This Forum is brought to you by The Mastiff Sweet Spot and Friends of the Forum.
Sign up Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 8 of 12     «   Prev   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   Next   »
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #351 
Quote:
Mastiff was ANY BIG DOG BEFORE THE STANDARD.


Once again, this was author specific, as some would consider any large dog a Mastiff, yet others addressed specific traits.

Many people even today will look at a Mastiff and call it a Dane, Bullmastiff, large pit bull, Saint, etc., even with a standard!

That doesn't mean they are correct in their terminology!

The Mastiff of Agincourt (1415 AD), which went on to define so called purity at Lyme Hall, would not be seen as correct if judged by today's standard!

Does that mean that the Lyme Hall Mastiff was not to be considered a Mastiff?

A set type was a defining quality of any breed, even without a written standard. Therefore, although the general population may have called other large types a Mastiff, there were a few refined fanciers who narrowed the field and created a breed save a standard!

It all depends on your individual perspective and your knowledgfe of breed history.

Defining a Mastiff is author specific!

The standard was created by authors and we use those authors in determining what a Mastiff represents to the modern era.

The standard did not create the Mastiff type, it was a specific type, that a select number of authors wanted to see set in stone. That derivative is what was used to address the correct form and who's wording was created by authors.

The standards have changed over the years and once again, done by authors, who determined what a Mastiff should be!

Therefore, the definition of a Mastiff is not set in stone and many early Mastiffs were Mastiffs of equal standing to our own, even though other crosses were called by similar names.

If a group of fanciers came to a consensus opinion in their pursuit of a ubiquitous type, it should not denigrate those types which came before that consensus. Many of which we see in old prints and represent the Mastiff in form, even if not in pedigree!

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
h

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 4,232
Reply with quote  #352 
Quote:
 I am all about saving the integrity of the breed I love and can not believe that some SUPPOSED champions of the breed are so blatantly being anything but. Again here is your chance to prove me wrong with FACT.


Aside from pigmentation, what do you love about the breed that you want to preserve?  What are you doing to preserve the integrity of the breed?

H


__________________
Janine

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,524
Reply with quote  #353 
OK, one more thing Brindlelove that is fact, I dont think you are stupid at all, I KNOW YOU ARE.
Janine.
Janine

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,524
Reply with quote  #354 
PS Brindlelove, I also think you are rude, self opinionated, you see what you want to see and not what is written, you have been given proof, you have been given the opinions of people who have been involved in the breed for eons, yet you still scream foul.  Alll you have contributed to this thread is absolute crap putting it bluntly, you think you are fed up with bullshit, mate, you have me so fed up right now I cannot think straight.  Where pray tell have you proven me wrong in any post I have put up.  Then again, dont bother, you are not worth the time it takes to answer. 
Everyone else, sorry about this, wont happen again, I am tired and in no mood for this absolute rubbish. 
Janine.
Janine

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,524
Reply with quote  #355 
Well Grant, I guess if enough people want something bad enough it will happen.

The White Shepherd Dog (previously called the White Canadian Shepherd) emerged from white coat lines of the German Shepherd Dog.  The White Shepherd breed was officially recognized by the UKC on April 14, 1999.  It was awarded provisional recognition as a breed by the Federation Cynologique Internationale on November 26, 2002 as the Berger Blanc Suisse.  Provisional was changed to official recognition on July 5, 2011 and the Berger Blanc Suisse breed is eligible for CACIB as of July 6, 2011.
It is also sometimes called the White Swiss Shepherd.

I guess, where there is a will there is a way.  White Shepherds, just a different name and now officially recognized.

Janine.
Gammonwood

Avatar / Picture

Gammonwood
Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #356 

Hi folks,

Long time no post, but with 8 puppies and the next installment of our documentary nearing completion we're actually in negative time right now....LOL

Whilst we're here we'd would like to address a couple of points...
We feel the distinction needs to be made that this entire thread, in quite a great degree, is about personal opinion. Teresa, our hats off to you. We too would take any sound dog, despite a cosmetic fault such as pied, over some of the poor examples we have seen in the show ring. Also agree with you whole heartedly about attitude. There is a way things can be said without being offensive or combative for it's own sake. Emotions evidently are not only for the bedroom as can be seen when one is using a public platform to showcase negativity.

Our opinion is that at the time of the standard the pied colouring was present in the stock that was used to create the modern breed of Mastiff and the Standard was written by the powers that 'be at that time', (their collective personal opinions, if you like). We believe the pied was wrongly omitted from inclusion. This is our opinion, albeit based on a lot of research indicating a firm basis in fact. Others people on this thread are expressing not just a cut and dried yea or nay for the inclusion of pieds: They are also stating their reasons for believing so. Every person on this forum is an individual with a personality, (some stronger than others- LOL), but all with with points of view and the right to express facts as they see them and opinions as they hold them dearly.

During this thread we and others have been labeled with some fairly inappropriate titles. We have stated what we are trying to accomplish with pieds - some have agreed, some have not, and some have even misinterpreted or just plain misunderstood. People have a right to have their opinions heard. None of the negativity alters our thoughts, as it's just someone else's opinion. Steve has done a wonderful job both promoting and dismissing the validity of pieds....His take has been most educational and we believe indicative of the strong arguments both for and against.

As far as getting a Saint in place of a Mastiff if we want the Pied colour, we feel this is an unfair suggestion. We are not Saint Bernard enthusiasts, we are Mastiff enthusiasts. Breeds may share similar colours but they are different from one another in character and temperament and it is the Mastiff's character and temperament that we love and admire.
We knew  Janine's Pied Mastiff Dozer and he was 100% Mastiff. Sit with our Pied Pups for an afternoon and you'll know in your heart they are Mastiffs, despite the wording of any piece of paper.

Yes, the question of pieds might be decided on the facts of what is 'right' for the breed, but make no mistake, personal opinions lead us to research and discover these facts.
If there were different 'personal opinions' back when the Standard was agreed upon, (not to mention less politics in breed clubs), this issue might not even have arisen: Pieds may have been included in the Standard from the outset.

STATEMENT: We are not questioning if Pieds are valid in today's standard. We are stating that the PIED was always part of the proto-Mastiff gene pool and should not have been written out in the first place.
Our stance is that the Standard itself is wrong.
We have not once stated that we are looking to create a new breed, strain or designer dog. We have stated that we would like to see a true mastiff, (from precisely the same stock as other colours), take it's rightful place in the modern breed. "Watering down the heritage" could be one way of looking at it if you accept the standard as gospel. Another way of viewing it could be amending a flawed standard to give the pied coat colouring it's historically correct and justifiable place in the modern breed standard.

Many on this thread have shared their beliefs, ideas and opinions on why or why not the standard should or shouldn't be amended.
We have not heard one valid argument (or what we would term valid), for our original premise: Why was the pied written out of the standard in the first place?

Just food for thought.

Holmesy, we'll post some more pics of the pups on the forum next chance we get. In the meantime we have posted pics of the whole litter on our website ( http://www.gammonwood.net ) on the Puppies Photos page.

Warmest wishes to everyone.
Si & Jen

Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #357 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Well Grant, I guess if enough people want something bad enough it will happen.

The White Shepherd Dog (previously called the White Canadian Shepherd) emerged from white coat lines of the German Shepherd Dog.  The White Shepherd breed was officially recognized by the UKC on April 14, 1999.  It was awarded provisional recognition as a breed by the Federation Cynologique Internationale on November 26, 2002 as the Berger Blanc Suisse.  Provisional was changed to official recognition on July 5, 2011 and the Berger Blanc Suisse breed is eligible for CACIB as of July 6, 2011.
It is also sometimes called the White Swiss Shepherd.

I guess, where there is a will there is a way.  White Shepherds, just a different name and now officially recognized.

Janine.

Janine 
Yes the more people shout for what they want , the more chance they will be heard. The trouble is, in these cases, the majority plod along without putting much fight against things like this, and the next thing you know, the change happens and everyone is shocked, then start to complain !!!
New breed sounds good to me PIED MASTIFF !!  

__________________
Grant
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #358 
Quote:
We have not heard one valid argument (or what we would term valid), for our original premise: Why was the pied written out of the standard in the first place?


I believe I addressed this question in an earlier post.
It was my speculation, that the founders believed that white could not be controlled on fawns, brindles & apricots, if pieds were allowed to intermix with those colors. Wynn certainly had no problem with white, but he was in the minority camp and was falling out of favor with the majority, especially after putting up a short faced Mastiff by a non member (big taboo at the time) since the elite had decided to only judge their own, so Wynn sealed his fate.
We were also dealing with antediluvian thinking regarding inheritance. Therefore, they believed they were doing right for the breed at that point in time.
Presently, with a test for pieds, it is now possible to control the coloration from spreading blindly throughout the gene pool.
This modern science, has now given rise to revisionist thinking concerning this old color in Mastiffs, vis a vis the standard.

So, it will be up to the forces at play, to see how much traction emerges leading to inclusion of pieds into our standards.

There are valid arguments to be made for or against inclusion, and they can certainly be aired without becoming personally venomous in the process of review.



__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #359 
I might add, that the founders may have also considered the pied to have been subject to speculated crosses in it's emergence. Purity of pedigree was a strong component in Victorian thinking and any trait that might have promoted such doubts of purity, would have been admonished.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #360 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gammonwood

 

Our opinion is that at the time of the standard the pied colouring was present in the stock that was used to create the modern breed of Mastiff and the Standard was written by the powers that 'be at that time', (their collective personal opinions, if you like). We believe the pied was wrongly omitted from inclusion.
Of course the pied was present in the stock of big dogs, referred to as Mastiffs in the days before the standard was drawn !!!

But as in all standards drawn at the time, the powers at the time had to decide out off the masses of miss matched dogs, what was going to be the future registered Mastiff !! Even in your films, it is stated that people were crossing big dog to big dog, just to get what they wanted personally. The forming of the standard drew the line as to what was a Mastiff. We all  know that the crossing of all breeds is rife, but at least since the standard was drawn, we have (arguably) a breed that is recognizable around the world !! Why not see the pied pups you have, as a fault from the past and treat it as such ?


__________________
Grant
Gammonwood

Avatar / Picture

Gammonwood
Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #361 
Good post Steve
Cheers.
We did actually specify "what we term as valid" rather than just the straight valid.
We can certainly understand the reasoning behind your speculation and why the writers of the Standard
felt that the introduction/inclusion of pied colour might taint the solid colours,
However, the issue of our personal validity lies with us not being colour predjudiced.
A valid argument for us would be that the pied colouring gives a inherrited physical defect that is detrimental to the dog.
This was obviously not the case, so for us it dilutes down to a decision being made based on cosmetic preference.
Not valid in our books though certainly valid in the Victorian mindset.
So whilst we do see a certain validity in your speculation, it must be noted that it is valid to us only in the context of the thinking of the time.

Another good post from you too Grant... and to address a specific question
"Why not see the pied pups you have, as a fault from the past and treat it as such ?
Our answer to this is quite straight forward.
We don't believe that it ever should have been a deemed a fault.
We don't see it as a fault, we see it as a non-standard colour (according to the standard)
but again have been given no valid reason, other than cosmetic, for its exclusion.

If we could all imagine for a moment that the pied colouring had not been
ommitted at the time that the standard was drawn up, we would,
(almost two centuries later), have " a breed that is recognizable around
the world " with all current coat colours AND pieds.

To quote Steve, (and hopefully not out of context)
" if the pied is made a legitimate color and adopted into the standard,
it will be a Mastiff color, despite the confusions that may occur with the Saint."

Cheers again

Si and Jen
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #362 
Why not see the pied pups you have, as a fault from the past and treat it as such ?

An expression from the past may be labeled as a fault, but it may not be a fault at all! 

I believe that is what Si & Jenn are saying!

The present standard does not recognize the pied color and it would be a non standard color if entered at a show. Being non standard, it would be judged as off type in coat coloration. Much like a big white blaze would also be seen as off type, but the pied to a much greater degree.

The relativity of cosmetic faults is what creates this conundrum, as a blatant structural flaw would never be tolerated and rightfully so!

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #363 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveOifer
Why not see the pied pups you have, as a fault from the past and treat it as such ?

An expression from the past may be labeled as a fault, but it may not be a fault at all! 
In our standards case, it is a definite fault ,as it is highlighted as WHITE is UNACCEPTABLE and NOT PERMITTED 
Example from Pug color description (and i know further disqualifies brindle's)
Color for Pug 
The colors are fawn or black.  The fawn color should be decided so as to make the contrast complete between the color and the trace and mask 
Note, without the inclusion of unacceptable or permitted, the pug people still know any color other than Fawn or Black is a no no !!

I believe that is what Si & Jenn are saying!

The present standard does not recognize the pied color and it would be a non standard color if entered at a show. Being non standard, it would be judged as off type in coat coloration. Much like a big white blaze would also be seen as off type, but the pied to a much greater degree.

The relativity of cosmetic faults is what creates this conundrum, as a blatant structural flaw would never be tolerated and rightfully so!

__________________
Grant
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #364 
<g_vml_:shape style="left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 469px; height: 1160px; position: absolute;"><g_vml_:fill><g_vml_:shape style="left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 469px; height: 1160px; position: absolute;"><g_vml_:stroke><g_vml_:shape style="left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 469px; height: 1160px; position: absolute;"><g_vml_:stroke><g_vml_:shape style="left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 469px; height: 1160px; position: absolute;"><g_vml_:stroke><g_vml_:shape style="left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 469px; height: 1160px; position: absolute;"><g_vml_:stroke>

L'Estrange: Hungry Dogs and a Raw-Hide.

 
A Company of Hungry Curs Discover'd a Raw-Hide in the Bottom of a River, and laid their Heads together how to come at it: They Canvass'd the matter one way and t'other, and brought it to this Issue in the Conclusion, that the only way to get it, was to Drink their way to't. So they fell to Lapping and Guzzling, 'till in one Word, they Burst themselves, and never the nearer.

He that sets his Heart upon Things Impossible, shall be sure to Lose his Longing.


Source: L'Estrange 420.
Canes et Corium
Approx. 1685 showing side by side pied & fawn?

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #365 
Grant,


Quote:
An expression from the past may be labeled as a fault, but it may not be a fault at all!


What I am saying, is that it is seen as a fault in the standard, so I'm not disagreeing with you there!

What I'm also saying, is that it may not actually be a fault, if one considers historical relevance and argues their position from that platform!

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #366 
Quote:
The mastiff is a not a dog that is baiting bulls, it is not guarding the manor from the wolves, it is not escorting ladies on the road and protecting them from highway men. The mastiff is not the dog of the Assyrians, or the dog of the Gauls, or the dog of the 14th century knights in England.
The mastiff as we know it is the refinement of an ideal of history and nationality, a folly of leisure and urbanization and pride in husbandry and nascent understanding of breeding principles and competitive individuals that took huge pleasure (and had the time and the money to indulge ) in hunting, in horses, in good dogs.
The mastiff today is not homage to the 13th century or the 24th century BC, or to the Roman Collusium. It is homage to 19th England and America. It is a pure, unadulterated product of it's time - romantic, not totally practical, idealized, slightly corrupted by politics and competition, urbanized, fictionalized, man-made and expected to exhibit all the best qualities of faith and fury and devotion and gentleness.
Why oh why oh why must we have him be more ?


Certainly a strong argument for exclusion!

One can make a similar argument for the exclusion of apricot brindles, yet they have been accommodated in the standard.

The issue is not whether everything of historical mention should be included in the standard. The issue is over relevance and the degree of historical markers available for all to see. If pieds were a recent development, with no backdrop in history, I don't believe it would be presently debated.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #367 

One more thing.............

The Mastiff has and will continue to be a breed in transition. I see no reason why it should be otherwise, given the history that Erika has listed in her post.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #368 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveOifer


Canes et Corium
Approx. 1685 showing side by side pied & fawn?

Steve, this is a picture of two dogs !!! What are you trying to make of it ?
Even if the picture was after the standard was drawn, it would mean NOTHING !!

__________________
Grant
Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #369 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveOifer
Grant,


Quote:
An expression from the past may be labeled as a fault, but it may not be a fault at all!


What I am saying, is that it is seen as a fault in the standard, so I'm not disagreeing with you there!

What I'm also saying, is that it may not actually be a fault, if one considers historical relevance and argues their position from that platform!

Steve, there is only relevant history in your bubble !

__________________
Grant
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #370 
Grant, the drawing is of two dogs that could easily be labeled Mastiffs in their period of time!

Once again, it's up to the author as to the label (in this instance "curs").

It illustrates that the pied was not uncommon and certainly does appear in a number of some of the earliest images we see of Mastiff types.


__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #371 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveOifer

One more thing.............

The Mastiff has and will continue to be a breed in transition. I see no reason why it should be otherwise, given the history that Erika has listed in her post.

The history of the big dogs called Mastiffs, before our standard, is not relevant to what our standard calls for today, now that we are recording !
Even counting the mix match dogs that gave there genes in the 1800's !!
 

__________________
Grant
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #372 
But Grant, it's that same history which was instrumental in forming the first standard in the first place!

If we disregard the past, then how valid is the present?

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #373 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveOifer
But Grant, it's that same history which was instrumental in forming the first standard in the first place!

If we disregard the past, then how valid is the present?

Steve, i would like the standard clarified, to take away as much of the many interpretations as possible, and likely add some disqualification notes to finalize a few issues  !! But as far as i am concerned the guys that wrote the beginnings of our present standard were well aware at the time of writing, to what to and not to include in it, because of there experience and knowledge of the dogs on the ground at the time. We cannot dig up these people to ask them the reasons for there decisions, but i am prepared to trust them, as did the many fanciers of the time, or the standard would not have lasted to now !!!!  

__________________
Grant
Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #374 
Dinny you be puttin ideas in thir heeds noo Erika !!!!
__________________
Grant
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #375 
Grant,

Early doctors used to bleed people, we cannot dig these people up either, but we now understand their motivation, even though misguided!

Would you also be prepared to trust them at this point in time?

Tradition has it's place, but it should not trump reality!

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #376 
The issue is not whether everything of historical mention should be included in the standard. The issue is over relevance and the degree of historical markers available for all to see.

Erika, you are a wonderful tap dancer and always seem to evade direct inferences when given. I have also stated that, one can make a similar argument for the exclusion of apricot brindles, yet they have been accommodated in the standard.

If enough people believe in a trait for a Mastiff and can ground their belief in historical documentation, it is possible for that trait to become accepted!

We have seen the standard modified, due to health issues that have rewritten old verse! Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to believe that other pressures would bear less fruit?

I'm not advocating such changes based on the given issues discussed, but I am resolved to the notion that it can happen, if those fanciers gather in sufficient numbers to advocate the changes they believe to be valid.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
collie

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 2,430
Reply with quote  #377 
It is too simplistic to say that the modern breed was created in 1885. The first KC stud book was published in 1874, and includes most of the ancestors of the current breed.
I know there is a Mastiff described in it that was "fawn, brindle, and white". Genetically this might have been a pied or merely kad the modifying genes that can give a white front, white feet, etc. Science is not yet in a position to describe the full Mastiff genome. A researcher tells me that she is working on the difference between fawn and red Tervuren, and this looks comparable to the difference between fawn and apricot Mastiffs. The cause of the silver tone in Mastiffs may due to the C chinchilla gene, or it may be something else. I have never had a problem with "any other colour" Mastiffs being registered if it is a traditional colour. Remember that Crown Prince, the genetically most important dog in our breed, had a chocolate mask, dudley nose and yellow eyes, and was almost certainly "bb" in the B locus. I would have no problem with this trait being made undesirable but explicitly allowable.

__________________
"Nothing is foolproof, because fools are ingenious"
brindlelove

Registered:
Posts: 278
Reply with quote  #378 
Collie K.I.S.S. There is no reason to complicate things. Gammonwood is simply saying that they don't agree with the people running the show and they are smarter and have more knowledge than the keepers of the books that date back almost 200 years. I mean they know better right. At least they admit to what they are doing (a big F U to the standard). They have absolutely NO PROOF TO BACK UP THEIR OPINIONS and are careful enough not describe the dogs as English Mastiffs or anything BUT MASTIFF and using their train of thought (all be it incorrect and goes against everything the standard was created for but hey it's Gammonwood so we will just give them a pass) they would be correct if this was the early 1800's and the standard had never existed. Listen this is getting no where. FACTS keep getting posted and the cheerleaders keep refusing to either read, acknowledge, or admit what is really going on.  
Now Janine I will respond to this K, one more thing Brindlelove that is fact, I don't think you are stupid at all, I KNOW YOU ARE.
Janine." in kind
- YOU are a self righteous KNOW FOR NOTHING DITZ who either is delusional, has not taken her meds or has not learned to read since every FACT posted has DISPROVED PIEDS IN THE BREED as does the standard. GAMMONWOOD DOES NOT ARGUE THIS POINT AT ALL PEOPLE. Their whole claim is that BEFORE THE BREED EXISTED in the days before the standard a pied variant MAY have existed and  it is those MASTIFF (meaning ANY big dog) that they want to try to bring back. Funny how MOST of you are reading but not comprehending what they are posting. They have admitted to EVERYTHING I STATED :We believe the pied was wrongly omitted from inclusion." notice the admittance of pieds NEVER BEING PART OF THE BREED AS IT EXISTED WHEN IT WAS CREATED!!!!!!!!!!!
At this point some of us are arguing fact while most are arguing opinion and there is never going to be a meeting of the minds.

__________________
You know you own a mastiff when youre dog weighs more than your wife!
Janine

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,524
Reply with quote  #379 
Hi David,
I was not sure when the stud books were first printed, Betty wrote on the copies I have 1859 - 1874.  I did find one in there that predated that though, entry 2370  Empress - Mr. E. Handbury's, Eastrop Lodge, Highbury, Wilts; breeder, owner; born 1857; colour fallow.
Pedigree:  By Anadell's Leo out of Countess, by William's Monarch out of Thompson's Juno, by Lion out of Thornton's Juno.
Chief Performances:  Birmingham, 1st prize, 1860; 2nd prize, 1861, 3rd prize, 1862

I suppose that is why she dated them as such.  Thanks for the clarification on the date though, much appreciated.
Janine.
Janine

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,524
Reply with quote  #380 
Brindlelove, I did learn to read, shame you were never taught to spell or understand what grammar means.  Nor manners for that matter.
Janine.
Janine

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,524
Reply with quote  #381 
Grant, I don't want to see a new breed called Pied Mastiffs. I bought the White Shepherds into it as you used them as an example and I simply pointed out that they are already recognised in their own right.  We also have a black GSD Champion in Australia.  Rare they are looked at but obviously this one had enough good points that the colour was overlooked.  As I have stated before, I am in two minds with this, I see both sides of this discussion and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Simon and Jeniffer are friends of mine, they have bred a litter which contains three pied pups, they are not the first to do this, and they wont be the last, though after some of the things said here, I feel more will unfortunately be consigned to the bucket as in the "good old days" and never mentioned, thus hiding the pied gene once again.
Simon and Jeniffer would like to see pied become accepted, I have already said this is not going to happen, if they want to try by all means, who am I to try and stop them, but, in my opinion, the Kennel Club will not budge on it, they took non-standard colour out that fast I cannot see them going back.
The Australian Standard for the Mastiff is governed by the English Standard owned by the Kennel Club.  We are lucky that we have the limited register and these pups can be registered but as pet quality only.  If they were bred at any time the pups thrown would not be recognised, nor able to go on the limited register.
So this conversation can go around and around, the world is not going to end because pied pups have been born and the breeders are passionate enough about it to try and take if further.
I just hope they post some more photos soon so I can enjoy seeing them grow.
Janine.
Gammonwood

Avatar / Picture

Gammonwood
Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #382 

Hi Erika,

 

“Why oh why oh why must we have him be more ?”

 

Our simple response to this is why should we have our pied Mastiffs be anything less?

To us, words (or omission of words) in the standard, has and will continue to lessen this wonderful breed.

 

It was interesting to see the parti- poodles you posted. Another parallel story is that of the Parti-Yorkshire Terrier. Another time perhaps...

Regarding the placing of pied Mastiffs via judge discretion, given the circumstances this is a very fair and sensible approach taken by the AKC.

They are after all, a dog registry and do not deny registration on colour alone.

Thankfully our prejudices on colour has not infested the livestock market. Health, virility and soundness in this environment always seem to come first.

 

We are not sure what the issue is with ‘tails over the back’ ?  We would much rather see this type of tail carriage than limp, lifeless tails. The dogs look full of vigour and vitality.

 

If all colours are not to be accepted into the Standard, then at least it should include the colours that have consistently held true to the breed.  Aside from the numerous historical writings/depictions of pied Mastiffs and the photo evidence that pieds were also present in the stock used to revive the breed after the wars, we also know of many breeders who have produced them world-wide: All from solid coloured stock.
The Pied gene is a recessive gene which can lay dormant and pop up unexpectedly. Not by accident, but because it is in the Mastiff’s unique gene-pool.

 

We agree with Col David Hancock that the English Docga, (precursor to the modern Mastiff), were originally heavy hunting hounds and it was hunting that gave them their form.  Their bravery in the hunt and their unique ability to seize and hold prey made them extra special.  Later as butchers dogs they were also incredibly useful for controlling bulls without damaging their flesh. Not an easy task without the aid of a stun gun.

This ability to seize and grip and not savage flesh is remarkable to the breed. It is likely the reason why Mastiffs never savage people.

 

The Mastiff has survived the centuries because of their unique and endearing qualities and because of their usefulness to man as hunters, agricultural dogs, guardians and loyal companions.

What does not seem important to the modern breed now, may one day be its saving grace. Big pets do not always fair well in times of hardship unless they are useful for something.

 

It is up to breed historians to evaluate credibility and relevance of historical references. Many of the historical pied Mastiff type dogs we have seen or read about have come from credible sources and Wynn must certainly be referred to as an authority on the breed, why else would we base our current breed standard on his descriptions?

 

The Mastiff is a pure product of its origins and history and has retained its  devotion and gentleness throughout the ages . 
The breed did not just suddenly appear. It has been carefully preserved by all those who have loved it, both pre and post standard.  

We can only be thankful to the many authors and artists who have left us so much Mastiff history.   

References of their courage, kindness and loyalty,  should be kept close and claimed for the breed.

Best wishes
Si & Jen

Gammonwood

Avatar / Picture

Gammonwood
Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #383 

Janine,

Thanks so much for all your support and interesting posts.

We know how devoted you are to the breed and we are so grateful to you for the wonderful interview you gave us for our next film

There is nothing self righteous or ditzy about you and we love your straight talk.  You are passionate in your beliefs and you don’t suffer fools.

You could well have been a Mastiff in a previous life...LOL

We’re really lucky to have you as a friend and we’re so excited about you doing a ten generation pedigree for our pied puppies

Keep the faith and thanks for all the  good work you do for the Mastiff

Cheers mate.

Si & Jen

Janine

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,524
Reply with quote  #384 
God knows, I'm big enough these days to have been a mastiff.  Scary part is, when you type Janine, spell check asks if your mean canine, so you might not be far off, and I have been called a bitch a few times lol.
Thanks guys, I appreciate that.
Half way through Kathleen's and then I will make a start on yours.
Janine.
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #385 
Quote:
Linguists have called the derivation of the word dog "one of the great mysteries of English etymology." There are differing opinions on it's origin, and apparently no obvious direct path to follow the word back in the history of language to allow linguists to be absolutely sure where it began and what the original word was. Some think this is because the word goes so far back in the history of man and dog. This could be supported by our knowledge that the dog was the first domesticated animal.

Experts suggest it could go back to the "earliest layer of Proto-Indo- European vocabulary." Most sources who suggest that say that it could have come from the word for dark in the Proto-Indo-European language (which is oddly spelled with characters not in the current English language). But, roughly, it is similar to "dheu". No explanation was found for how the word dark relates to the animal, however.

In 14th-century England, the word hound (from Old English: hund, see more below*) was the general word for all domestic canines. The word dog at that time meant a specific subtype of hound, which was a group of hounds that was composed of large canines that included the mastiff. It is believed this "dog" type of "hound" was so common it eventually became the prototype of the category "hound". The word hund was forced out of use in Old English by the time of the 16th century, and was replaced with Old English "docga". Docga trails back to an older Old English word "docce". By the time of the Middle English language, docce had converted to "dogge". This is the trail most people seem to follow, but there is not full agreement. It is still being investigated by the experts. Eventually, dog became the general word used instead of hound. Hound began to be used to refer only to types of dogs used for hunting.

The Old English word docce meant muscle, and the Proto-Germanic word that might be connected with it, may have been dukk from the word dukkon, which meant power, strength, or muscle. This may connect with the Old English word docga, which, rather than initially meaning generic dog, was a name of a specific dog breed that was rare and known for its power. The link might be made between a powerful dog and muscle and that might explain a piece of the puzzle. This use of that word for the specific breed can be tracked back to 1050, but many believe that it went even further back, as explained above.

*Hound, cognate to German Hund, Dutch hond, common Scandinavian hund, and Icelandic hundur, is ultimately derived from the Proto-Indo-European *kwon- "dog", found in Welsh ci (plural cwn), Latin canis, Greek kýōn, Lithuanian šuõ.


__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #386 
I was going to study language at CUNY, but thought better of it, since I might then be called a CUNY Linguist!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Gammonwood

Avatar / Picture

Gammonwood
Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #387 
LOL
new thread?

Grant

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #388 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveOifer
Grant,

Early doctors used to bleed people, we cannot dig these people up either, but we now understand their motivation, even though misguided!
The bleeding and cauterization was used for many years because in many cases it worked, by ridding an infected area of germs ! It was only through trying to understand why it only sometimes worked, that medicine is where it is now !! From medieval times, to the 19th century, medicine progression was very similar to our progression with dogs as in, lines were drawn to progress forward from, NOT to cross back into !!!!

Would you also be prepared to trust them at this point in time?

Tradition has it's place, but it should not trump reality!
Very contradicting of your stance, as reality is NOW


__________________
Grant
dixierockstarr

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 955
Reply with quote  #389 
Hey Steve!

Just kidding...

You may not be a CUNY linguist but you're still a master debater baby, yeah!

*in my Austin Powers voice

__________________
Christin :)
Member MCOA
Mom to Bravo son of
Intl Ch Dixie Rockstarr (RIP baby),
Fiona our pound puppy,
Chloe our kitty,
And 3 handsome gentlemen Brockton, Christopher and Jordan
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #390 
The color red was excluded from the Standard of 1883, simply because one man (W.K. Taunton) disliked it! Earlier standards recognized red as an authentic Mastiff color. In 1878 Stonhenge (Walsh) indicated a general dislike for it among breeders. They felt it indicated alien blood from Saints etc. and also felt it was linked to heavier coats as well.

The pointed Standard had a total of 5 points for color & coat combined! A mere 2 1/2 points for color. One reason why a point system is useful, in that it prevents making mountains from molehills.
Early Club Standards, were never truly authoritative, since there was a compromise which created it in the first place. Therefore, those with separate views still maintained their opinions regardless of the Standard, as witnessed by Wynn's actions at a show, in which he placed a short muzzled dog over those deemed more correct by the new Club Standard. The one Standard that held more weight early on, was the Stonehenge version of 1866 as it was less politically motivated. It served as a prototype, on which a more authentic standard could be built. It was based on the average Mastiff to be found at that period in time, it was not geared towards an ideal, or designed with exhibitions in mind.

The following is from the final standard of the first Mastiff Club 1880 written by Wynn, Sec./ Tres. of the Mastiff Club.......

Color: Fawn with black ears and muzzle, or good brindles equal; pieds are admissible and equal for purity---award no points for color.

We can see that there is precedent for pieds in the standard, even though the 1883 version of the OEMC standard reduced it to apricot-silver fawn, or dark fawn brindle. Which has been changed again, I might add!

Although today, the present standard allows apricot brindles, but no other non standard flavors, one could still use the history and the changes made for color, to make a strong argument for the inclusion of the pied. Especially, if there is now a DNA test, which would prevent a gene pool hazzard.

One can also argue against the pied, on other grounds I've mentioned earlier. But the issue is not as clear cut, as some advocates against the pied would like to make make it appear.
The standard not allowing the pied at present must prevail, but that does not mean, a debate for inclusion, is not a valid direction to take, for those who promote the pied as just another alternative color for the breed.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #391 
Both!

One influencing the standard (Taunton) and the rest of the breeders voicing their sentiment, but not having power over the standard. In other words, it was a color tolerated by other breeders, but not a color that was favored. I might add, that fallow did not only represent fawn, as it also was used at times to reflect a light apricot fawn, or yellow fawn.

The very rich red, that some present fanciers admire and see as a genetic double apricot, was not in favor back then, as it reflected the crossbreeding primarily to the Saint.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #392 
As a follow up, the laws regarding the blood sports changed in 1835. The Mastiff types used in blood sports were a varied group and typically smaller than what we see today. Many large Bulldogs were used in the Bear Garden and erroneously called Mastiffs. Many were Bullmastiff types, having been combined long before the official breed was recognized.

This change in sport had a large impact on Mastiff type, as post 1835 Mastiffs were not elevated by their tenacity through crosses to Bulldogs (much larger than the Bulldog of today), but were kept for other purposes such as companions & guards.  The desire for larger Mastiffs increased toward the turn of the century, as Saints were introduced into British society and crossbred to Mastiffs out of Lukey's early stock.

The romantic notion, that history reveals to us about the Mastiff, is flooded by truth, myth, and exaggerated tales of courage. The modern Mastiff does not represent the final consequences of that illustrious history, it does represent the present, just as each era represented their respective present.

The breed is in transition, as it always has been. Perhaps a slower evolution is in play, but make no mistake, as long as there are those who fancy pieds, fluffs, athletic types, or any other variant du jour, there will be changes over time.

I have little doubt that 500 years from today, there will be other fanciers who advocate for no change in the standard, even though that standard will look very much different from our present one!

The only thing constant, is change!~ Heraclitus

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #393 
Wasn't making a bet! I was making a prediction.

As far as Taunton goes, discuss it with Will Hally &  Norman Howard Carp Gordon...... ref. NEMF Spring 1986 pt. V- pg. 6  from  The Standard: "The Historical Perspective"

I'm surprised at you Erika! Or, perhaps I shouldn't be.

Where did I state: 
Quote:
Taunton refused/ignored/scorned all input/consultation/discussion/advice/conversation/opinion/advocacy/influence from breeders

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
jollydogs

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #394 
Hi I am new to posting on this forum but not new to mastiffs and other breeds including saints and Danes
what I see in this particular breeders choice to breed outside the standard as it is today is nothing more than bastardization of the pedigree mastiff
in all likely hood the coloration came from cross breeding much much earlier that the breeder fantasies
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #395 

Quote:
much earlier

I believe you mean...... more recently.


__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Gammonwood

Avatar / Picture

Gammonwood
Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #396 

Animals will usually breed true to the genes they carry. The pug for example is the only natural short faced dog with a fawn colour to its coat but it does also carry the genes for black. It would be natural not see other colour variations in the pug.  Black Angus cattle also carry  genes for the colour red. Red Angus are homozygous for the red colour and breeding red to red will consistently produce red. This colour is often preferred in hotter regions and regions with Buffalo flies.  Red is more heat tolerant than black and less attractive to Buffalo flies.

The Lyme Hall strain of Mastiff evolved through the centuries just as our modern Mastiff has. We’ve attached an image of Lyme Hall’s Lion. This portrait of Lion in real life is massive and hangs at the top of the main stairwell in Lyme Hall. The image belongs to the National trust and unfortunately we cannot post it here without the watermark.
We can only dream of having a Lyme Hall strain of Mastiff...of which pieds were also prevalent.  :-)

Warmest regards,

Si & Jen

Attached Images
Click image for larger version - Name: Lyme_Hall_Mastiff_Lion.jpg, Views: 420, Size: 30.50 KB 

Gammonwood

Avatar / Picture

Gammonwood
Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #397 

I honestly don't know if some people actually read everything that is posted or just skim over the words, happen to see something that with a bit of twisting will fit into their own preconceived ideas, and then use it to rubbish everything about the other persons points of view

 

Let's just get this straight in a few words so hopefully it won't lead to further misconstruing of what we are saying.

 

1. We have no intent to breed outside of the Standard.

 

2. We are not breaking any laws by breeding our existing stock that carry the pied genes..We are permitted to breed solid coloured dogs and if they produce Pieds, (regardless of any opinion where they originate from), those Pieds can be registered on a Limited Register and sold as pets.

 

3. We have not stated that we will breed Pieds and sell them as Pedigree dogs, designer dogs, a new breed or any other such assumed rubbish.

 

4. Our Kennel Club prevents us from mating  a limited register dog with a full register pup. We will not, like some others have done in the past, lie on our registration forms so as to conduct an under the table breeding.

 

However, as we live in a FREE society that generally looks at peoples views on a subject and adjusts itself accordingly if a need is identified, we will be pursuing a course for change in the Standard to allow the pied colouring. This is a right we feel is ours to pursue. If you don't agree with it, oppose it. It's your right to do that as well. We may not be successful but we're damn well going to try because we and others know that Pied Mastiffs, (YES THEY ARE MASTIFFS) deserve the recognition.

 

And if you oppose our point of view, that's fine. We really don't mind and we expect people to do so. This is a discussion about the validity of the Pied colouring in the Mastiff gene pool and by extension,  its possible inclusion  in the Mastiff Standard.  Excellent and impressive arguments have been posted by many on this thread both for and against. Some of our dearest friends and associates, disagree strenuously with us. Some support us 100%. Some others just bluster and insult other people for having different views. Steve, Erika and Grant especially have challenged us and have compelled us to search even deeper into ourselves and our love for Mastiffs. 

 

Just remember that before you judge us for anything get your facts straight. I would suggest actually re-reading ( or reading might be more apt) our posts to see our position and our intents. We are advocates for change. Until such a change is made we will certainly not be breeding our Pieds. 

 

 

Hope this is clear enough now, 

Warmest regards as always

 

Si & Jen

SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #398 
Quote:
Taunton refused/ignored/scorned all input/consultation/discussion/advice/conversation/opinion/advocacy/influence from breeders


Re: post #418

Erika, can you please post where I've said the above? Let's play fair for once, shall we!

Regarding your Taunton speculation......... I've provided you a reference, part and page..... and quite honestly, it takes me time to search for these things each time you doubt something I say.

Now you are asking me to post the piece, as if my reference was not enough!

There will be many other things I say, which you may also erroneously feel is my pure speculation, and I may not be able to site every page and paragraph to convince you every single time, that what I've said is valid!

If I am unable to recall the exact reference, in order to prove to you the validity of what I say, does it mean it's just my speculation? I don't pull quotes from the air, if I paraphrase, I'll say so..

How about searching the globe and finding a copy of the book, as I had to do, pay the price for this rare publication and then you won't need to question my reference, after I supply it to you on a silver platter!

I've spent the better part of the last 24 hours trying to do the local club a favor, by going through a ton of newsletters one by one, in order to provide info that they needed help on. If I had a staff of people, perhaps I could be more accommodating, every time you wish to see things first hand.
Erika, sometimes you'll just have to employ a leap of faith in what I say, especially after I take the time in providing you book, page and author!

I don't mind your disagreements, but I do mind when you attribute things to me I've never said (see above in quotes), and then have the audacity to ask me for more proof, after I've provided you with the information needed to validate my original statement!

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #399 
Addendum:

This reference can be also seen in The Making of The Modern Mastiff Pg. 56.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,881
Reply with quote  #400 
Of course, how could I be so foolish in thinking that it's your issue, when it most definitely is always mine!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.