Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,851 Posts
My mutt looks reminiscent of some of those early dogs. Especially the coarse, wavy topcoat that goes every which way (when he's dry). In the pic below, he looks heavier built than he actually is, because he's all fluffed up. He's a sturdy boy at ≈75 lbs., though.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,765 Posts
The early GR looks like a Setter mix. But I would say that most pet GRs I see don't look anything like the show-quality Goldens. But they don't look like the early GRs either. If you look at any Golden rescue group website, you can get a pretty good idea of what most pet GRs look like (NOTHING like the show-quality GRs!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
WOW those two dogs look a lot alike.
He actually is arguing that the standard has evolved so much that the wrong dogs are "correct" today.

The type of coat was mentioned a few times. He wrote that the AKC values a long, feathered coat while the original goldens had shorter, possibly coarser coats that would be better in sport than long, fluffy hair. It's totally logical...my Baxter is so svelte that people have routinely tried to tell me that he's too skinny. But some have asked if if he is a gun dog.

He wrote that one of the early breeders had some creamy, stocky dogs and she actually moved towards more trim, deeper colored dogs.

Obviously, I'm no expert, as I'm pouring over his posts. The evolution of breed standards is an interesting topic, though, especially when some say that there are dogs doing well in the ring that can't do the job for which their breed was originally used.

Here's another one he said would do well with the AKC:


A few more pics from those early breeders (check out the curls!):
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
Sorry I don't have time to read this guys stuff. That still donsn't change the fact that I think those dogs look a lot alike compaired to a lot of the BYB goldens out there. The "modern" dog in that picture doesn't have a long flowing coat at all and thats what I like about him.

Has the written standard acutally changed or have just the dogs being shown changed?

BTW I was talking about the First "modern dog" not the one in your new post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,851 Posts
I don't show Goldens. I'm not even what you would call a Golden fancier, but I have one so I am probably more interested in them than the typical dog lover. The show dogs I see have a much silkier coat than my field Golden, and their coats are much more profuse. My guy's musculature can be read through his coat because it's comparatively sparse. There's enough there to keep him warm in the coldest water, so any more is excess IMO. His topcoat is pretty coarse and it doesn't hold burrs and weed seeds like the fluffier dogs coats would.

Most of the show types are noticeably heavier boned, as well. All else being equal, a heavier dog will tend to have a shorter work day than the lighter dog. The exception being a hardcore water retriever, but a Golden is designed to be a more versatile dog than a Chessie. They can all do duty in a duck blind and an upland covert, but--generally speaking--a Golden is a better choice for an upland dog while a Chessie is the go to dog for a big-water retriever. One of the big knocks against Goldens, with die hard waterfowl hunters, is that their heavy coats carry too much water into the boat or blind.

Labs throw all classifications into chaos. For some excellent reasons (having mostly to do with trainability) they have become THE versatile dog. As such, they have been bred into numerous lines that are pretty specialized workers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,451 Posts
I'd be courious to know how often the standard has actualy changed and what was actualy changed in it. From the AKC website on the current GR standard it was approved October 13, 1981and reformatted August 18, 1990.

With the Afghan there's always the debate that AKC has changed the standard to allow for more hair and the dogs are nothing like what you would have originaly found in thier native land. But that's not even slightly true. The Afghan breed standard the the exact same as when the breed was accepted into the AKC, which nearly the exact same Afghan standard as everywhere else in the world. Type has fluctuated to and fro, just as it does for every breed, and you can easily find dogs that look like thier ancestors, they just might be groomed and presented differently then they were way back when.

Here's another one he said would do well with the AKC:
Has this dog actually done well in AKC. Saying it would and actually doing it are 2 totally different things. Personaly, just based on this a picture, if I were a judge I would not be puttng this dog up. Keep in mind however pictures can be deciveing, you MUST get your hands on the dog to FEEL it's structure and WATCH it's movement before you can place an accurate evaluation on a dog. And whomever took this picture and/or used it to promote this dog should be fired!!

A few more pics from those early breeders (check out the curls!):
My Cavalier had natural curls like that. But when I groom him for a show I straighten them and get them to lay flat. You may be suprised to see what some of those uncurly show dogs look lie on their day off.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top