One of the most important people in the founding of the modern flat-coated retriever breed was Lieutenant-Colonel H.M. Cornwall Legh.
As I have mentioned before, the founding president of the Kennel Club was Sewallis Shirley. Shirley was deeply involved in flat-coated retrievers, and he heavily promoted them among the early members of the institutionalized fancy.
However, it is worth noting that there were other notables who were working on “improving” this strain of dog.
He produced many of the early champions in the breed–
Such as Twiddle:
And Pirate:
Note how these dogs are little bit different from modern flat-coats.
Although rangier than Labradors, they aren’t quite as racy as we see in many modern flat-coats.
Twiddle looks a bit hare-footed but is very well developed in the forechest.
But Pirate looks eager, intelligent, ready to take direction, although maybe just a touch impish.
Exactly as we would expect from a modern representative of the flat-coat breed.
Keep in mind that these sorts of retrievers were almost exclusively the domain of the wealthy.
Unlike other breeds that have a more ancient origin or have been created by people who left no written records, we know a lot about the founding of the retrievers.
We know which dogs founded which lines and which lines died out.
We do not know everything about them, for within those old kennel records, there lie lots of omissions.
But we know the contours of their development far better than we know other breeds.
We are always going to be guessing and speculating about what is in them, but the relative completeness of the historical record means that we do less of that with retrievers than we do with greyhounds or Tibetan mastiffs.
We know more about retrievers, simply because those who created them left relatively complete records.
Of course, we can still engage in dubious speculation about the gaps in knowledge.
That’s half the fun.
I’m always amazed how little flat-coats seem to have changed. Keep in mind, from my own vantage point, most flat-coats look the same to me until I get to know them pretty well! But here are my somewhat naive observations.
I’m assuming Twiddle is a boy? He doesn’t have a whole lot of coat, but it’s hard to tell in black and white. You are right that Twiddle, at least, is not quite as elegant as the dominant representatives of the breed–at least the ones I know–but not by much. At least part of his “squareness” is the angle of the photo–it looks like it was taken to make him look more square in profile. When you see pictures of Labs that are a little long, they try to use that angle to fudge it. So, Twiddle is probably longer than he looks. I don’t have the vocabulary to express it correctly, maybe someone can help, but he is more square in front/head on, his chest is wider and his legs further apart, than most flat-coats I know. He has a bit more stop than most (though frankly, I kind of like it, being a Lab gal, and from what I can figure out, in the broad scheme of things, there must be some judges today that given the overall picture will accept that much stop in a dog). But really–you look at him and you know he’s a flat-coat, and would find him a nice enough one. Pretty amazing.
Pirate’s head and expression could be the one of any nice flat-coat in a modern kennel. Hard to tell about the rest of him.
Leaving aside honest debate of whether consistency is a good thing–are there any other breeds that seem to be so consistent over the century-plus of modern dog breeding? (There may very well be, but I can’t think of them.)
Salukis. Depending…there are some very extreme looking show dogs, to the point of impacting on function. Same with Azawakh and Sloughi. Of course these are dogs where with some work you can get access to country of origin dogs or their recent descendants.
There is a good deal of difference between ‘fine-tuning’ a breed to make it more pleasing to the (individual’s) eye, and changing it entirely. Afghan hounds come to mind in regards to the latter. I have pictures of modern dogs in Pakistan taken within the last six months and while they differ little from the original imports a century ago, they do not even look like the same breed as a modern show Afghan.
Japanese Chins also seem to have changed very little over the past 100 years.
What type of dog is that on the Colonel’s right? Field Spaniel?
A black field spaniel– yes.
It is clear that Field Spaniel is a dog created specifically for the show ring, with no particular attention paid to it’s utility as a gun dog.
Was he closely associated with Field Spaniels as well as FCs? I would imagine that anyone involved in the genesis of Field Spaniels would not place working ability as a top priority for Flat Coats either.
I wonder how early it was apparent that, as a group, working and trial Flat Coats are clearly inferior to the better known working retriever breeds?
The thing about flat-coats and their wavy ancestors is they were the Labradors of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Everyone who had heard of a retriever automatically thought of a long-haired black dog.
They dominated the first trials. The curly actually wound up playing a distant second fiddle because it was a poacher’s dog.
The flat-coat is what every foppish gent had to have for his shooting estate.
The fell from favor for several reasons. One is the Labrador improved considerably. The other is that flat-coats developed a reputation for having weak jaws and for being less tractable. Of course, those features have changed since the period right after the First World War, so the dogs are more competent now.
One theory is that borzoi was added to the flat-coat bloodline to make them more elegant and this ruined them as retrievers.
I have not found any evidence of this other than “dubious speculation.”
But I can see some sighthound features in some European flatties.
This is not “fair” math, but I still think there’s a point to be made with this rather loose analysis.
Premise: Overall, I think one can say that retrievers live about 10 years. Yes, flat-coats have some cancer problems, esp. in young dogs, which skews the average downwards; you can count on the typical healthy Lab living to be a good bit over 10 and some to be 15 and 16. But 10 is easy. And let’s give the Labs a break anyway, too. So, presume age 10 for both breeds for the final analysis, in which you can just say the percentage passing various tests annually is about the percentage of registered dogs in each breed.
Premise: There are approximately 500-700 flat-coats registered annually, but I can’t find 2009. Let’s go with the higher number as the typical number of flat-coats registered annually, just to give the Labs even more of a break.
There are maybe 150,000 Labs registered annually. Again–can’t find 2009. It’s a round-ish number, so I’m going with it, even though I’ll be corrected and be off by 10s of 1000s.
2009 Hunt Test Stats:
flat-coats JH–73, so 73/700, or 10.4 percent.
Labs JH–1290, so 1290/150,000, or .86 percent.
flat-coats SH–24, so 24/700, or 3.4 percent.
Labs SH–652, so 652/150000, or .4 percent.
flat-coats MH–11, so 11/700, or 1.6 percent.
Labs MH–459, so 459/150000, or .3 percent.
Which is the better working retriever breed? The one that has had more than 10 percent of its registrants evaluated as having the instincts and basic biddability to be an asset in the field, or the one with less than 1 percent?
Which is the better working retriever breed? The one that has had well over 1 percent of its registrants evaluated as having the instincts and trainibility to claim the hunt test level that indicates a truly finished hunting companion, or the one with not even half a percent?
Yes–Labs dominate in field trials in numbers as well. There has not been an FC or AFC flat-coat in the US or Canada since the mid ’80s. I don’t know how many flat-coats run in all-age trials on a regular basis, but there are a few, and there are certainly a generous handful of qualified all-age flat-coats (have won or placed in various combination in the “qualifying” stake).
Lab FC’s 2009–64, so 64/150000, or .04 percent. Lab AFC–48, so 48/150000, or .032 percent of registrants.
What about goldens? JH 224, SH 110, MH 64. 1 FC, 1 AFC (I think it might have been the same dog).
What about Chessies? JH 95, SH 38, MH 14. 2 FC, 1 AFC.
I love Labs. Labs rule. They are special, and by virtue of numbers as much as other factors, there is far more quantity of talent out there. I have one now, and I always will.
But my flattie’s a pistol, and she’ll have her SH at a younger age than my Lab did, and I got her at a year old with little training. She’s not competing in field trials with Labs, but I’ll probably run her in a qualifying someday, and as far as her potential to become a finished retriever, she’s got more going for her than a whole hell of a lot of Labs I’ve met.
To say that “as a group, working and trial Flat Coats are clearly inferior to the better known working retriever breeds” is really not fair.
They’re different dogs, but year after year the flatties demonstrate that they’re a breed with perhaps greater potential to fulfill the demands of both basic and finished retrieving work more consistently any other retriever breed.
AKC event statistics from http://www.akc.org/pdfs/events/statistics/2009/EventTitleStats.pdf
The reason you can’t find data on numbers of dogs registered, is that the AKC has not published totals for 2009, and not even monthly numbers for 2010. I guess they don’t want us to know how much the numbers have declined recently.
However, by adding the monthly numbers through 2009, Goldens totaled about 35,000 (don’t have the data on hand) and Labradors probably triple that (or more).
Field trials are only one measure of “working ability”. While the pointing breeds and spaniels can have trials for each breed, and even National Championship trials in each breed, retrievers are the only sporting breed where the six breeds MUST win an “all-breed” trial in order to earn a title.
Not all modern flatcoats are ‘rangy” My yellow flat coat George is a very solid pup of more than 40 kgs… very solid compared to the foster I had who was under 30kgs. He has a strong urge to retrieve and obey but I won;t be working him
I’ve seen modern flatties that are very solidly built.
But almost none of them live in the US.
I’m thinking of this in relative terms. They tend to be rangier than most goldens and Labs.
But they aren’t like sighthounds.
“Power without lumber. Raciness without weediness” is the flat-coated retriever axiom.
I’m not sure “rangy” is the right word, Scottie. They are certainly more “lithe” or “fleet” or–here it is–“racy”!
Retriever and “rangy” don’t go together except as a pejorative, though flat-coats are distinctive.
Scottie, you’ve probably seen these before, but for others: Here are links to photos of recent specialty winners.
I don’t know enough to have my own opinion on them. I’m sure there are plenty of people who think their dog was better. ;) But it’s a reference point.
http://2010.flatcoat.us/
http://2009.flatcoat.us/
blk…
Thank you for your note. You have convinced at least one person. I love data.
All I ever see with FCs are foppish dandies and dog show matrons. But that is obviously not the full picture. Even if FCs are not typical dogs for serious waterfowlers, there are obviously a decent number of people who can at least be bothered to test/trial their dogs.
I know what you’re saying, but–The foppish dandies and dog show matrons with flat-coats are FAR more likely to have a working dog than any of the other retriever breeds, both percentage-wise and pure numbers.
There are more CH/MH flat-coats than any other retriever breed by far (can’t find stats right now, but will look), and almost every MH flat-coat has a CH.
I agree.
I wonder if the fact that since FCs are air scenters, the way they work looks terrible to Lab people, and causes some of this breedism?
Its fun to have a dog that performs better than people generally expect it to, but its a responsbility as well. Crappy Labs dont draw attention the way a bad cocker spaniel or poodle at a shoot does.
A lot of the flat-coat people don’t enter until they are well beyond ready.
Particularly since many of us are middle-aged women, to boot, there’s often a need to feel over-prepared.
(But there are plenty who are underprepared… human nature, you know.)
But dogs will be dogs–even with the best training, sometimes they don’t pick stuff up the way the judges want to–and you’re right, it draws attention where a Lab won’t.
The air-scenting thing plays a role–it looks different, and sometimes even an excellent hunt and outcome will look unfocused or “schitzy” to the uninitiated.
I am still learning how to read my flat-coat–I almost always know when the Lab is hanging in there on the hunt and when he’s totally off-base, but I sometimes give up on the flattie because I misread her body language. I’ve been physically crossing my arms and keeping the whistle out of my mouth to try to slow down my impulse to handle, and it’s working.
I think that’s why they don’t like goldens or flat-coats.
Those are their setter features that come through.
In general, it is believed that goldens have better noses than Labs, and trainers are constantly forced to “train around the nose.”
Twiddle’s are not “hare feet” but “flat feet”. The correct hare foot has well-arched toes and thick pads, but with longer phalanges making the foot look longer.