This book is nothing more than hagiographic histories of various dog breeds and their standards. I don’t know how it could ever be called a “complete dog book.” A lot of it is complete “bull sh–.” One edition included warnings about temperament of certain breeds of dogs, which totally ticked people off. It eventually had to be reprinted without the warnings that measured various breeds’ aptitude for being a family pet.
But look at what’s on the front cover of the latest edition! Yuck!
How do I know that it’s going to be a “white” retriever?
It wasn’t. It was an American show retriever, which is almost as bad.
I’m so sickened by most “white ones” I can’t post them on the blog. But I will, just for comparison.
http://www.akcdoublebgoldens.com/images/Index/White%20Golden%20Clasp.jpg
Um yeah, called it. Not that it was too hard given your recent posts. And I’ll bet $100 that Queen Victoria is mentioned in the first 100 words on the Collie page, too.
In researching my set of posts on that myth, I contacted the author of a book called “Dog Myths” who said “while it is true that Q.V. popularized the collie” … so I asked what the source was and if they had any documentation or evidence. Guess what? They read it in material furnished to them from the AKC. Date stamped in the 70s.
Wow. Nothing like the AKC library for accurate information regarding breed histories written 100 years after the fact with no evidence. :c)
I think that “white” European goldens and American show goldens are to me what “barbie” collies are to you.
The small inset on the webpage shows a family of Golden Mutants. But twhen you actually click to see a blow up of the front cover it shows what apear to be a mutant Labrador, Boxy head and beefy build.
That’s what goldens are becoming. I have actually held this book in the bookstore, just to see what new breeds they’ve added to it. The hair is really long.