# Breeder input for dicussion



## puddles everywhere

So it has been suggested often to actually read the AKC/GRCA breed description. Very interesting actually... but I'm no breeder and hope to get some breeder perspectives. 

If you compare the current breed description it is quite different from the book I have dated 1963. I'm sure there are lots of changes but the one that stood out to me was COLOR. In 1963 the prefered color was "brown" (pretty sure they meant dark gold) and coat was NOT to be long and silky like a setter, feet & bone were not to be large. Ears and coat were to be trimmed up but to remain natural. Feathers were to be minimal as this is primarily a sporting dog. Size remained the same.

This of course is not the golden standard of today and certainly not what you see in the ring. So question is did the GCRA change the standard to meet what was being bred? So basically what the breeders produced influenced the standard vs. breeding to the standard?

LOL it sounds like the preverbal question... which came first the chicken or the egg?

So would love to hear the breeders perspective, especially if we have some long time people out here.


----------



## nolefan

Oh you do know how to stir the pot  I'll have to make more coffee


----------



## Prism Goldens

From Judges Ed Committee : "In *1932*, when the Golden was officially recognized by AKC as a separate variety of Retriever, the breed standard used by AKC was essentially identical to that of the Kennel Club in the UK. This standard was quite brief and lacked much detail, probably assuming that the reader would know what the "basics" were. This standard was chosen by AKC because the Golden Retriever Club of America (GRCA) was not founded until six years later, in 1938.

In the early 1950s there was much discussion about the standard, especially in regard to size. Even though size was stated in a footnote to the standard, this was often ignored in the show ring, with some notable dogs well above the stated 23-24 inches. Bad bites were common, and often overlooked. After much research and discussion, a new and more complete standard was written, voted on by the membership of the GRCA, and approved by AKC, effective in *1955*. For the first time disqualifications were added, including deviation of more than one inch over or under the stated height range, and overshot or undershot jaws.

In the late 1970s there was again a need for a more comprehensive standard. A great deal of effort went into this work over several years, to describe the structure and character of the Golden Retriever. There was no change to the "ideal," but considerable detail was added to the description of what that ideal was. This standard was approved in *1981*.

In *1990*, at the request of AKC, the standard was reformatted to accord with AKC's desire for all standards to use a uniform order of sections. Basically, it was just a "cut and paste" re-ordering of parts; no essentials were changed. This is the standard currently in use."


the Standard currently used is basically the same as the one adopted in 1981 as the later re-write changed nothing.


----------



## puddles everywhere

Man you are good! I looked for standard history but failed to find anything.

So the 1963 AKC book I have is most likely the standard set in 1955? I tried to reproduce the pic in the book but couldn't get a good enough copy to post. No way that pic represents what is currently in the ring, not around here anyway. 

Very few breeders have dogs with color, just keeps getting lighter and lighter. Color seemed to be important back in the day. Are puppy buyers wants influencing the standards in the ring? Or is it judges personal taste? Bigger (bulkier) / lighter appears to be the future.

So is the new version of the 1970's when the big division of field bred / conformation bred begin? or did the field people just decide function was more important than form and blew off the standard? While there are some lovely field dogs most are quite leggy, long muzzle, more narrow skull.

How big a factor do the judges play in the field/conformation split?


----------



## gdgli

puddles everywhere said:


> So it has been suggested often to actually read the AKC/GRCA breed description. Very interesting actually... but I'm no breeder and hope to get some breeder perspectives.
> 
> If you compare the current breed description it is quite different from the book I have dated 1963. I'm sure there are lots of changes but the one that stood out to me was COLOR. In 1963 the prefered color was "brown" (pretty sure they meant dark gold) and coat was NOT to be long and silky like a setter, feet & bone were not to be large. Ears and coat were to be trimmed up but to remain natural. Feathers were to be minimal as this is primarily a sporting dog. Size remained the same.
> 
> This of course is not the golden standard of today and certainly not what you see in the ring. So question is did the GCRA change the standard to meet what was being bred? So basically what the breeders produced influenced the standard vs. breeding to the standard?
> 
> LOL it sounds like the preverbal question... which came first the chicken or the egg?
> 
> So would love to hear the breeders perspective, especially if we have some long time people out here.



puddles everywhere

This could lead to a heated debate. I will withhold my comments as they have gotten me into arguments in the past. What you will probably also notice is that comments will be a reflection of what type of activities the person likes to do with the dog: obedience; field; agility; huggy pet; etc.


----------



## Prism Goldens

puddles everywhere said:


> Man you are good! I looked for standard history but failed to find anything.
> 
> So the 1963 AKC book I have is most likely the standard set in 1955? I tried to reproduce the pic in the book but couldn't get a good enough copy to post. No way that pic represents what is currently in the ring, not around here anyway.
> 
> Very few breeders have dogs with color, just keeps getting lighter and lighter. Color seemed to be important back in the day. Are puppy buyers wants influencing the standards in the ring? Or is it judges personal taste? Bigger (bulkier) / lighter appears to be the future.
> 
> So is the new version of the 1970's when the big division of field bred / conformation bred begin? or did the field people just decide function was more important than form and blew off the standard? While there are some lovely field dogs most are quite leggy, long muzzle, more narrow skull.
> 
> How big a factor do the judges play in the field/conformation split?


I think all-breed judges play a huge piece. Color often is regional- I remember when all the winning dogs felt like very blond, now they feel like midGold= if you can see the dogs in the Top 20 for the last few years you'll see they are getting darker. But I've pretty much always had color so I'm somewhat aware of the judges who don't mind a dark dog, or that I've never seen put up a fluff ball - those are the ones I will give an entry to. Color is just cosmetic-
Think there's always been a split in the breed, it's just now we see more of the dogs out of our region so it seems more obvious that there is a split. Even seeing events- used to we'd not have gone to a HT or FT if we didn't participate- now it is easy to go anywhere.


----------



## Megora

puddles everywhere said:


> Very few breeders have dogs with color, just keeps getting lighter and lighter. Color seemed to be important back in the day. Are puppy buyers wants influencing the standards in the ring? Or is it judges personal taste? Bigger (bulkier) / lighter appears to be the future.



Breeders themselves are influencing everything as far as looks and style. They are the ones who choose what they will keep and show. 

That said - the dogs aren't getting lighter. 

They still can be shown in shades of blonde to a caramel type dark golden color. 

Dogs who are very light or very dark - as per the breed standard have to be shown more selectively. Some breeder judges. And very selective all breed judges.

*speaking as somebody that does both conformation and obedience. People who do not do conformation think color is everything. But there more to a dog besides color.


----------



## puddles everywhere

Gdgli I meant no offense to anyone and certainly welcome your POV. Discussions have been lacking of late  My questions were more about learning and understanding how all this works and why there is such a huge split in not just GR but several breeds. Just look at the differences in setters & labs... same sort of split. What was viewed as standard in the 1963 AKC book isn't what you see in today's show rings, at least not around here.

Megora I agree that color is not a factor when choosing your dog. Just an observation that the 1963 description stated that brown was the preferred color. Shows in the N TX area may have 1 red in 30 entries. This is why I was asking for breeder input as my exposure to conformation shows is limited to mainly my area and what is on TV. I'm sure there are far more factors than what I have seen or understand.

Robin you are a wealth of information and grateful you are willing to share. I had no idea when the GRCA even came into play and love expanding my knowledge about the breed. The seminar footage from your CCA sparked my curiosity to learn more about the transitions / development of the GR. 

I have two very different, wonderful goldens. Very different in build, color and coat yet both are considered to meet the breed standard... well guess this depends on who you ask. This falls in line with what you were saying about fine tuning the GR standards but also shows how varied the interpretation of this standard is. I liked when the speaker (at the CCA event) said the judges need to re-read the standard before every show as it should not reflect their preference as much as it should reflect the written standard.

Thanks to everyone willing to share and again, I meant no offense to anyone, their dogs or their preferences. All our dogs are wonderful and perfect for each of us. It's just amazing how varied they are don't you think?


----------



## Megora

> Megora I agree that color is not a factor when choosing your dog. Just an observation that the 1963 description stated that brown was the preferred color. Shows in the N TX area may have 1 red in 30 entries. This is why I was asking for breeder input as my exposure to conformation shows is limited to mainly my area and what is on TV. I'm sure there are far more factors than what I have seen or understand.


Last time I checked, the breed is called golden retrievers. Not brown retrievers. Not red retrievers. Not white retrievers. 

Perhaps the breed standard was adapted for clarity w/r to a breed that has a wide-range color in its name? 

Conspiratorially speaking here, maybe the clarification on coloring had something to do with deterring people from breeding back to brown flat coats?

Brown, btw... isn't RED either. Or the other way around. 

And btw - I train with people who jokingly call all the gold, orange, red and buff dogs - BROWN DOGS. Big deal.

More specifically though since this touches on a pet peeve of mine.

We all are fans of moderate dogs, eh?

Why not moderation when it comes to color too???

Why do we need to promote extreme shades just because there's emotional value and prop that up over other things? Which I've seen people rambling emotionally about edited (dogs coats/outlines trimmed) old pictures of really ugly dogs from the 10's and 20's because in some way those pictures remind them of their own dogs. Yikes.

Why do people just see color first when they should be looking at the whole dog? And fwiw - these are also people who think judges are biased.

My medium gold dogs have won over light dogs many times. We've also been beat on more than one occasion by very dark dogs.

I'll kinda say here there ARE judges who prefer the dark colors. And I find it really bad when they put up dogs who have faults just because they favor the color. 

And along those lines, fwiw, randomly speaking here, I just watched a video of a dog over in Singapore. And this is connected to US bred goldens, fwiw. Based on what I've heard, very successful breeders like Fxxxxer Goldens and others have sold champion dogs to breeders in Asia.

Anyway, this dog was dark reddish gold.... 

But I would not want a pup from this dog.

Because of the color????

NO. 

Because of the coat and tail carriage.

The coat was very heavy and this did not appear to be an older dog. Which means that coat was going to be really bad by the time the dog gets old. 

Additionally, because of that coat, it was difficult to say whether that dog had a good front or not. I'm leaning towards - not.

Excess coat made the dog look shorter legged. 

Tail carriage - thing that was concerning is this dog was not at a show where excitement leads to high tail carriage. This dog was just being gaited at home. High tail carriage, and C shape with the tip of the tail over the back of the dog.


----------



## Emmdenn

Interesting thing happened to me recently. I was at my obedience trainer's house, having a private training session with Denver. I think I've mentioned before...but my obedience trainer breeds golden retrievers. Her dogs are all heavily titled in obedience and agility...but not conformation. I had reached out to her, asking her to mentor me in all aspects of the breed, and stated that I really wanted to learn about proper structure. 

As we were going through obedience stuff...we got chatting and I had mentioned I was taking handling classes, and was preparing to dip my foot into conformation showing as well, starting with UKC and doing a CCA. She said "I hate what AKC has turned conformation into. Those beauty pageants don't do anything for me." I guess maybe she was referring to judges choosing structurally incorrect dogs because of preferences in color or coat...

I didn't really want to get into a negative conversation with her...especially because it is something I aim to pursue, but I couldn't stop thinking about what she was referring to. It made me wonder if she thinks that conformation has become less and less about correct structure(in her experiences) and more about other things. Her male is a Canadian Champion..but none of her other dogs are titled in conformation. 

So I know there are breeders out there who value those titles less...and working titles more, which has contributed to the divide in the breed? I think when you think of conformation bred, titled golden retrievers....you do see greater continuity (obviously there are more nuanced differences).

When you zoom out, and think of the breed across the board you clearly see that when you are removed from conformation, you lose the value of the standard and the biggest differences occur (just my novice 2 cents).

I am still learning and find these discussions to be quite insightful and full of information!


----------



## Megora

> When you zoom out, and think of the breed across the board you clearly see that when you are removed from conformation, you lose the value of the standard and the biggest differences occur (just my novice 2 cents).


Yes. That's why even sticking with a breeder who the very least dabbles in conformation, is a member of the breed clubs in their area, is friends and cobreeders with show breeders... the very least, they don't get kennel blind. 

Kennel blindness is a big problem - and it happens to show breeders too. Doesn't matter who or what. 

The negative about AKC that I can see is all the constant propping up of junior handlers as the future. When that is just handling the dogs. Promoting, maintaining, loving breeds - it's the owners and breeders. And this extends into all sports. 

I spent my morning at an obedience trial and I'll say that 99% of the people at this trial owned and competed with purebred dogs. And a good percentage of these people were also competing with champion dogs.

One of the ladies I train with - she just broke some kind of record in finishing OTCH's with two different dogs within a 2 week period. 

Her one dog is a CH OTCH and also a MH (Flat Coated Retriever). Her other dog is a GRCH OTCH border terrier. And she finished the OTCH and her UDX for the terrier this weekend at the same trials. The Flat Coated Retriever had some professional handling in the breed ring, but the terrier was all owner handled to his championship, I believe. 

People like that should get the recognition for being the future of AKC. Because among else, they will remain in the breed a long time, continue to breed, and continue to compete in all areas while promoting, maintaining, and loving their breeds. 

With goldens there are not as many CH OTCH dogs.... all the more so as OTCH trainers go further and further away from breed rings and get performance bred dogs. The obedience world is very different than it was 30-40 years ago. A lot of the people who used to have fluffy blond dogs in the obedience ring back then going for UD's (which was tops for a while)... are now favoring dogs from 1-3 different breeders only. You see it with smaller or rangier and darker dogs in the rings.


----------



## Prism Goldens

I tried to edit my post- but I guess @ the time wire it won't let you

So- what I wanted to say was the AB judges do have a big piece but the breeders will breed whatever's winning if they don't have a set concrete idea in their minds of what is correct. The breeders you see heading to the stud d'jour and it seems like most of those folks don't title in any venue other than conformation. big name CH X CH sometimes doesn't = correct.


----------



## ArchersMom

Emmdenn said:


> Interesting thing happened to me recently. I was at my obedience trainer's house, having a private training session with Denver. I think I've mentioned before...but my obedience trainer breeds golden retrievers. Her dogs are all heavily titled in obedience and agility...but not conformation. I had reached out to her, asking her to mentor me in all aspects of the breed, and stated that I really wanted to learn about proper structure.
> 
> As we were going through obedience stuff...we got chatting and I had mentioned I was taking handling classes, and was preparing to dip my foot into conformation showing as well, starting with UKC and doing a CCA. She said "I hate what AKC has turned conformation into. Those beauty pageants don't do anything for me." I guess maybe she was referring to judges choosing structurally incorrect dogs because of preferences in color or coat...
> 
> I didn't really want to get into a negative conversation with her...especially because it is something I aim to pursue, but I couldn't stop thinking about what she was referring to. It made me wonder if she thinks that conformation has become less and less about correct structure(in her experiences) and more about other things. Her male is a Canadian Champion..but none of her other dogs are titled in conformation.
> 
> So I know there are breeders out there who value those titles less...and working titles more, which has contributed to the divide in the breed? I think when you think of conformation bred, titled golden retrievers....you do see greater continuity (obviously there are more nuanced differences).
> 
> When you zoom out, and think of the breed across the board you clearly see that when you are removed from conformation, you lose the value of the standard and the biggest differences occur (just my novice 2 cents).
> 
> I am still learning and find these discussions to be quite insightful and full of information!


It may not necessarily be the dog's that are being entered, but the lengths that handlers go to in order to make the dog's look a certain way. I was quite shocked my first time at a dog show when I stumbled on the grooming stalls and saw a woman using what must have been a full bottle of expensive hairspray on a poodle. That obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the dogs structure but I'm sure they weren't the only ones with tacky fur full of product. In Golden's it's less dramatic, but people can still spend hours grooming and blow drying until a golden retriever looks like a chow. I wish it could be simpler.


----------



## Megora

Kate - depending on the dog, it can be pretty simple. 

Right now - I spend 1/2 hour tops grooming Jovi the first day of a show weekend. Probably less than that the next day. 

If I get to a show and there is no electricity - I don't panic. And there was one show this summer that had no electricity available (power outages). Did not matter. And my dog did get reserve at that show, so it was OK. 

As a preference I do like to spritz/blow dry day of - just because it "wakes up" the coat.

But he has good bone and good coat. His coat is naturally smooth/straight. There's just no need to fuss. 

Glee obviously hasn't started growing his coat yet - but I am hoping big time that he has the same coat as Jovi. Makes life easier.

Bertie sometimes would get flippies in spots and he looked like a smaller dog in the ring. So I would give him a full bath and blow dry every show morning and this included using stuff to make him look like a bigger dog. This would usually take about 45 minutes total - more time than that if were were outside and humid conditions (makes it tougher to get dogs dry). There was just no way I would skip a show day bath with him then and even now I wouldn't! 

I've heard from people who criticize the lengths people go to make a dog's coat completely smooth and they point to the breed standard allowing for waves - with a wide definition of waves. 

But I spoke with a judge (breeder judge, really good judge) very recently about waves and flips. This was because we were sitting outside the ring and watching. There was one golden in the ring who was very ripply with waves and flips. 

The judge explained that it is not a fault and the coat is correct.... BUT.... it makes it very difficult for the judge to see if the dog's topline (for example) is correct. She said yeah, they do get their hands on the dogs and can work out what is coat and what is dog, but it is tough to pick a dog based on what you feel if the dog looks really bad going down the side.

The people spending 1-2 hours grooming dogs at a show are either inexperienced or they have a string of dogs. Or they have a lot of work to do with a dog.

Going back to the waves and curls - there are some curly goldens out there. There are also dogs with open coats (incorrect coat - looks like a chow coat). Those are things which need more time on a show morning to fix with grooming.


----------



## ArkansasGold

@Megora you just reminded me. At Eevee’s first show I didn’t spend time worrying about her wild puppy coat making her top line look goofy. Plus I don’t know how to fix weird top coat and she’s a puppy for heaven’s sake. We were there for good experiences and to learn. Well... we are waiting outside the ring for Winners to start and a COMPLETE STRANGER walks up and says what a nice puppy I have, then follows it up with a hateful, snarky comment about how I should have fixed her top line before showing her at all. Completely unsolicited. I guess, in my head, I was thinking that I know she has a nice top line and that the judge would be putting hands on her so it didn’t matter much if she had some wavy top coat going on. And also, let me reiterate, IT WAS HER FIRST SHOW. Not even 7 months old yet at the time, but I definitely learned my lesson on the whole wavy coat thing. 

The next day, my friends helped me fix her top line and she got reserve. Snarky lady got nothing. Lol

Other than her goofy puppy coat, she’s pretty easy to groom. She has great bone and her coat will settle down as she gets older. She doesn’t need a full bath and blow dry the day of the show or any excessive trimming to cover things up. So if there is ton of time spent on her the day of the show, it’s because I don’t know what I’m doing.


----------



## Megora

Maegan - how obnoxious! Has me wondering if the person who made that comment was the one who owned the dog your girlie beat to get into winners! 

My first show - I showed up the day of show at a BIG INDOOR SHOW WITH LIMITED GROOMING SPACE!!! (LOL). I found a weird spot kinda on top of cords in the middle of other grooming setups. I basically just plopped my chair there, my little tack box, and brushed my dog before showing. 

I DID know how to groom and knew I should be doing a full spritz/blow dry, but I was really embarrassed about doing that in the middle of people who knew what they were doing. I also wasn't confident I could get the coat completely dry under a couple hours.

My dog (Bertie) had flippies all over the place.  Especially on his hips. 

That first show day was a blur - and by the time I got through it, it was a boost to my confidence. Enough that I brought my grooming table in and borrowed a plug in from a neighbor for the show the next day.

Next day, I gave myself 2 hours. I still couldn't get his coat to lie smooth! LOL. 

I asked different pro handlers there how to get the coat to lie smooth - and mainly after that, I practiced weekly at home until not only could I get the coat to lie smooth, but I knew how to do it efficiently. The next show was 3 months later so there was lots of time to learn. 

Anyway, I can't imagine making a rude comment about a flippy coat.  The pup I mentioned above, it was quiet chat between me, a handler friend, and the breeder judge - and mainly me thinking about what I went through with Bertie when he was Jovi's age and the flippies in his coat.


----------



## gdgli

puddles

I don't think you meant to be offensive. Let's just say I now keep my opinions about this topic to myself. I would love to tell you what the CCA judges had to say about my dog but it would only start trouble. Yes I am being cryptic for a reason.
FYI I generally stay out of topics about the standard, genetics, breeding practices and probably some other topics.


----------



## ArkansasGold

Megora said:


> Maegan - how obnoxious! Has me wondering if the person who made that comment was the one who owned the dog your girlie beat to get into winners!


That person was also going into Winners, but probably should have left that part out of the first post. Anyway, I know how to trim ears, feet, tail, and where to thin out on her, but the top line was escaping me - especially since I've always heard you're not supposed to mess with the jacket really. Her adult undercoat hasn't come in all the way yet, so there's nothing really to hold those guard hairs together. 

Anyway, on the original topic: If breeders are doing their job, then the breed shouldn't look exactly like it did 50 years ago. It should look *better.* That's not to say that there aren't still "problems" today (long and low, straight fronts, etc.), but since this isn't an old breed, I would expect it to still be evolving. It's not a breed that has been around for thousands of years like the Greyhound, some of the spitz breeds, and the molossers.


----------



## DevWind

Megora said:


> Breeders themselves are influencing everything as far as looks and style. They are the ones who choose what they will keep and show.
> 
> That said - the dogs aren't getting lighter.
> 
> They still can be shown in shades of blonde to a caramel type dark golden color.
> 
> Dogs who are very light or very dark - as per the breed standard have to be shown more selectively. Some breeder judges. And very selective all breed judges.
> 
> *speaking as somebody that does both conformation and obedience. People who do not do conformation think color is everything. But there more to a dog besides color.



I disagree about people who don't do conformation. I have two who are different colors. The positive remarks I receive about my dogs have to do with their size. They are at the smaller end of the standard. Obedience people, in my area at least, seem to like smaller dogs. They also tend to love Pilot's head. Never any color comments.


----------



## Megora

Abeille said:


> I disagree about people who don't do conformation. I have two who are different colors. The positive remarks I receive about my dogs have to do with their size. They are at the smaller end of the standard. Obedience people, in my area at least, seem to like smaller dogs. They also tend to love Pilot's head. Never any color comments.


I was more referring to people not involved with any sports, quite honestly.


----------



## DevWind

Megora said:


> I was more referring to people not involved with any sports, quite honestly.



Okay....since you said conformation, I assumed that's what you meant.


----------



## Megora

Abeille said:


> I disagree about people who don't do conformation. I have two who are different colors. The positive remarks I receive about my dogs have to do with their size. They are at the smaller end of the standard. Obedience people, in my area at least, seem to like smaller dogs. They also tend to love Pilot's head. Never any color comments.


Can I just say something btw?

Your dogs look like they are basically the same color. 

If I saw them at an obedience trial - I would not stand there thinking "Oh, they are different colors." 

I don't even think of your girlie as red. She's a nice dark gold.

Literally the first thing that goes through my head when I see a couple dogs like yours is simply - one dog is younger than the other. That's all. A lot of goldens darken as they get older. 

And I literally have told people as much when they look at my dogs and try to sort them out by color. LOLOLOL. 

One woman looked at Jovi when he was 6 months old and eagerly asked me if he was an English Cream. 

And I looked at her like she used the word "moist" in a sentence. :laugh:

And put my dogs ear to ear so she could see the color was the same between the two. 

The woman literally walked away like my dogs were suddenly boring. :grin2: 



With obedience people - most are really nice. 

They either come up and tell you that your golden is the most beautiful golden in the world. 

Or they politely ignore the dogs if they don't care for the style. :grin2:

Personally speaking, my running joke to anyone is that my dogs do have all the beauty... even if they don't have the brains. :laugh: 


What I was referring to yesterday was those people on facebook or elsewhere who have all the time in the world to sit around looking at old pictures and pining for dogs who one way or other have something seriously wrong with them. And people are just looking at color or something else that's jumping out at them - and completely missing whatever is WRONG with the historic dog they ogling. 

I was also referring to the people on the other side who are out there. I had people walk up to me at a dog show and privately share their disgust over the backyard bred and "ugly" dogs in the obedience ring upstairs. 

I was appalled and did make sure those people knew that the dogs they were talking about were absolutely not backyard bred. Many of these dogs came from breeders who charge more than conformation breeders sometimes. And the dogs themselves have really CRAZY LOADED pedigrees beyond the nth degree. 

And then these people were unknowingly disparaging champions. Most of the dogs I knew were upstairs were OTCH X infinity dogs. 

The best I can figure is that was people judging dogs based on their color. 


Oh! And since we are on the subject of color.  

Coloring is not the best way to sort the breeding behind a dog. 

A red dog isn't automatically a field bred dog.

A blondie isn't automatically a show bred dog.


----------



## Emmdenn

Megora said:


> One woman looked at Jovi when he was 6 months old and eagerly asked me if he was an English Cream.
> 
> And I looked at her like she used the word "moist" in a sentence. :laugh:


Kate I am LOLing at that. 

It grinds my gears when I run into people with my boy and they say "oh wow is that an english cream!" and I just say "Oh his Dam's side does have some European dogs, but he is totally American bred...and he will darken to the color of his ears eventually...he's just a blondie"

Plus he has a totally different headpiece and body-type compared to many of the "english creams" I've met. Genetics can be sooo interesting even amongst a litter. I love seeing photos of Denver's litter mates and noting the differences, some subtle and some big. Color included!


----------



## DevWind

Megora said:


> Can I just say something btw?
> 
> Your dogs look like they are basically the same color.
> 
> If I saw them at an obedience trial - I would not stand there thinking "Oh, they are different colors."
> 
> I don't even think of your girlie as red. She's a nice dark gold.
> 
> Literally the first thing that goes through my head when I see a couple dogs like yours is simply - one dog is younger than the other. That's all. A lot of goldens darken as they get older.
> 
> And I literally have told people as much when they look at my dogs and try to sort them out by color. LOLOLOL.
> 
> One woman looked at Jovi when he was 6 months old and eagerly asked me if he was an English Cream.
> 
> And I looked at her like she used the word "moist" in a sentence. :laugh:
> 
> And put my dogs ear to ear so she could see the color was the same between the two.
> 
> The woman literally walked away like my dogs were suddenly boring. :grin2:
> 
> 
> 
> With obedience people - most are really nice.
> 
> They either come up and tell you that your golden is the most beautiful golden in the world.
> 
> Or they politely ignore the dogs if they don't care for the style. :grin2:
> 
> Personally speaking, my running joke to anyone is that my dogs do have all the beauty... even if they don't have the brains. :laugh:
> 
> 
> What I was referring to yesterday was those people on facebook or elsewhere who have all the time in the world to sit around looking at old pictures and pining for dogs who one way or other have something seriously wrong with them. And people are just looking at color or something else that's jumping out at them - and completely missing whatever is WRONG with the historic dog they ogling.
> 
> I was also referring to the people on the other side who are out there. I had people walk up to me at a dog show and privately share their disgust over the backyard bred and "ugly" dogs in the obedience ring upstairs.
> 
> I was appalled and did make sure those people knew that the dogs they were talking about were absolutely not backyard bred. Many of these dogs came from breeders who charge more than conformation breeders sometimes. And the dogs themselves have really CRAZY LOADED pedigrees beyond the nth degree.
> 
> And then these people were unknowingly disparaging champions. Most of the dogs I knew were upstairs were OTCH X infinity dogs.
> 
> The best I can figure is that was people judging dogs based on their color.
> 
> 
> Oh! And since we are on the subject of color.
> 
> Coloring is not the best way to sort the breeding behind a dog.
> 
> A red dog isn't automatically a field bred dog.
> 
> A blondie isn't automatically a show bred dog.


They really are different colors. Pilot’s coat tends to look a little darker in pictures. It’s all in the lighting with him. I have heard the English Cream question about Pilot. He was about 6 months old when someone at a WC test asked. I still get it occasionally. Winx was never as light as Pilot and he will never be as dark as her. Winx is also getting a white face so she looks lighter in pictures. ?

What color they are never made a bit of difference to me. 

You are right about the obedience crowd. They will compliment what they like about a dog and kind of ignore what they don’t. 

I do like a smart dog......I like them to look nice too? What I like though might not be the same thing as someone else likes. 

I understand what you mean now.


----------



## Megora

Emmdenn said:


> Genetics can be sooo interesting even amongst a litter. I love seeing photos of Denver's litter mates and noting the differences, some subtle and some big. Color included!


It's the typeyness between littermates, full siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, etc... that I am very interested in. If I know the sire or dam of somebody's dog or who is the full sibling of somebody else's dog - I'm looking extra close to see if I can spot similarities. 

Sometimes you have a breeder who is so consistent in what they breed that no matter how distantly dogs might be in actual relation, they LOOK closely related. 

On that subject - the below picture is part of something I put together for Bertie's birthday which was a couple weeks ago. The bigger collage had pictures of him as a puppy, 6 month old, 2 years old, a pic taken this past spring, and then a front facing pic of him that was "similar" in pose to the puppy pic. 

But last night I whittled the pics down to just two pics showing him when he was Jovi's age and then the pic from this past spring.... and plopped in pictures of his sons as a comparison. 

It goes without saying that I saw a glimpse of Bertie in the two boys and it was all part of why I picked them.


----------



## Emmdenn

Megora said:


> It's the typeyness between littermates, full siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, etc... that I am very interested in. If I know the sire or dam of somebody's dog or who is the full sibling of somebody else's dog - I'm looking extra close to see if I can spot similarities.
> 
> Sometimes you have a breeder who is so consistent in what they breed that no matter how distantly dogs might be in actual relation, they LOOK closely related.
> 
> On that subject - the below picture is part of something I put together for Bertie's birthday which was a couple weeks ago. The bigger collage had pictures of him as a puppy, 6 month old, 2 years old, a pic taken this past spring, and then a front facing pic of him that was "similar" in pose to the puppy pic.
> 
> But last night I whittled the pics down to just two pics showing him when he was Jovi's age and then the pic from this past spring.... and plopped in pictures of his sons as a comparison.
> 
> It goes without saying that I saw a glimpse of Bertie in the two boys and it was all part of why I picked them.



I love your boys and love that they're family  There is totally a family resemblance. 

I think Denver really favors his dad, who is a Yogi grandson. But at the same time Denver's mom is a Quapaw girl and just from talking to Kathy and seeing her boys, that Quapaw type does come through quite a bit. 

Met a Nautilus pup recently and asked who is breeder was..I wasn't the least bit shocked when she told me!

As I am learning I'm having fun with pedigrees and figuring out different breeder types. I'm sure to people not in GRs that they all look the same, but the differences are fascinating!


----------



## Ljilly28

puddles everywhere said:


> Man you are good! I looked for standard history but failed to find anything.
> 
> So the 1963 AKC book I have is most likely the standard set in 1955? I tried to reproduce the pic in the book but couldn't get a good enough copy to post. No way that pic represents what is currently in the ring, not around here anyway.
> 
> Very few breeders have dogs with color, just keeps getting lighter and lighter. Color seemed to be important back in the day. Are puppy buyers wants influencing the standards in the ring? Or is it judges personal taste? Bigger (bulkier) / lighter appears to be the future.
> 
> So is the new version of the 1970's when the big division of field bred / conformation bred begin? or did the field people just decide function was more important than form and blew off the standard? While there are some lovely field dogs most are quite leggy, long muzzle, more narrow skull.
> 
> How big a factor do the judges play in the field/conformation split?


The number 1 golden in the USA is pretty dark right now . MClain, Willis , Chaos, Jay, Sydney, Elphie, Groovy, Brit, Calder and many many more darks dogs do very well. There is a "white dog mafia" joke that goes around about a specific group of judges who are a clique, but on the whole think a wide range of colors can do equally well. 

It is very likely who will win the National. 

I find that right now, my more moderate 70lb dog does better than my big blonde 80lbdog, unlike a few years ago. From my perspective, Judge's education has been emphasizing moderate, moderate, moderate, and it has exerted an influence . 

Mostly, the really experienced judges know what they like and why, and won't be swayed. It is hard for a golden to win BIS at a show like Westminster, bc getting a breed judge, a group judge and then a BIS judge to all agree one one interpretation of the standard is very difficult, since the language is loose in myriad places, allowing for different readings.


----------



## Emmdenn

Could someone post a picture of a moderate dog vs a bigger dog? Do they “look” different when you see them next to each other? I feel like at shows I’ve seen males that I’m either like “wow he’s big!” Or “wow he’s smaller” is that the difference? 

A lot of classes I can see the height differences but I’m wondering specifically about the overall picture of a moderate dog vs a big dog that’s still within standard. It would be educational (I think) to be able to visually see the specific differences between the two. 

Did that make any sense?? SOS


----------



## TheZ's

Ljilly28 said:


> . . .
> Mostly, the really experienced judges know what they like and why, and won't be swayed. It is hard for a golden to win BIS at a show like Westminster, bc getting a breed judge, a group judge and then a BIS judge to all agree one one interpretation of the standard is very difficult, since the language is loose in myriad places, allowing for different readings.



People always wonder why a Golden never wins BIS at Westminster. This is the best explanation I've heard.


On the subject of what's winning and where, I recommend looking at the GRCA's bimonthly publication _Golden Retriever News_. Each edition has pictures of the winners of various classes at the local GRC's shows and one edition covers the annual National Specialty. There do seem to be regional variations in what wins.


----------



## Obedience rocks

ArchersMom said:


> It may not necessarily be the dog's that are being entered, but the lengths that handlers go to in order to make the dog's look a certain way. I was quite shocked my first time at a dog show when I stumbled on the grooming stalls and saw a woman using what must have been a full bottle of expensive hairspray on a poodle. That obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the dogs structure but I'm sure they weren't the only ones with tacky fur full of product. In Golden's it's less dramatic, but people can still spend hours grooming and blow drying until a golden retriever looks like a chow. I wish it could be simpler.


Poodles groomed to show look ridiculous. They were originally sporting dogs as well. And you are right about golden grooming—goldens should not have so much coat that it would interfere with hunting. To know what a Golden should look like according to a breed standard, one should remember what they were bred to do: retrieve... outdoors, in a wet, muddy environment.


----------



## Obedience rocks

Emmdenn said:


> Could someone post a picture of a moderate dog vs a bigger dog? Do they “look” different when you see them next to each other? I feel like at shows I’ve seen males that I’m either like “wow he’s big!” Or “wow he’s smaller” is that the difference?
> 
> A lot of classes I can see the height differences but I’m wondering specifically about the overall picture of a moderate dog vs a big dog that’s still within standard. It would be educational (I think) to be able to visually see the specific differences between the two.
> 
> Did that make any sense?? SOS


Here is a picture of Daniel, the golden who _almost_ won best in show 😢 He must be close the “breed standard” in terms of height...


----------



## Megora

Obedience rocks said:


> And you are right about golden grooming—goldens should not have so much coat that it would interfere with hunting. To know what a Golden should look like according to a breed standard, one should remember what they were bred to do: retrieve... outdoors, in a wet, muddy environment.


_sigh_ Have you read the breed standard? 

Do you understand each part and piece of the breed standard?

Do you know what would happen to a breed if the dogs are not bred according to a breed standard?

Breed standards are the rules and guidelines for a breed. And for goldens, it's a lot more specific than many others. 

It states how tall the goldens should be - with a note that dogs more than 1.5 inches either way be disqualified. Height and bite are two ways that a dog can be disqualified from the ring. 

Color is written into the breed standard, as is coat texture, how much coat (breed should have a double coat with moderate furnishing, not minimal - moderate), etc.

Without these specs - a breed can end up breeding their way further and further from breed ideals. That's when people use the term "generic retriever". 

Doesn't matter if your game plan is just a performance bred dog who might not look very much the part, but does everything you want so who cares. But some of that thinking can or has led to producing dogs with severe temperament issues (I heard of one this past winter with a dog that came from an excellent breeder (one mentioned on another thread for performance goldens) but who was surrendered to a training/rehab facility because the dog was so aggressive and reactive). It also has led to producing dogs with severe health problems with the NCL issue where from what I can see you had dogs who were heavily line bred on dogs who had this very recessive issue behind them (I think - not necessarily what everyone else thinks or says while throwing outliers in to distract). Show lines don't get off scot free either since there are similar things showing up in certain lines. Actually this winter was puzzling over a new one which because of how rare it is and how it would out the dogs or breeders mentioned - I'm not going to be more descriptive than that. 

People should be careful as breeders and breeding for the whole dog.

I've heard nonsense from field people who prefer a single coated and short coated dog with minimal furnishings (despite what breed standard says). They say a show golden can't swim with all that coat - because he'll sink! 

Daniel who you posted a picture of - is also a field titled dog (JH, working on his SH). The fact is he managed to get 4 JH legs and clearly did not sink despite having MORE furnishings than many of us would have liked even in a show dog. 

Correct coat on a golden fwiw means that it's not "soft" and "fuzzy" necessarily. 

Soft and fuzzy makes burrs extra miserable to remove. It's like gum in a toddler's hair.

Correct coat, the burrs brush out.

Correct coat - typically mud just shakes off when the dogs have been in marshes and come back out black up to their shoulders.... <= There was a quick contest on FB recently where everyone was posting pictures of their dogs at their muddiest. And I literally had nothing, because mud just does not stick to their coats. They tromps through muck and briefly are coated - but then they shake it off. That's what correct coat means - typically. 

I say "typically" because there is an extra clay type of mud that we have encountered which is like sticky cement when it dries. It takes a long time to remove that from the dogs coats after it has dried. That type of mud would annoy everyone since it especially sticks to the short coat on the dogs legs. >.<


----------



## DblTrblGolden2

I’ve hunt trained my last three Goldens with the help of a pro, and my sons two labs. My dream dog is a CH in Conformation and a MH in hunt. Would love an FC or AFC but I’m not sure I’m disciplined enough to achieve it and I’m not willing to give up that much time with my dog. They are pets first.

I think breeding to standard is very important. I do agree that some Goldens are overly coated, but not the ones i look at from lines with versatility titles.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Megora

DblTrblGolden2 said:


> I’ve hunt trained my last three Goldens with the help of a pro, and my sons two labs. My dream dog is a CH in Conformation and a MH in hunt. Would love an FC or AFC but I’m not sure I’m disciplined enough to achieve it and I’m not willing to give up that much time with my dog. They are pets first.
> 
> I think breeding to standard is very important. I do agree that some Goldens are overly coated, but not the ones i look at from lines with versatility titles.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...


I know of 3-4 breeders (2 in OH) who have produced a number of CH/MH dogs. The other is down in FL

There _are _more than that. 

My thing is I like how much coat my dogs have - while recognizing that I do not neuter them + I do groom them. They are not brushed every week (only when I groom them). They air dry less than an hour when they go swimming. The three boys I have right now have never had a matt. Some of that is the coat - most of it is they are kept groomed. 

I know people who rarely to never brush their dogs and bring them to a groomer every 2-6 months and that's not appropriate for a coated breed. This IS a coated breed. It's not a poodle breed, but neither is it a labrador or GSP type breed.


----------



## Obedience rocks

Megora said:


> _sigh_ Have you read the breed standard?
> 
> Do you understand each part and piece of the breed standard?
> 
> Do you know what would happen to a breed if the dogs are not bred according to a breed standard?
> 
> Breed standards are the rules and guidelines for a breed. And for goldens, it's a lot more specific than many others.
> 
> It states how tall the goldens should be - with a note that dogs more than 1.5 inches either way be disqualified. Height and bite are two ways that a dog can be disqualified from the ring.
> 
> Color is written into the breed standard, as is coat texture, how much coat (breed should have a double coat with moderate furnishing, not minimal - moderate), etc.
> 
> Without these specs - a breed can end up breeding their way further and further from breed ideals. That's when people use the term "generic retriever".
> 
> Doesn't matter if your game plan is just a performance bred dog who might not look very much the part, but does everything you want so who cares. But some of that thinking can or has led to producing dogs with severe temperament issues (I heard of one this past winter with a dog that came from an excellent breeder (one mentioned on another thread for performance goldens) but who was surrendered to a training/rehab facility because the dog was so aggressive and reactive). It also has led to producing dogs with severe health problems with the NCL issue where from what I can see you had dogs who were heavily line bred on dogs who had this very recessive issue behind them (I think - not necessarily what everyone else thinks or says while throwing outliers in to distract). Show lines don't get off scot free either since there are similar things showing up in certain lines. Actually this winter was puzzling over a new one which because of how rare it is and how it would out the dogs or breeders mentioned - I'm not going to be more descriptive than that.
> 
> People should be careful as breeders and breeding for the whole dog.
> 
> I've heard nonsense from field people who prefer a single coated and short coated dog with minimal furnishings (despite what breed standard says). They say a show golden can't swim with all that coat - because he'll sink!
> 
> Daniel who you posted a picture of - is also a field titled dog (JH, working on his SH). The fact is he managed to get 4 JH legs and clearly did not sink despite having MORE furnishings than many of us would have liked even in a show dog.
> 
> Correct coat on a golden fwiw means that it's not "soft" and "fuzzy" necessarily.
> 
> Soft and fuzzy makes burrs extra miserable to remove. It's like gum in a toddler's hair.
> 
> Correct coat, the burrs brush out.
> 
> Correct coat - typically mud just shakes off when the dogs have been in marshes and come back out black up to their shoulders.... <= There was a quick contest on FB recently where everyone was posting pictures of their dogs at their muddiest. And I literally had nothing, because mud just does not stick to their coats. They tromps through muck and briefly are coated - but then they shake it off. That's what correct coat means - typically.
> 
> I say "typically" because there is an extra clay type of mud that we have encountered which is like sticky cement when it dries. It takes a long time to remove that from the dogs coats after it has dried. That type of mud would annoy everyone since it especially sticks to the short coat on the dogs legs. >.<


I have read the standard. A breed would be a mess if they weren’t bred according to a standard. They would end up looking like this:









I also didn’t post a picture of Daniel to criticize his coat, only to show his size, compared to his handler....I think Daniel is gorgeous looking, and I think him having performance title is the epitome of what a Golden should be.
I agree with you on the coat—I have the same experience with mine—he can go outside, run in the woods, come back, dry, and be fine. A dog sinking because of his coat is nonsense, and probably just a joke.
I never once thought goldens should not be bred according to the standard. I just don’t like to see goldens (some, not all) dripping with coat, in a confirmation ring, but no performance titles at all. I am not one of those gung ho, “short hair performance type only” people. I just think “performance” type goldens fit my lifestyle. I would never push this type upon anyone. Although my vision of performance Golden is just a Golden with only a little less hair and higher energy.


----------



## Megora

Obedience rocks said:


> I am not one of those gung ho, “short hair performance type only” people, I just think “performance” type goldens fit my lifestyle. Although my vision of performance Golden is just a Golden with only a little less hair and higher energy.


Well, the picture you just posted - that dog is obese and has what appears to be a spay/neuter coat + complication of not being well cared for/groomed. That does not mean he hasn't been bred to standard. Neuter/spay a dog and you throw a number of things off. Coat grows in "soft". Dogs may grow to be bigger than they should be. And then owners themselves will throw it down and fight to the death vs believe their dogs are overweight vs actually obese. These are owners who say their 100 pound dogs are "lean". 

I agree with many people in the breed who say some of these dogs (and they always point at other dogs, despite the fact they spend the same amount of time or more grooming their own dogs!) are being bred to have too much coat. And we have all seen these dogs in the ring. However, many people buy goldens and expect to spend the same amount of time and effort grooming these dogs that they would with labs or shepherds. That's why you get dogs that look like sheep that need layers of matted and filthy coat removed.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Megora said:


> It states how tall the goldens should be - with a note that dogs more than 1.5 inches either way be disqualified. Height and bite are two ways that a dog can be disqualified from the ring.


Only because it's a sticking point- it actually says ONE (1)inch either way.


----------



## Megora

Prism Goldens said:


> Only because it's a sticking point- it actually says ONE (1)inch either way.


Thanks Robin - I knew that sounded wrong as I typed it, but was doing ten million things at the same time. 

Considering I told people to check the breed standard - shame on me.


----------



## Obedience rocks

Megora said:


> I agree with many people in the breed who say some of these dogs (and they always point at other dogs, despite the fact they spend the same amount of time or more grooming their own dogs!) are being bred to have too much coat. And we have all seen these dogs in the ring. However, many people buy goldens and expect to spend the same amount of time and effort grooming these dogs that they would with labs or shepherds. That's why you get dogs that look like sheep that need layers of matted and filthy coat removed.


I work at a dog grooming shop and have to deal with dogs like that all the time...not fun at all! Don’t get me started on people who SHAVE their Goldens 🤦‍♀️


----------



## eeerrrmmm1

So from a pet person's pov - Daniel is clearly gorgeous, however, he was the first thing that I thought of when I saw this post initially. He looks half lion. Come on. His front furnishings are really getting on the heavy end of moderate. Again, he's gorgeous but watching him run with that chest hair is kind of like watching an afghan hound.


----------



## ArkansasGold

Directly copied from the breed standard on the AKC website: "Untrimmed natural ruff on neck, moderate feathering on back of forelegs and on underbody; *heavier feathering on front of neck, *back of thighs and underside of tail." This wording would not be in the standard if it interfered with the dog's job. When a dog is crashing through underbrush to get a bird, the heavier feathering on the front of the neck will protect the dog from said underbrush. Having seen him up close and in person, Daniel is really a very moderate dog (according to my definition of moderate, which does not mean small) in size, bone, and coat. He's pretty much right down the middle in height, he's not fluffy, and he has a wonderful temperament. His coat is the correct texture as well and you'd easily be able to remove burrs or sticks that got caught in while working (which he does).


----------



## eeerrrmmm1

ArkansasGold said:


> When a dog is crashing through underbrush to get a bird, the heavier feathering on the front of the neck will protect the dog from said underbrush.


That's interesting and a good point. Daniel appears to be very protected then.


----------



## Megora

Talking about crashing through underbrush....  






TGIF people!


----------



## Emmdenn

Denver is constantly in and out of brush. 9/10 times nothing sticks to him. There are a couple things that stick, big burdocks tend to grab onto his feathers & tail, but I can grab them and they slide right out. There are other kinds of burs that are a real pain to get out I think they’re called beggar ticks, and he once ran through a bush of them and they were ALL over his tail. That required me spraying on some conditioner and brushing them out. He is not heavily coated at all, but he is also only 19 months so he’ll continue to grow coat.


----------



## Megora

Fwiw.... I will remove this picture in a few minutes because the dog is not mine but belongs to one of my Bertie's breeders (the dog's mom is Bertie's half sister).

3 year old CH dog. He's one of those who I really love and have since he was a baby pup being shown by his breeder owner. The amount of bib and all over coat that he has is what I think is correct for the breed and isn't weirdly sculpted. I can see.

Bit of comment that will remain after I remove the picture after a few minutes - the reason why you do not see multiple titles on CH dogs is not necessarily all about the dogs not being "intelligent". It has to do with the owners.

This dog's owner has put higher level obedience titles on her dogs and she is very interested in lower level field titles as well. However many do not share her interest or abilities. And in her case, she has said that she does not have the time to go to classes (and knowing her day job, I believe it!) Many owners spend the money to send the dogs out with a handler who does all the training, grooming, and showing. Meanwhile, they have day jobs + have a lot of other stuff they are focused on. They get CH titles on the dogs and for them that's what matters.


----------



## ArkansasGold

He’s lovely Kate.


----------



## ArkansasGold

And I absolutely agree with you about it being what the owners are interested in/have time for. I'm super interested in Rally and Obedience, so those are the titles my dogs will get. And if I ever learn how to field train, they will get lower level field titles too. But I can tell you, Eevee's coat is never going to hold her back from working or hinder her performance (I actually wish she had more, but it will come, she's only 14 months). She's an athlete AND a show dog.


----------



## eeerrrmmm1

I thought the old photos from the 1970s in this book are really cool especially considering this is the time frame in which they were formulating the new breed standard:

http://www.goldenretrieversthefirst...ed development_part b to section 2.9 (2).pdf

You really see such variety in terms of coat, not just color but short and long, wavy and straight. The overall structure still looks unmistakably golden retriever though.


----------



## K9-Design

Ok just a few thoughts...
Please know that Karen, Daniel's handler, is barely 5 feet tall ----- so if you think Daniel looks big....well...size is relative!! He is a pretty moderately sized dog, have seen him up close in person.

Coat : "DON'T GET ME STARTED"

I firmly believe that MANY show breeders select for WAY TOO MUCH COAT because it looks fancy in the show ring, meanwhile the other nine puppies end up as fat hairy pets that need to be shaved. Completely incorrect. I hate these coats!!!! They are ridiculous and pointless. 

That said, a correct coat on a golden serves a VERY good purpose...I've seen this first hand in my recent foray into working dogs at a local hunting preserve during the winter.
Luckily the place has no burrs or sandspurs but it is full of dried up raspberry brambles...EVERYWHERE. 

When I run my goldens in it, they might break off the raspberry branches, which are relatively easily pulled off their coat, otherwise they get through the brush unscathed.
When I run my BF's black Labrador through the same ground...his face, neck, chest and the front of his legs are embedded with raspberry thorns, he is bleeding from cuts, and after much of it he's running around those patches of cover to avoid it. 
The golden's thicker coat does not allow the brambles near the dog's skin.
Goldens were originally created for mainly upland retrieving both fowl and rabbit, they were not water specialists like the Labrador. 

Also a note about color....
Migratory birds have EXCELLENT vision. They fly in above their intended resting area and quite literally scope it out before landing. Any hunter knows that camouflage is important...any white or off color will flare birds away. This is why most hunting dogs of flying, migratory birds (ducks & geese) are NEUTRAL COLORED.....the buff colored golden, the brown chessie, the black or brown Labrador, the liver Boykin, the reddish toller. They blend in with their surroundings. (Think about it....sporting dogs who hunt hiding ground birds...pheasant, quail, etc...the bird hides in cover and does not see the dog before it's too late...these dogs have all manner of white markings...pointers, English setters, most spaniels, the continental breeds...the birds they hunt are not scared off by their coloration and it's easier for the hunter to see them if they have some white on them!) Another facet to this point is that only retrievers are NON-SLIP hunters...meaning...they are STEADY = they stay with the hunter, at his side, until released to retrieve the bird. The hunter is not following him, it is not imperative that the hunter easily see the dog in thick cover as he does his job, because he will be back soon. Unlike the upland hunting dogs who range by themselves to locate birds and the hunter follows them. 

Having thought about all that...tell me again why we should not penalize "WHITE" Goldens???? They are totally inappropriate to the original, and current, purpose of the breed. While overall structure and type should be weighted more heavily, if two dogs of equal merit are separated only by color...the pale cream dog should be penalized. Just my opinion but it is one that comes with justification!


----------



## Megora

Very awesome post Anney<:

Hope things are opening up for you guys for training grounds!!!

I always assumed that the pointers and setters have some white on them so the hunter doesn't shoot them since they won't be at the hunter's side like retrievers would be.....


----------



## Swampcollie

puddles everywhere said:


> So it has been suggested often to actually read the AKC/GRCA breed description. Very interesting actually... but I'm no breeder and hope to get some breeder perspectives.
> 
> If you compare the current breed description it is quite different from the book I have dated 1963. I'm sure there are lots of changes but the one that stood out to me was COLOR. In 1963 the prefered color was "brown" (pretty sure they meant dark gold) and coat was NOT to be long and silky like a setter, feet & bone were not to be large. Ears and coat were to be trimmed up but to remain natural. Feathers were to be minimal as this is primarily a sporting dog. Size remained the same.
> 
> This of course is not the golden standard of today and certainly not what you see in the ring. So question is did the GCRA change the standard to meet what was being bred? So basically what the breeders produced influenced the standard vs. breeding to the standard?
> 
> LOL it sounds like the preverbal question... which came first the chicken or the egg?
> 
> So would love to hear the breeders perspective, especially if we have some long time people out here.



yes Judges and Breeders let things drift a bit from the old days. Take a look at Speedwell Pluto, one of the principal foundation dogs of the breed on this side of the pond. The conformation dogs appearance has changed quite a bit. The breed standard you were looking at was the 1950's model Prism had mentioned. The 70's were an era of "more is better" in the ring. More mass, more coat, longer furnishings, and lighter shadings. Dogs that followed the model were rewarded, those that did not were soon forgotten. 

Coat color is a big deal for a hunting dog. The very light or cream color is completely contrary to the breeds stated purpose. The excess length of coat has improved in recent years. Too much length is just as wrong as too light a shading. Coat length and texture is an area where form should follow function.


----------



## DanaRuns

Well, look who dredged this thread up from the bottom of the lake. LOL! 

I'm so tired about the color debate. IMHO it's a non-factor. I have my preferences, as does everyone, but color doesn't enter into the discussion for me. Structure does. Movement does. Drive does. Temperament does. I also prefer a rugged, athletic dog rather than some fancy-looking thing with super long furnishings and an open coat. There are lots of things I consider, but color isn't one of them.

I will say something controversial, though. I'm not one who worships the past. I don't think we owe any fidelity to Speedwell Pluto or any of the dogs of the past. And here's my controversial bit: I think the best show dogs of today are better than the best show dogs of old. Oh yeah, we have problem trends in the breed. Crappy fronts are currently my biggest pet peeve. But all breeds go through these things, they are not static but change over time, because as one thing gets corrected another thing crops up, and that will get corrected and then another thing will crop up. It's doggy Whack-a-Mole. There is no time in the breed when there weren't issues. But overall, the best that we have today is better than the best of yesteryear IMHO. I'll put any of the best dogs of today up against the best dogs of the '60s or '70s. Cummings Gold Rush Charlie, to pick perhaps the most famous one of the era, wouldn't do as well today, not because judges suck, as is so easy and popular to pronounce, but because breeders have worked hard over the last 40-50 years to improve the breed.

Whenever I suggest this among the Goldeneratti, I get buried in outrage that I would utter such sacrilege. But I think it's true. Goldens have gotten better over time. (They have also gotten worse. There are WAY more Goldens than there were in the '50s-70s -- we had over 120 entries in a local specialty pre-covid -- so of course you get results all over the spectrum.) I truly believe that our best dogs of today are overall better than the best dogs of old. Don't @ me.


----------



## Megora

To add to Dana's post here, I think it's important to keep in mind that dogs shows themselves have greatly changed. 

I have seen videos of dogs shows from way back then, 30-40's.... and competition was more 4H than what it is now. Dogs go through a greater degree of scrutiny and I think unfortunately because there is no such thing as a perfect, it has led to more and more owners backing out and sending their dogs with very smart and experienced handlers who can distract from a fault rather than draw attention to it. 

Every dog has a fault - covering up a fault so a judge can see an overall nice dog is not a sin.


----------



## ArkansasGold

I actually agree with you re: best old show dogs vs. best of today’s show dogs @DanaRuns 

I’m like you, I like a more rugged athletic looking dog than a fancy fluff ball. I know your gorgeous red dogs have gotten dumped because of their color, but on the cream dog subject: don’t they go upland hunting in the snow in Scotland? Wouldn’t a cream dog blend in better in that condition?


----------



## annef

ArkansasGold said:


> I actually agree with you re: best old show dogs vs. best of today’s show dogs @DanaRuns
> 
> I’m like you, I like a more rugged athletic looking dog than a fancy fluff ball. I know your gorgeous red dogs have gotten dumped because of their color, but on the cream dog subject: don’t they go upland hunting in the snow in Scotland? Wouldn’t a cream dog blend in better in that condition?


Yes lots of snow in the highlands in the Winter but when you see pale cream dogs against the snow it is easy to see they are not white at all.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Shows have certainly changed as has the $ thrown at showing- in past times we did only our region, we owner handled for the most part- all that changed late 70ish, and today we see a sea of handlers who all are quite good! BUT I agree Dana- other than shoulder layback, we do have better dogs today. I think while the layback was better in the 60's everything else is better now save that too coated animal we all see too often.


----------



## ArkansasGold

annef said:


> Yes lots of snow in the highlands in the Winter but when you see pale cream dogs against the snow it is easy to see they are not white at all.
> View attachment 883788


This is more what I was thinking:


----------



## Emmdenn

ArkansasGold said:


> This is more what I was thinking:
> View attachment 883789



My dogs in the mixed upland/wetland spring in the Northeast, no trouble blending in here 😂


----------



## annef

ArkansasGold said:


> This is more what I was thinking:
> View attachment 883789


The dog looks pale gold against the snow but blends in well with the dead foliage. Annef


----------

