Breed Notes for April 2003

This particular issue of Dog World (April 18) was interesting for another reason as well, namely the report of the judge at UK Toys. The judge there, Mrs E Cartledge, whilst awarding CC's for the first time in papillons, does of course have considerable experience in the world of show dogs. Given that experience and that she was sorting out such a huge entry of the breed for the first time I think perhaps her comments are of greater interest than usual since she brings a fresh but experienced eye. Her opening comments I found particularly interesting, they reflect my own thoughts expressed previously in these notes and more recently in the Club Newsletter certainly as far as some aspects of the breed are concerned.We have, since I first came into the breed, always had a variation of size, indeed with a standard allowing a three inch range for such a small dog, that is perhaps to be expected. I am sure many like myself can recall taller dogs being made up that were elegant and yes dainty whilst competing in the ring with smaller dogs, the one simply being a proportionately different size to the other. Perhaps we should think of what we mean when we use the term 'larger', not only can it be used to describe those dogs towards the top end of the height range but also can be used to describe dogs which are simply larger - i.e. larger and heavier all round. I was always told when I came into the breed that proportionately a good dog at the top end of the height range should be a carbon copy of a good dog at the bottom end of height scale. Both should have the attributes we expect from the breed standard, being fine boned and dainty, a taller dog should not have unnecessarily heavy bone or be coarse simply because it is larger, just as a smaller dog should not have over fine bone or be 'weedy'. However I do think that we do now have far too many at the taller end of the height range whose bone is too heavy and/or whose head qualities are unnecessarily coarser. It does seem we also have far more medium sized dogs who carry this heavier bone (not slender and fine boned as called for in the standard) and whose head qualities are to my eye heavier. They may have good stops but where are the finely pointed muzzles abruptly finer than the skull called for in the standard. Too many have square muzzles like teddy bears, often accompanied by an overall teddy bear shape to the head, far too round to fit the standard. Coarseness is not something which comes only on the taller dogs.I found Mrs Cartledge's comparison to the late 70's and early 80's very apt, indeed I think that period, and I would perhaps extend it slightly to the mid to late 80's, was a more golden period for the breed certainly as far as overall quality and type is concerned. I am not sure whether changes in presentation can be blamed for the look of some in the ring, after all even by today's standards the presentation skills in those days, and I think of the Tongemoor's and the Caswell's to mention but two kennels, could easily compare with today's. Even then we blow dried our dogs coats (we had hair dryers even then!!) but the quality of the coat was such that dried correctly it retained its fine silky touch and texture and laid close to the body. It may be that these days some are perhaps blow drying their coat against the lie so as to make the coat appear stand away (with perhaps the hope of giving it an appearance of being a fuller coat) but too often the appearance is due to the fact that the coats are simply not of the correct texture. We have too many with harsher, woolly coats, some as the judge said accompanied by undercoat, and all the preparation in the world will not make such a coat feel or look fine and silky and lay flat.Interestingly Mrs Cartledge's comments in part were reflected in a conversation I had with the judge of bitches at the Club Championship Show and she too referred back to that period. Looking back at some of the champions of that period from those well known kennels and comparing them to some of today's champions one could easily be forgiven for thinking it was perhaps a different breed as head type, coat texture, and overall balance of many of today's dogs are different. Now of course some may well argue well that's how the breed has evolved, but I would hesitate to use this argument. After all if one takes the view that these champions from that period were worthy champions, and I am sure many of us that were there and recall them will also recall at the time that we considered this to be the case, then one has to ask why this change has come about. Is it a case of changing our interpretation of the standard to fit what we are now producing simply because we have lost the qualities of those older dogs and if so is that really a good excuse, would we not all be serving the breed better if we got back to that standard of quality and type???