click to zoom

PT2 (due to forum servers not working as usual)

In his 1867 edition of The Dog, 'Stonehenge' writes on the Mastiff : 'Colour red or fawn with black muzzle, or brindled, or black; or black, red, or fawn with white.'

Stonehenge’s entries for Mastiff colour seems to change in each of his editions, as if he is being advised by different people for each publication. As the group who finally wrote the accepted standard discussed these issues, Walsh continued to amend his version, most likely due to the forces that he recognized would eventually surpass his own standard. Which is exactly what occurred based on his 1878 standard which read, "The colour (value 5) is regarded as of considerable importance by Mastiff breeders, most of whom now confine themselves to a stone-fawn, with black muzzle & ear tips." He then goes on to quote Garnier's statement regarding another absolute, in that the brindle is the indisputable true Mastiff color!
Finally, five years later in 1883 the official Standard was formed by the OEMC.

I didn’t consider Goog’s1631 descriptionan actual breed standard but I suppose it could be construed as a crude one.It may be better suited for thelong coat advocates as he makes no mention of colour. Perhaps because it was not of any importance?? Cetainly a crude version of Conrad Heresbach's original earlier 1496-1576 standard description. But just as inappropriate for usage in validating long haired Mastiffs in the present! True, it's part of the historical record, based on 15th & 16th century documentation. But is that enough evidence to validate fluffs gaining acceptance in the modern standard?
  For those who subjectively like fluffs, it's a major yes! Should that sentiment, coupled to a historical precident, create a standard change recognizing long haired Mastiffs as equal in standing to their short haired brethren?

Most standards written for the Mastiff include a guide for the Mastiff’s colouration. Pieds (or dogs with prominent white) were almost always included in these standards as was black. Only a few preliminary standards pre official OEMC standard showed some non standard colors, so we should not state that most standards called for these anomalies. (Brindle is just a dilute black anyway and the German’s have long admired black for their running Mastiffs).

Some Mastiffbreed standards have mentioned white as being undesirable but we believe that is purely subjective, pieds were also prized by many people and the statement has no reflection for the Mastiffs white shaded ancestry. The entire written standard was purely subjective upon it's creation. That does not mean it should be amended, or overturned, just because original thinking did not account for every eventuality, based on future historical claims. We can give our country back to the Indians, or you the Aborigines, if that were the case!

Pied Mastiffs are not just an anomalies.They are a part of the Mastiff’s unique history andgene-pool. We love everything about these almost magical creatures and to exclude the pied from today’s standard is difficult for us to accept. Yet for others it seems easy and logical to accept,and the vast majority of Mastiff owners will never concern themselves with the issue.

We know there is not much hope for our pieds ever having their rightful place, but as long as they are with us they will always know themselves to be true Mastiffs. My argument against the fluff was much stronger before the test for the trait was discovered. I used the same reasoning then as I do now for the pied, in that it will invade the gene pool if the trait is validated without a means of control, or if breeders take it upon themselves to proliferate breeding pieds. If kept within a kennel, no harm, but these things tend to migrate and it would be sad if we lost all control over color outcome, since so much effort has gone into producing the standardized colors we know today.

We’ll have to sign off the forum for now otherwise we’ll never get our next film done!We really appreciate all the views and debates (and brilliant images!) everyone has shared.We’ll continue to post pictures (and film footage!) of our pieds as they grow.  In closing, it's been difficult for me to play Devil's advocate against your position, since I like the pieds that you & Janine presented openly to all of us. You've made some very good arguments in favor of the pied in theory, which attributed to moments that I found difficult & painful to contradict.
By and large it was a good debate, as lots of ground was covered by all who contributed to this discussion. I believe this shows that differing views do not have to become mud slinging contests, provided the participants respect one another and share their respective ideas despite their differences!

Si & Jen
Thank you both!