some not, like those from rural amish areas. 
Along the same line I found "American show" breeders had a higher percentage of good heath clearances but more back yard breeders with no health clearances. 
Also field types (hunting) are very popular here and athletic abilities extremely important. Perhaps it is different on the east and west coast where looks are more important than performance and marketing puppies is a full time endevor.
So what say you?


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

tobypuppy said:


> Perhaps it is different on the east and west coast where looks are more important than performance and marketing puppies is a full time endevor.
> So what say you?


I would say thank heavens that doesn’t hold true for any of the reputable preservation breeders I know. 



tobypuppy said:


> .
> Many of the breeders I talked to that had "English" style dogs had legit heath clearances and were very concerned about breeding quality dogs,


I find that fascinating as I track my research and find when I do regardless of area the breeders touting “English Cream” run in the about 5% range for having full and verifiable health certifications that meet the US standards. That is slightly different wording than you are indicating so perhaps that is the difference. Either you were very fortunate in you finds/your area or they knew enough mislead you in a way that felt real. I would be curious to know the names of some of the many you found to see if you are just that good at research and finding the good ones (kudos to you they exist but are exceedingly rare) or if they are wool pullers. I am seriously curious so PM if you are not comfortable with public.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

LJack said:


> I am just of the mind that as that nut is the same, that pale colored Golden is the same dog regardless of if it is an American registered light gold or a Canadian registered cream.


Exactly. I do not disagree with this at all. Very light shades of golden are exactly that - light golden. It's up to judges and breeder to decide what is too light.

The trainwreck waiting to happen is the suggestion to follow along with what the UK club did and alter the breed standard to specifically define an extremely light shade as being not just allowable, but very likely eliminating the existing verbage in the standard which states that extremely light shades and extremely dark shades as undesirable. Say goodby to moderation....



> I found that in the midwest where I live, there are bad and good breeders.


Basically I can think of no breeders here in MI, down in OH, or even down in IN who breed "european line" goldens who I would purchase a show pup from. 

Would I green light buying a pup from any breeders in these 3 states for a pet? Yeah probably, if the clearances are there. But show quality is not there even when they use CH studs... they are trying to fix too much with their girlies.... 

I hope I'm completely wrong and overlooking a gem, but honestly speaking... 

The one time I saw a breeder with really gorgeous goldens who weren't just European line, but they were English bred I believe.... she had one of her dogs go after another in the ring.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Megora said:


> The trainwreck waiting to happen is the suggestion to follow along with what the UK club did and alter the breed standard to specifically define an extremely light shade as being not just allowable, but very likely eliminating the existing verbage in the standard which states that extremely light shades and extremely dark shades as undesirable.


But I never said that. 

You keep attributing way more in content and intention to my words. I understand you are passionate about not using the term cream and as I have stated repeatedly that is fine and I am not about to tell you you are wrong in your opinion. It is yours please do have it. 

I would just ask that you stop trying to bend my words though. I am not in favor of any substantive change to the standard, just adding verbiage that clarifies the semantic issue I see. 

If you don’t agree that light gold and cream actually refer to the same dog depending on the registry (USA or Canada), that is were we disagree and your repeated strikes to my opinion make sense. You seem to indicate you agree but then you continue to repeatedly insist I want to uproot the whole standard. I don’t.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

LJack said:


> *I personally wish the US would just add cream* so all the breeders with low quality/high fault dogs would have to stop blaming color for the lack of success. Good dogs can win in the US even if they are extreme in the Golden range of color and this has always been the case.





LJack said:


> I highly doubt most of the breeders who blame color would even try to show. *But if it was in the standard they couldn’t just give the poor “woe is me, my cream dog isn’t allowed* to show” response. We already know they can compete but the general public buys that line from the color breeders all the time.





LJack said:


> Hence why though *I personally would be fine with updating the standard to include that light gold does include what other countries call cream*, others in this thread and certainly in the wider US dog world would not.



????? 

I'm not attempting to twist anyone's words. My responses were to the above 3 different posts. 

While I understand that you simply meant that the breed standard should be clarified - I think that would be difficult to do without altering the intentions of the breed standard where it comes to recommending moderation w/r to the color if these dogs. Extremes either direction is spelled out to be undesirable - while allowing for varying shades of gold.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

You quoted everything except the literal change I was suggesting. Here it is incase you missed it.


LJack said:


> “light gold encompasses what other countries call cream”


It could be in the standard body or perhaps as a foot note. That’s it. Literally all my suggestion/opinion encompasses.


----------



## Emmdenn (Jun 5, 2018)

Megora said:


> That dog won the class... and the points... and the breed.


Perhaps that dogs virtues outweighed the faults of lighter eyes (or it’s dark gold shade) and the judge felt it was the best dog that day. 



Megora said:


> There are already breeders in the US who actually have put AKC CH titles on their super light dogs and they pick and choose what health clearance system/code of ethics to follow depending on what they have in their dogs. I actually vaguely remember a whole conversation a few years ago where every single person who bred european line goldens essentially claimed that the GRCA COE did not apply to them. These were what many of us would consider "reputable" breeders. This isn't just clearances, but it also is breeding dogs on prelims (before 24 months) habitually.


You say this as though golden breeders who breed dogs of any shade of gold who have finished CHs don’t also pick and choose health testing, allow dogs to breed girls with a missing clearances etc. This happens all the time to breeders of any shade of gold (which you obviously know) but for some reason are running a smear campaign against any dog lighter than your taste 😂.

I could easily name a dozen breeders with European pedigrees with follow the CoE to a T. I could also name a dozen breeders who advertise “red retrievers” who have an abysmal clearance history, as well as dozens and dozens and dozens of breeders of your typical medium golden dogs who have never bred a dog with full clearances in their life.

It is very clear in multiple threads that you have a distaste for the lighter color dogs and group all breeders and exhibitors who have light gold dogs together regardless of their pedigrees and accomplishments. Because if a light gold dog finishes a CH you find something else to point out like missing clearances or something else.

Truly though (and I’m not just saying this because she’s my dog) but you could put my girl next to an eastern euro girl from an “English cream” breeder and clearly see the difference in quality. You could put my girl next to a medium gold girlie who came from joe shmo who bred his dog to a golden down the street and see the difference in quality. Let’s make it about the quality of the dog and not the color. Let’s not group an entire group of breeders/dogs into one basket because there are certain breeders of specific color dogs who aren’t ethical.

Changing the wording in the standard would literally change nothing except maybe educate judges that light gold/cream IS perfectly acceptable and perhaps motivate some to judge the dog and throw color out the window. There will always be breeders using excuses for why they don’t show their dogs. If the wording was changed to include light gold/cream (or red if we’re flipping the tables) it would take away that excuse, and then it would literally just be about the quality of the dog at that point.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

LJack said:


> You quoted everything except the literal change I was suggesting. Here it is incase you missed it.


I quoted the lines I was responding to. 

But even the one quote where you clarify that you are only suggesting a footnote be added to specify that light gold encompasses what other countries refer to as cream. Does that not contradict what the breed standard has currently? 



golden retriever breed standard said:


> Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable. Some latitude should be given to the light puppy whose coloring shows promise of deepening with maturity.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Megora said:


> I think that would be difficult to do without altering the intentions of the breed standard where it comes to recommending moderation w/r to the color if these dogs. Extremes either direction is spelled out to be undesirable - while allowing for varying shades of gold.


Perhaps it would be difficult, I think my suggestion is simple enough. Not everyone would agree with it. But acknowledging something is undesirable without making it a fault or a DQ does have precedence in our standard. Look at teeth. Level bit is mentioned. Does that indicate that we should be breeding for it? No. But it does show, that you can mention a trait as acceptable but not desirable. I don’t see why a quick note about light gold being called cream in other countries and retaining the whole rest of the standard including the undesirable extreme colors should be that different. If however you think light gold and cream do not encompass the same color then that point makes sense.

So, flat out do you agree or disagree Kate that a US registered light gold is the same as a Canadian registered cream?


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Megora said:


> Does that not contradict what the breed standard has currently?


No.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Emmdenn said:


> Perhaps that dogs virtues outweighed the faults of lighter eyes (or it’s dark gold shade) and the judge felt it was the best dog that day.


Like I said - 

"I can't begin to figure what judges like about the dog other than imagining that his movement and structure must be supernatural to overcome the expression and uber dark color! It just goes to show that extremes do win - but everything else needs to be there."

At a glance the three things I observed were - dog was long bodied, dog had light eyes and hard expression, and dog was remarkably dark in coloring. Based on him being successful out there under different judges, it would seem that his other qualities are remarkable.

The rest of your comment - I really have nothing more to say other than assuring you that if your dog is as wonderful as you think she is (and she may be), then you do not need to demand that breed standards be changed so judges see her. You are an owner handler and this is your first show dog. Big thing to recognize is that sometimes the reason why judges do not put an O/H dog over others - it's not always political or a slight against the dog. There's a learning curve which is extremely tough to get through - and very few people get through if they think judges are just being unfair.



LJack said:


> So, flat out do you agree or disagree Kate that a US registered light gold is the same as a Canadian registered cream?


I'm confused about what you are asking here?

I've said that there are varying shades of golden with certain shades being extremely light or extremely dark. The AKC breed standard specifies that too light or too dark are undesirable. This would imply that breeders should not go out of their way to breed for extremes in anything - including color.

That is not the same thing as what you seemed to be asking for with the 3 different posts which I quoted - in that adding the word "cream" to the breed standard as an allowable shade of gold. To me, you are contradicting what is currently in the breed standard.

I mean, how would the following make anyone happy?



> Shades described as "cream" or "mahogany" may be defined as shades of golden. However, predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable.



Btw - breeders who currently breed european style goldens, including very light shades of gold - they are very careful to keep some shade of gold in the coats and avoid using the word "white" to describe what they breed. If they compete at all in AKC, they do.

Many of the breeders out there who currently do not bother breeding for the AKC show ring and claim that the reason why they do not is because they are breeding according to the breed standard in a different country (where they do no show) - they are a little more open about breeding dogs who are practically white.

And pet owners out there who you and Em do not have ANYTHING IN COMMON with - they refer to their dogs as "white goldens retrievers". <= I am a member of a pet group on FB and um, yeah. That's pretty common.


----------



## tobypuppy (Dec 7, 2020)

Jack, you asked for names of breeders of what I call somewhat European or English type. Here are two (close to me) come to mind. There are others if needed. They are Strike Goldens from the UP (Michigan) and Cedar Goldens in Wisconsin. Strike Goldens have mainly Canadain Champions and Cedars dogs are AKC champions. Tom (Cedars) also judges.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tobypuppy said:


> Jack, you asked for names of breeders of what I call somewhat European or English type. Here are two (close to me) come to mind. There are others if needed. They are Strike Goldens from the UP (Michigan) and Cedar Goldens in Wisconsin. Strike Goldens have mainly Canadain Champions and Cedars dogs are AKC champions. Tom (Cedars) also judges.


I hate to point this out - Strike Goldens refer to a dog as an AKC CH with 13 points? And they are breeding her on essentially prelim hips/elbows. She was 16 months old when hips/elbows checked.

That's the kind of thing that I was referring to above with people who pick and choose which rules they follow and then use somewhat misleading or incorrect terminology....


----------



## Emmdenn (Jun 5, 2018)

Megora said:


> The rest of your comment - I really have nothing more to say other than assuring you that if your dog is as wonderful as you think she is (and she may be), then you do not need to demand that breed standards be changed so judges see her. You are an owner handler and this is your first show dog. Big thing to recognize is that sometimes the reason why judges do not put an O/H dog over others - it's not always political or a slight against the dog. There's a learning curve which is extremely tough to get through - and very few people get through if they think judges are just being unfair.


Totally and I’m very aware of her faults and that she’s not perfect, trust me I’m not sitting over here crying about judges being “unfair” to me or my dog. I’ve been competitive in sports and horse showing though so I’m not naive to think that there can be politics involved.

The point I was making is that the quality and structure and temperament of the dog is what is important and being caught up in semantics and the color variations is the breed is really not productive. Maybe I misunderstood but it sounded like you were grouping all light/cream dogs into this poor quality, badly bred basket. And my including the examples of putting a correct light colored dog next to incorrect dogs of any shade would show that color does NOT indicate quality. That seemed to be your insinuation, or at least that’s how it read.

Including terminology that is used in other GR breed standards wouldn’t change the standard, but really clarify what apparently is a very confusing and polarizing section of the standard. I truly just do not agree that clarifying in the standard that light shades of gold are acceptable would be in anyway detrimental to the breed. Good judges won’t care about color and put up the dog that they thing is the best on that day.

I like a dog with more color, co-own a 3 month old puppy and during litter evaluations my eye was drawn to this little spit fire of a puppy, she was darker than the rest, would probably mature to a medium gold and I really wanted her to be the pick but at the end of the day one of the lighter puppies was overall a nicer mover, so that’s who we kept.

And to be clear, I agree with you — “white” Goldens and people calling their Goldens white makes me cringe, but I bite my tongue and don’t care because they’re pet people and and just ignorant to the appropriate colors and terms.


----------



## tobypuppy (Dec 7, 2020)

Megora said:


> I hate to point this out - Strike Goldens refer to a dog as an AKC CH with 13 points? And they are breeding her on essentially prelim hips/elbows. She was 16 months old when hips/elbows checked.
> 
> That's the kind of thing that I was referring to above with people who pick and choose which rules they follow and then use somewhat misleading or incorrect terminology....


The Strike Golden female you referred to is a Canadian champion with 13 AKC POINTS. I have never seen them refer to her as an AKC champion. And she does have all her clearances. Please recheck. And what criticism do you have about Cedars, Tom and Mary Schultz?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Emmdenn said:


> The point I was making is that the quality and structure and temperament of the dog is what is important and being caught up in semantics and the color variations is the breed is really not productive. Maybe I misunderstood but it sounded like you were grouping all light/cream dogs into this poor quality, badly bred basket. And my including the examples of putting a correct light colored dog next to incorrect dogs of any shade would show that color does NOT indicate quality. That seemed to be your insinuation, or at least that’s how it read.


No... I think like many on this forum and elsewhere it just gets so frustrating because we know what "should" be there when you look at a dog. After you show even a little while, you grow more conscious about things like heads, toplines, bone, coat, tail sets, etc... and it is much more difficult to pull the wool over our eyes once you see what should be there.

Then the clearances is something else to try convincing people to just walk the same path that we all do. I "think" part of the problem is some of these lines being imported have weak areas like elbows - so many of these dogs are more prone to have elbow dysplasia. And because they are a bit more expensive and the breeder/owners have put that much more money and passion in raising these dogs with all their hopes piling up ahead of them, it can be very disheartening when the elbows do not pass.

A friend of mine went through this when she attempted to breed to English lines to bring more health into what she breeds. She used a stud who was very nice and so on and kept two girls to somewhat be a safe bet (ie one of the two would clear). Both girls had elbow dysplasia and it was bad enough they were limping off and on after turning 8-9 months old. They were beautiful dogs too. They had that light buttery color that I really loved growing up (before people switched gears and really started going super light over in Europe).

So type is one issue and clearances are the other issue. It's so difficult to see or find many breeders out there who have it all in what they breed. And even there, you do have some eyebrow raising things you see in the grooming area.

I think go back to the 90's - there were a LOT of English imports who were simply breathtaking. Todays imports from eastern europe are completely different.... and the breeders here in the US are also, many of them... don't really know what they are doing when selectively breeding.... 

There are reputable breeders in the US and Can... but even there, I was stunned when I saw what they had to say about breeding dogs on preliminary clearances and breeding dogs with elbow dysplasia. Some of the declarations went beyond the usual "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" route that many take. There were comments more along the lines of following mentors overseas and different set of rules because these dogs are different from Am bred dogs, etc. It's been really tough shaking that out of my brain over the years.




> Including terminology that is used in other GR breed standards wouldn’t change the standard, but really clarify what apparently is a very confusing and polarizing section of the standard.


I literally sat here trying to figure out how you would write "cream is allowed" in the AKC breed standard while also saying that predominant body color that is too light or too dark is undesirable. It is too much a contradiction if you are spelling it out. I think what would be better is to address the color "issue" in judge education. 

GRCA has done this a little when they showed all the goldens sitting there in a line and indicated that while all these dog colors were shades of the golden breed - the ones on the ends were a smidge too light or too dark. But otherwise, they leave it up to the judges to decide. 

Currently - I do think a little that judges are leaning more towards darker coloring in golden retrievers. At least locally it seems that way. Other regions around the country where you might have more breeder judges, including judges who are very much a fan of light coloring.... you have different trends. 

Leave it at that... I think is better than rewriting the breed standard to eliminate or make it a bit more difficult for a judge to rule out a dog in the ring who is very light - especially when in the ring with med gold dogs.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tobypuppy said:


> The Strike Golden female you referred to is a Canadian champion with 13 AKC POINTS. I have never seen them refer to her as an AKC champion. And she does have all her clearances. Please recheck. And what criticism do you have about Cedars, Tom and Mary Schultz?


?


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Megora said:


> I'm confused about what you are asking here?


Okay, since that was confusing. Let’s make a specific for instance. 
Let’s take a lovely but very pale American bred girl who is an AKC Grand Champion on her registration papers in the US the color she is registered as “Light Golden” if I were to move the UK and take her with me when I transfer registration the UK doesn’t have that as a registration option. Instead they have ”Cream” which is what this dog would be registered as.

Yes or no, did registering that dog in the UK change its actual physical color?


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Megora said:


> To me, you are contradicting what is currently in the breed standard.
> 
> I mean, how would the following make anyone happy?


I don’t see the contradiction in acknowledging a trait is in the breed but also not desirable like a level bite.

And, oh ho ho no. I don’t think it would make many people happy. As far as my perspective sits, the standard is not there to make us happy. It is there to describe what Goldens are and ultimately what the perfect one would be. To me acknowledging that we are using a different color name than the rest of the world in the way I have mentioned (not some rando straw argument about tearing down the whole standard or adding colors that are not already there) literally this…“light golden encompasses what other countries call cream” would not negate any of the remainder of the color section of the standard.



> Predominant body color which is either extremely *pale* or extremely *dark* is undesirable.


Considering one of our registerable colors is literally *Dark* Golden and yet we do not have a monolith breed of Irish Setter colored dogs, I think that is pretty good evidence that adding a small notation that “light golden encompasses what other countries call cream” is not the breed killer you might think.

But to each his own. If you don’t like my opinion, no sweat. You don’t have to agree with it. If you are still confused, well I honestly don’t know how I could make my opinion more transparent. 🤷🏼‍♀️


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

*







*

What is the difference between gold and golden?

Just curious? 

(by the way - I have always just put golden when registering my dogs - I don't really understand why there is so much need to pick nits over coloring. 

I know breeders who refer to some shades as "maple sugar" or "honey gold" or "champagne" or "buttery" or whatever else. We don't need these descriptives to be added to the breed standard? Why would "cream" need to be? - especially if you are not changing the line "predominant body color that is extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable".


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Megora said:


> *
> View attachment 885439
> *
> 
> ...


That would be a question for a person with UK registration experience like AnneF.

I assume they match up to ours and Golden is the darker end of their range but that is a best guess and accuracy is not guarantee.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

LJack said:


> That would be a question for a person with UK registration experience like AnneF.
> 
> I assume they match up to ours and Golden is the darker end of their range but that is a best guess and accuracy is not guarantee.


You'd think it would be simpler to just have - light gold, medium gold, and dark gold - as description of the allowed coloring for this breed? Especially if you are stating that there is just 1 color in this breed - golden. 

I guess beyond that, I thought it was curious to see the phrasing - "breed standard colors in this breed include". That technically means something different (if being read literally) than saying that golden retrievers are varying shades of gold (light, med, dark).

To put all this idle chit chat into context here - the following is the color description for a different breed -



chow breed standard said:


> Color: Clear colored, solid or solid with lighter shadings in the ruff, tail and featherings. There are five colors in the Chow: red (light golden to deep mahogany), black, blue, cinnamon (light fawn to deep cinnamon) and cream. Acceptable colors to be judged on an equal basis.


You see here that cream is a separate color than the others. And I find that less interesting than the first thing mentioned... "clear colored". What exactly is that supposed to mean??? !










^ This is a creme colored chow. <= And I love that color fwiw. If many of the goldens described as creme were this color, we would not be having this conversation.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

That is the other way to go. Just register them all Golden. I’d be fine with that too, but I personally would want every country’s registration process and standard to be altered that way. Then no fuss no muss and consistency. Sounds like heaven.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

LJack said:


> That is the other way to go. Just register them all Golden. I’d be fine with that too, but I personally would want every country’s registration process and standard to be altered that way. Then no fuss no muss and consistency. Sounds like heaven.


Quite honestly - I think the breeders and owners split more hairs than the people writing the breed standards or the judges who are supposed to be judging the dogs against the breed standards! 

We are throwing the ball back and forth about coloring, but it's peculiar to see what people have to say when it comes to defining "moderate" when it comes to length and thickness of coat. And other things like that.

But especially the recitation of the first two lines of the breed standard - without truly explaining what they think it means. >.<


----------



## LA152 (Dec 31, 2020)

Megora said:


> You'd think it would be simpler to just have - light gold, medium gold, and dark gold - as description of the allowed coloring for this breed? Especially if you are stating that there is just 1 color in this breed - golden.
> 
> I guess beyond that, I thought it was curious to see the phrasing - "breed standard colors in this breed include". That technically means something different (if being read literally) than saying that golden retrievers are varying shades of gold (light, med, dark).
> 
> ...


Well, they do happen to come out lighter than that oftentimes so I guess we will all have to continue to read your comments about your own color preferences disguised as concerns about quality of the dog.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Not that she needs my help, but this isn't really about preferences, even though that's certainly a factor when a person is considering a puppy purchase, especially if planning to show- which is why most breeders examine structure and could care less about color. My reality is, based on the photos on ECGR websites, structure is lacking in this subset. That is why the few that get shown don't do well- it's not the coat color, it is the structure that's lacking.


----------



## annef (Feb 23, 2008)

Trying to answer all the questions here so if I miss out one please forgive me!
Our standard, the country of origin of the breed, was changed nearly 100 years ago because light cream dogs were appearing probably, due to the influence of Ch Gilder who sired 8 champions and was cream (according to a very famous breeder who was showing in the 1930's and from whom I have her prefix in addition to my own). There are many shades of cream as there are many shades of white but genetically goldens cannot be red or white (as I understand) This is not an exaggeration but a naturally occurring colour . The US does not have cream as an option and that is their prerogative, but we do and have done for many, many years. We also have very dark coloured dogs and yes sometimes the judge has a personal preference but that is becoming much less I feel as the years have gone on. I have certainly won with cream coloured dogs under judges who have dark dogs and won with dark dogs under judges who have cream dogs. I am happy to have both in my kennel and I am showing a dark one and a cream one at present and having a lot of fun with both of them. 
When I am judging colour never comes into the consideration ever and one of the great joys of goldens in this country is not only the range of colour but also the range of coats straight and wavy, both equally correct. Wavy coats are more difficult to prepare but nothing nicer than seeing a dog with waves from the top of the neck to the end of the tail 

As judges we are expected to be able to interpret the breed standard and newer judges have to attend and pass exam days dedicated to understanding the breed standard as well as all the rules , points of the dogs and be able to write an accurate critique. Judges now also have attend a Field trial or working test to ensure they understand how the dogs work and to ensure when they judge they can recognise what 'fit for function' means. All judges have to agree not to reward any exaggeration that would include coats that would impede the dog working, short muzzles meaning they would struggle to carry birds and too short in leg to clear a 5 bar gate (as examples) The Kennel Club also have Breed Watch and at present goldens have to be reported for being overweight and if they are short in the leg. All first time CC judges are observed and a report sent back to the Kennel Club
They also have strict breeding rules so no bitch can have a litter before 18 months old or over 8 (except in very exceptional circumstances in numerical small breeds) no litters will be registered if the bitch has not gone at least one year between litters and no more than 2 caesarian sections and 4 litters in total . So we are not allowed to do back to back matings unless bitch goes a , long time between seasons

I do also agree that many of the 'English Creams' are certainly not show standard in any country!
Our standard is the standard for the golden retriever in most of the world and is recognised by the FCI. It is not as detailed as the US standard but that doesn't make it incorrect or difficult to judge to. I realise that many US breeders don't like the colour creams and I can understand that as it is not in your standard. To my mind, light gold is not cream although many cream puppies end up light gold as they darken so much during life.
Sorry this is so long but trying to explain why our standard is different . I am hoping that perhaps some of the US breeders may attend one of the Guisichan gatherings so you can see where the first goldens were bred

Annef


----------



## annef (Feb 23, 2008)

LJack said:


> That would be a question for a person with UK registration experience like AnneF.
> 
> I assume they match up to ours and Golden is the darker end of their range but that is a best guess and accuracy is not guarantee.


Same thing to be honest! I register all my puppies as gold as many of the cream ones end up that colour anyway! Annef


----------



## Emmdenn (Jun 5, 2018)

Megora said:


> I literally sat here trying to figure out how you would write "cream is allowed" in the AKC breed standard while also saying that predominant body color that is too light or too dark is undesirable. It is too much a contradiction if you are spelling it out. I think what would be better is to address the color "issue" in judge education.


*Color* — rich, lustrous golden of various shades, dark gold to light gold — _*sometimes referred to as “cream”*_. Feathering may be lighter than rest of coat. With the exception of graying or whitening of face or body due to age, any white marking, other than a few white hairs on the chest, should be penalized according to its extent. Allowable light shadings are not to be confused with white markings. Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable. Some latitude should be given to the light puppy whose coloring shows promise of deepening with maturity. Any noticeable area of black or other off-color hair is a serious fault.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

I think it is silly that AKC even has us select which color our dogs are. They are all the same color genetically. Puppies changes shades as they mature. Nowhere else but on the AKC papers are dogs ever separated by their color, and even then, what box is checked is totally up to the owner's interpretation. Genetically, they are all the same.
WE ARE ONE OF THE VERY, VERY FEW BREEDS NAMED *FOR THEIR COLOR*
They should be GOLD = period! AS THE NAME IMPLIES
If you have to get semantical and guess what color they are, or justify that "light gold" means "cream" or butter or ochre or platinum or whatever silly term you want to use...maybe you're thinking too hard about it or maybe the dog is the wrong color.
GOLDEN retriever, end of story!


----------



## tobypuppy (Dec 7, 2020)

Megora said:


> ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 885437
> ...


I may be talking to Strike Goldens at the end of the month. I will surely bring this info to their attention.
P.S. I am not looking to purchase a puppy


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

K9-Design said:


> I think it is silly that AKC even has us select which color our dogs are. They are all the same color genetically. Puppies changes shades as they mature. Nowhere else but on the AKC papers are dogs ever separated by their color, and even then, what box is checked is totally up to the owner's interpretation. Genetically, they are all the same.
> WE ARE ONE OF THE VERY, VERY FEW BREEDS NAMED *FOR THEIR COLOR*
> They should be GOLD = period! AS THE NAME IMPLIES
> If you have to get semantical and guess what color they are, or justify that "light gold" means "cream" or butter or ochre or platinum or whatever silly term you want to use...maybe you're thinking too hard about it or maybe the dog is the wrong color.
> GOLDEN retriever, end of story!



Spot on Anney<:

Shut my computer yesterday pondering what the heck we all had been talking about. 

I love how straight forward our breed standard is where it comes to coloring - as opposed to something like the Chow Chow thing I quoted. Red (different shades from golden to dark) is a different color than cinnamon which is a different color than creme. I told my sister and she started laughing. I hope goldens do not go that route to please people who desire to have registration numbers associated with fancy colors.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

But see I have no problem with the Chow standard. They DO come in different colors genetically, unlike our breed. Call it whatever you want, our Goldens are yellow, genetically. Recessive at E locus = YELLOW
Chows can be black, blue (blue dilute, D locus), red (fawn on the A locus...different terminology than red/yellow/gold from recessive at E), cinnamon (brown dilute, B locus), cream (chinchilla dilute of red (I think C locus??? can't remember). They are NOT yellow. Their genetics are totally different. How you breed the colors together affects what color the puppies are. Not so with our breed because they are all the same.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Prism Goldens said:


> Not that she needs my help, but this isn't really about preferences, even though that's certainly a factor when a person is considering a puppy purchase, especially if planning to show- which is why most breeders examine structure and could care less about color. My reality is, based on the photos on ECGR websites, structure is lacking in this subset. That is why the few that get shown don't do well- it's not the coat color, it is the structure that's lacking.


It's everything though - right? All of the structure, all of the traits, everything down to the toenails... 

Not just for showing, but breeding - which is also intended for showing. You get into people who breed for purpose other than pet homes - and it's a constant loop between goals of the breeder influencing their choices in what they breed.

One interesting note - and I am quite honestly uncomfortable chit chatting and publicly talking shop about breeders who are up and up, but I have seen dogs from the Cedars? Been in the ring with them. In fact the major my Bertie got - he beat one of their dogs for BOW (that was a big show with majors in both dogs and girlies). They are all right? But quite honestly I preferred the looks of some English line goldens that were briefly shown locally before the owner moved back to Europe. Their heads and expression were more ideal to me. I am very weak when it comes to beautiful headsets and expressions. My memories are fuzzy about the rest of the dogs (this was 5+ years ago), but I believe everything else was basically there.

There have been other dogs that I've seen - general pets walking on the street or showing up at dog shows and walking around - I don't remember heads, because I saw something else about the dogs which had me looking away and minding my own business. A lot of these dogs are not well bred, not bred with knowledge (doubtlessly breeder bred to dog who was the right color + intact vs being careful about making sure structure, coat/skin health, headshape, etc all checked out) and it does show. 

General observation on dogs that people are attempting to show (nobody here, not talking about the Cedars, etc) - the heads are plain, earset is off, they do not have enough leg under them. The coats are kinda curly - especially if they've just been bathed. <= The dogs might be nice in other ways, but all of these things make it very difficult to show them successfully.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

annef said:


> To my mind, light gold is not cream although many cream puppies end up light gold as they darken so much during life.


That is an interesting remark after everything previously on this thread with people pushing for cream to be recognized as a shade of gold. I think for a lot of us, the argument is that these are not "cream retrievers". They are golden retrievers. And that color of golden - it encompasses many shades. The chow picture I showed above is registered (and shown) as cream. And I would honestly consider that to be a light golden color - if golden retrievers. I like many grew up seeing golden retrievers imported from England (actually coming from England) who were that shade of gold.

That said, what many are referring to as cream - may never darken up to be the same color as that chow.

Some of the coloring which we see with many dogs out there - it takes more mental acrobatics to not see that as white. And on that same basis, many people who are less bothered about breed standards word for word - they do outright call their dogs "white". And you've got breeders out there who have snow/white etc in their kennel names or in the dogs registration names along these lines.

Basically colors lighter than that chow might be considered extremely light and undesirable per those words I quoted a few times from the breed standard - while people refer to them as "cream". That's the contradiction when adding "cream" to the breed standard as an allowable shade, while also saying it's not.

And I guess my other thing is if you are in the other camp and say that creme is a shade of gold and want to leave it up to the individual judges to gauge what is extremely light or not.... and if the shade even matters based on what else is going on with the dogs in the ring... if the golden with the uber light coat is the most correct dog, best moving dog, etc... should win? All dogs have a weak area or a fault and it's up to the judge to decide if that matters. Which case or whatever - means there's nothing wrong with the breed standard and no reason to change it.


----------



## Emmdenn (Jun 5, 2018)

If see when I see that chow, I see a dog that if put next to a medium gold, golden retriever would be essentially the same color. But again they have a completely different coat and pigment so the color looks different on different dogs. So I guess that sort of proves the point that everyone has their own interpretation of the different labels for the varying shades of gold. Maybe that’s the issue. I just lol to myself over these stupid color arguments. Seems like we’re the only country who has the issue of horrible “English cream” or “red retrievers” breeders and coincidentally also the country who evidently keep going back and fourth about semantics when discussing the various shades of gold our dogs naturally come in 😂😂😂.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Emmdenn said:


> If see when I see that chow, I see a dog that if put next to a medium gold, golden retriever would be essentially the same color.


Huh??????? I would not consider that to be "medium" gold.

I guess everyone's computer is different at showing colors, but..... I literally can't wait to tell my friend who owns the chow that a golden person said her dog is "medium gold". 

_searching for my "special unicorn" emoticon

🦄 🦄 🦄 🦄 🦄 _




















^^^ This is medium gold - what I would define as medium gold.

If however, you think the chow is medium gold... then the above 3 dogs would be dark gold?  Good Lord where is this thread going....? Hahaha..


----------



## ArkansasGold (Dec 7, 2017)

Eevee recently lost a point to a bitch that is so red, she would make an Irish Setter look brown. She glowed red in the sun like a phoenix. Judge was a breeder judge known for liking red dogs. 

Dog shows are a crap shoot.

“English Creams” from breeders who use that term don’t win because they have bad structure and lack breed type. It has nothing to do with color. Good breeder judges will put up a light dog that is solid regardless of its color.

Color is the least of our worries when it comes to all-breed judges and Goldens IMO. A lot of them wouldn’t recognize a good dog if it literally floated on thin air around the ring with its top line at eye level.

Take me with a grain of salt today. Lol


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

ArkansasGold said:


> Take me with a grain of salt today. Lol


Been there Maegan. 

Sometimes even the breeder judges are hardly any better.


----------



## Emmdenn (Jun 5, 2018)

Megora said:


> Huh??????? I would not consider that to be "medium" gold.
> 
> I guess everyone's computer is different at showing colors, but.....
> 
> ...


😂😂😂


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

By the way - in case any onlookers were to get a false opinion based on a lot of the jabber jabber in this thread. 










While there might be some who think that the first 1-2 dogs are light golden, next 2 are medium gold, next 2 are dark gold and the remaining 3 are RED (?  )... 

this is basically what I was taught ages ago -

3 dogs on the left = light golden
3 dogs in the middle = medium gold
3 dogs on the right = dark gold

And the below is instruction for judges -

JUDGING: Color is essential in defining the breed as “Golden.” Pale gold through deep reddish gold are allowed, and all shades within this accepted range should be considered equally. Dogs whose body color is predominantly off-white, or dark setter-red, are not truly “golden” and should be judged accordingly – but these extremes are only “undesirable” and not a major or significant fault. A good Golden Retriever is a good Golden Retriever regardless of the shade of gold, and each dog deserves equal consideration when weighing the merits and faults of type, movement and structure.



https://grca.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IN-REVIEW-Coat-Color-PDF.pdf


----------



## annef (Feb 23, 2008)

I would say 2 cream, 1 light gold, 3 mid gold and 3 dark gold! Lovely to see the range of colour. I often think they may have been better remaining wavy coated retrievers. Annef


----------

