Zelstone was a champion flat-coated retriever that was born in 1880. If one checks out his pedigree, one finds several “Labradors” in it. George Teasdale-Buckell believed he was a Newfoundland dog, but he probably wasn’t. (“Labrador” meant St. John’s water dog.)
He is often celebrated in the flat-coat literature– he probably appears in the extended pedigree of every living flat-coat– and the Guisachan dogs also trace back to him through his son Tracer.
The most famous depiction of Zelstone shows him to be quite different from modern flat-coats:
Now, hypothetically speaking, let’s say that Zelstone had been born today.
And let’s say that instead of being a black dog, he had been born of a color that might be called “Rich, lustrous golden of various shades.”
And let’s say he had been registered as a golden.
How would he do at a conformation show?
Who’s on the other end of the leash. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
or, also, who is the judge? What are the other dogs that are in the ring like? i have seen judges put up dogs that moved better than the “other dogs”, that actually DID read the standard. There are, in fact, judges who have working dogs. Assuming that this dog would be dumped –well, maybe a lot of the time. But I’ve also seen judges that would put up correct “rustic dogs” and who DO understand working characteristics. Maybe not many, but there are some out there.
Why are there so many Belgian Tervuren out there that have a CH at one end of the name and a bunch of working titles at the end? Or for that matter, a bunch of working CH titles in the front end of the name as well as that conformation title? I expect that it’s for several reasons:
1. their owners don’t whine. They get out there and DO things with their dogs and also do the conformation.
2. because a lot of the dogs are “dual”, it keeps the “type” seen in the ring more moderate than where there’s a division between “field” and “bench”.
3. because a lot of the dogs are dual, judges SEE working type and don’t think it’s some bizzare thing.
4. because there are a lot of the dogs that are dual, there are more chances for the working types to get together and be the “norm” rather than exaggerated types.
It’s one of my goals in life to get the Belgian Sheepdog to have the same kind of record that Tervs do. And no, I’m not saying Tervs are perfect, no health things, etc. I am saying that if the field people abandon conformation, they have no excuse in complaining that the “bench” dogs don’t look like field dogs. Why should they? it’s a different group of people who are looking for something different in their dogs. Why should the conformation people have their dogs “look” the same?
Obviously the work was (in most cases) there “first”, but things change. As long as that show golden is healthy, why SHOULD it have the color or build or coat that field people like? If field people want “Golden Retriever” (or Belgian Sheepdog, or cocker spaniel) bench dogs to look like field dogs, then they need to trek in their field dogs to a bench show. But it’s somewhat confusing to have folk say that the conformation (“bench”) stuff doesn’t matter and then complain that the bench stuff doesn’t look like the field stuff. If bench doesn’t “matter” to field, why should field “matter” to the bench folk? History alone won’t justify it. Insisting on sounder or healthier dogs is one thing. Insisting on the same “look” while arguing looks don’t count is a bit contradictory.
BTW, I do believe a name should mean something. That is, in fact one reason I do herding with my “sheep dogs”. But I do trek them into the ring as well — because I do want judges to see a working type. And so far, I’ve found judges who recognize a good dog when they see one often enough to collect those bench titles. Tain’t easy, but it seldom is with these things.
Peggy Richter.
Labrador didn’t ever mean the Saint John’s Dog.
There are many accounts about this in the books of the 1800-century which you must know, I think.
The Saint John’s Water Dog was much smaller and lighter build, when the Labrador was a clear beast of burden.
All during the 1800s, these two diifferent types of “Newfoundland dogs” were crossed (besides other breeds) to create the modern retriever.
One account of the “real” Labrador of the times is from the H.D. Richardsson’s book (1847) and it shows Rollo who lived in Irland in a baron family:
Irland, in deed, as I recall you sometimes having said, must have had something to do with the evolution of the retrievers.
Labrador for retrievers means St. John’s water dog.
Some sources called the big Newfoundland the Labrador, but for my purposes and all the retriever sources, it means the smaller dog.
Not the big one.
Yeah, I do fine get “for your purposes”.
But in many sources (by Richardson’s, Hutchinson’s, even later Walsh’s, among others) the Labrador was a separate type, a very big dog and different from the classic, real Newfoundland dog.
And never the St. John’s Dog in any means.
For retrievers, it always means the little one.
However, different authors have different names– often reversing the names. It gets confusing.
I think when the pedigrees say “Labrador’ for retrievers, they the landrace retrieving dog from Newfoundland.
Oh yes, there was of course the LESSER Labrador, so you must mean that.
Some how it never gained that much attention than the big version. I can’t find any picture of it in the books on cynelogy of those old days, tho’ the early photos do exist.
Lesser Newfoundland or Lesser Labrador = St. John’s water dog.
Greater Newfoundland or Greater Labrador= Newfoundland and Landseer (which is a separate breed in the FCI).
Why is it so hard to accept that “the Labrador” or the “greater Labrador” (both names are being used in the old sources) and the (great) Newfoundland were classified as different types in those times?
Today we have many breeds like Belgian Shepeherds, that includes different types, but are classified as different breeds, tho at least two of them are actually the same dog.
Is it more or less artificial, I can’t say.
But, so many times so many writers are telling
about the Labrador dogs – to make a difference between them and the Newfoundlands, that this just cannot be ignored.
Actually The chain begins with Cartwright. Have you red his?
He tells for ex. about his favorite dog, “a big, mahogany coloured Labrador Dog.”
Cartwright lived in Labrador permanently nearly two decades in the end of the 1700s.
We cannot surely know wad kinda dog he meant by that.
I tend to think it wasn’t a husky, but seems a bit it’s as much my imagination as the facts we’ve left alone.
Why?
Because the minority of texts use it.
The majority of texts– in retrievers– use the nomenclature as I do.