Would anyone be willing to name some all-breed judges who are not overly focused on full dentition? My female is missing a few and got knocked hard at a show last weekend. I'm new to labradors, so am unfamiliar with what judges to look for. I assume *most* breeder judges would be more forgiving of missing teeth? Also, are there any finished dogs or bitches missing more than one tooth that have finished, that I could look up show records for, to get names of judges that awarded them points?

Thank you,
Kristy Faulk, ND

There are a LOT of finished dogs with multiple missing teeth. There are also a lot of missing teeth in the classes these days, so you are not alone.

Many of the long time all-breed judges don't look at anything but the front bite. Judges are suppose to look for full dentition as it is in the standard, and if the AKC rep is watching ringside the judges will look at the full mouth. Avoid the Hartingers. I don't really watch as I don't have that problem, but I would say to avoid provisional and newer judges especially those that come from Dobermans and other breeds that count teeth. You can look up judges on AKC web site and see what their original breed was and when they were approved.

For the most part, all-breed judges frown upon missing teeth. Some more than others of course. Particularly ones who judge working breeds! Missing teeth has been a big topic in past discussion on this forum...Good Luck to you!

Thank you everyone, very useful information. If anyone has some specific judges they know to avoid, my e-mail is listed as well.

We plain on campaigning my bitch, but I don’t want to waste money, either. I realize once I pick the right handler they should have any idea, as well, but in the mean time I’m doing the showing so am kind of on my own.

Kristy Faulk.

Breeder12 gave the real answer:

I feel it is sort of bad form to ask for a public list of those judges who do not follow the AKC rules. You might prefer to show in Canada or one of the FCI countries where dentition is not so carefully defined. As the Brits say, different horses for different courses.

Kristy, As you probably know full dentition is only preferred, and missing molars and pre-molars and misalignment are serious faults but not disqualifications.

No dog is perfect. So a judge may decide that your dog has so much merit in other areas that the dog's assets override the mouth deficits.

Looking for a judge who puts up dogs who have tooth problems doesn't tell you what the judge saw in the dog to merit putting the dog up despite the tooth problems. I find it more useful to look at my dog's assets and figure out which judges highly value those assets. Then I am not looking for a judge who simply doesn't know or care about the standard for teeth. Such a judge might not know or care about other areas of the standard too, and I don't know what a win from such a judge would mean in assessing the quality of my dog.

Are you talking about AKC or UKC? I thought you only showed in UKC and no longer in AKC?

You are correct in that, in general, breeder judges don't care much about teeth. But you need to imagine what it is like to judge a breed with which you are NOT intimately familiar. I imagine they read the standard the night before the show Then it is easier to rely on things that have less to do with breed type. Does the dog have good dentition? Can it move well? Is it in good condition? Does it display good attitude in the show ring?

I think your search for judges that appear to ignore missing teeth is a good strategy. If you find some good ones, please share! Good luck with your dog.

Kate I think the OP was looking for judges who don't feel a missing tooth or two is a mortal sin, not one who realizes that not having full detention is the end of the world.

Balance, proper movement, correct conformation, head, coat and tail should be much more important than a missing tooth or 2 for any judge. More than 2 could be a problem with any judge if they're really noticeable.

Talk to some breeder judges privately if you have friends that are. They *might* know.

I think you need to try the judges with your dog to find out unless you go to a private-email list on Yahoo Groups. I think I was on a judge opinion list there years back but it's multi-breed. Maybe a Labby list is there now too. G.L.

Kristy Faulk, Not to get too personal and I'm not nosy but are you in another breed or breeds besides Labs?

Everyone is trying to be helpful including me. I'm wondering, if you're new in Labs if you have shown other breeds. You seem fairly knowlegable about show terminology.

Thank you everyone for the information.

And yes, Gregg was correct with what I was/am trying to get information for.

The biggest reason for the post was because a judge said to me (and I'll look up his name, it's written down) that he thought my girl was very ‘typey’, a lovely mover, and over-all a very nice dog, but that he'd never put up a dog with missing teeth, so not to bother in his ring in the future, with her. I kind of thought that was a bit harsh, if he liked most everything else about her, and so to me he is a tooth fairy. His comment sent me on a search for a judge that doesn't stop considering an otherwise nice dog, just because of teeth. He said quite a few teeth were missing, as far as I can tell it's 2 premolars on top, right side, and 1 premolar on top, on the left side.

Anyway, thank you all. I have some e-mails to respond to, and I very much appreciate them.

Jolene, I mostly just showed in the UKC several years back, with a French Bulldog. I know enough to talk about dog shows, but am very much a newbie, and especially new to labs (well, sporting breeds).

Thank you everyone for the information.

And yes, Gregg was correct with what I was/am trying to get information for.

The biggest reason for the post was because a judge said to me (and I'll look up his name, it's written down) that he thought my girl was very ‘typey’, a lovely mover, and over-all a very nice dog, but that he'd never put up a dog with missing teeth, so not to bother in his ring in the future, with her. I kind of thought that was a bit harsh, if he liked most everything else about her, and so to me he is a tooth fairy. His comment sent me on a search for a judge that doesn't stop considering an otherwise nice dog, just because of teeth. He said quite a few teeth were missing, as far as I can tell it's 2 premolars on top, right side, and 1 premolar on top, on the left side.

Anyway, thank you all. I have some e-mails to respond to, and I very much appreciate them.

Jolene, I mostly just showed in the UKC several years back, with a French Bulldog. I know enough to talk about dog shows, but am very much a newbie, and especially new to labs (well, sporting breeds).

Kristy (and Gregg), I still believe it is better to search for judges who judge the whole dog than to focus on avoiding "fault" judges.

In my experience the judge who told you strongly that he/she has never put up missing teeth is unusual. My experience has been that judges (or people generally) don't like to tell the owner what they don't like about a dog (owners often react badly to such statements).

If a judge tells you something they don't like, it would be probably something obvious and countable like teeth. But is the reason stated the only reason a judge didn't put up your dog? Hard to say, given the social prohibition against criticizing someone's dog--or kid.

That being said, Kristy, your dog is missing several important teeth, and the AKC standard does say that missing molars and pre-molars is a "serious fault." I see some wisdom in the AKC standard because we don't know the mode of transmission of missing teeth, and in some breeds missing teeth has become such a significant issue that there seems no return to full dentition. Of course, none of this means that you can't continue to show and to enjoy your girl. The question about teeth genetics really arises when you consider breeding her.

Just for the record, the last AKC conformation show I entered was June (as was the last AKC Rally). I show in three registries (AKC, UKC, and APDT) and in conformation, obedience/rally, and dock diving. I've been showing Labs in AKC since the early 1980s. I belong to 1 AKC all-breed club, 2 AKC Lab clubs, and 1 UKC Lab club.

Kristy, I hope that you continue showing in AKC and UKC and add new venues to your showing so that you can put conformation in perspective and not get too worried about what any one judge says about your dogs. Enjoy your girl in all the ways possible.

I don't know if this can be explained or if I just have to find a dog with missing teeth (as mine have all theirs), but when I show bite, or look at someone showing my dog's bite in training, they all hold their tongue where it's coming out the sides of the teeth. While I am lifting off the lips, sometimes I just don't see all the teeth because the tongue is in the way. So I wonder how do some of these judges even know if a tooth is missing, especially that tiny premolar.

"In my experience the judge who told you strongly that he/she has never put up missing teeth is unusual. My experience has been that judges (or people generally) don't like to tell the owner what they don't like about a dog (owners often react badly to such statements)."

The OPs experience is not unique. I have also been told by a judge- female in this case- that she took missing teeth very seriously and implies that it would be a mistake to show a particular dog to her again. I thanked her for the information and said that I would remember it. And judges very often "tell" you what they don't like. Pointedly reexamining the shoulders or rear, running their hands through the coat a second time, measuring the muzzle with their fingers, can be communications to the handler. I think that a judge who comes out and tells you what they don't like is great. Maybe you won't agree with them, but at least you've learned something, if only what not to bring to that judge in the future. I showed dairy goats (Yes, really) for a number of years before I went into conformation with my dogs, and there the judge lined up the entire class and went down the line. " I chose 1 over 2 because ....". I know, with many rings running at the same time and the time limitations of an AKC show this would never work, but in comparison I find dog shows to be a waste of time if you are are trying to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of your animals. And judges can get away with poor judging as they don't have to justify their actions in any way. If they had to explain their placements, we might see better placements and fewer judges who add breeds that they don't know.

Peggy, I very much agree, and please don't get me wrong, I was very thankful to the judge for telling me that I need not waste my time and money in his ring--very helpful; exactly the kind of information I am looking for.

I also showed horses in 4H once upon a time (won't say when, I'd really be dating myself), and loved how the judges would tell why 1 was placed over 2, etc. I sure wish this could be done at AKC shows. I did get a lot of feedback at UKC shows, however, to each their own, but I only take those assessments with a grain of salt (who this particular girl won't see much of the UKC ring).

I still need to grab this judges name, and can e-mail it out to anyone interested, but I did read that he was a great judge of a Labrador, so when he said that my girl was quite nice (paraphrasing), I was very pleased to hear that and took it very seriously, but am on a search for judges that won't throw a nice lab out, because of teeth, considering it is a fault, not a disq. and, imo, not a big deal when compared to other elements of the Labrador that a judge may in fact like on a particular dog.

I guess we could argue all day about whether teeth/mouths are important or not. But the standard does not list very many things as "serious" faults so I take those few "faults" seriously, especially given the difficulties some other breeds have with dentition and the heritability of dentition.

I suspect that many breeders find dentition important or "full dentition" would not be listed among a stud dog's attributes. I know many breeders who decide to place a puppy when dentition is not complete or correct. Sometimes the choice is heart rending for them. But the choice about showing pales by comparison to the difficult of reproducing the problem in offspring when we don't know the mode of inheritance.

Peggy, I guess you can read into a judge's actions a critique on your dog better than I can. Even official judge's critiques are worded so carefully that they are almost like code to me. I really just haven't seen many judges in all these years who are willing to risk alienating exhibitors by telling them what they don't like about a particular dog.

I am cautious about thinking that I can interpret what the judge meant by any action. Heck, I am cautious about interpreting the words I hear and even the placements a judge makes. Too many times a judge who liked my dog one week can't seem to find the same dog the next week in a much smaller class. The same judge who told you that missing teeth are a mortal sin one week may be so bowled over by a particular stunning dog the next week that a missing tooth is not even noticed. I take EVERYTHING a judge says or does with a grain of salt, which is yet another reason I don't waste a lot of time figuring out which judge likes or doesn't like which particular attribute of my dog.

Kristy, have fun with your girl. Every breeder gets a chance to judge--when you decide which dog to breed, which stud dog to use, and which puppies to keep. The judgment in the show ring pales by comparison in deciding whether your dog has merit to you.

As most of us, you learn from experience, and make your own "list" of judges. You are hoping to take a huge shortcut off of people who have spent alot of money, time and effort to learn for themselves, I suggest you learn the hard way, just like most others, I can't believe your on this Forum asking for specific names of judges so that you don't waste YOUR time. Ugggg.

She already said she's new at Labs and obviously to the nasty people on here. Give her a break furball. There is a way to explain things without being nasty.

Certainly not every move a judge makes is meant to inform, but when a judge comes back to my girl and deliberately places his/her? (can't remember exactly who did this) fingers on either side of her muzzle, something they did not do on the initial examination, well, the point is taken. She has an old-fashioned head with a narrower muzzle than is the current fashion. I love her head, and so did the judge that gave her a specialty WB, but I am aware that it is different from what is generally winning right now. Sometimes I am not sure if the judge is doing a gesture for their own benefit or for mine, but there have been a number of times when I was pretty sure. It might be interesting to see what more experienced handlers say about this. Maybe I'll start a separate thread and ask.

Concerning missing teeth- remember that the statement against missing teeth is newly added to the standard. It only appeared along with the size disqualifications and a lot of other changes that so disenchanted many breeders that they have decided that they can ignore the standard when they don't like what it describes. I finished two champions before the standard was changed, and I really don't know if they had full dentition or not- I never actually counted their teeth. One was co-=owned with a very experienced successful breeder, and I don't recall her ever counting her teeth. I think they probably did have full dentition- there were no big gaps in their jaws. But that's how little attention people paid, and I don't think it was negatively affecting the breed.

I have a girl who is missing a lot of premolars. She was accidentally bred to a MH Golden male while at the field trainer's. The male was missing a molar or two, himself. Before I bred her again I sent out diagrams to all the people who had puppies from that litter and asked them to X-out the teeth that were missing (I was rather proud of inventing that way of collecting information about missing teeth.) Some puppies were missing teeth, and others had full dentition. It was all over the place, full dentition, one or two missing, and several with lots missing. Certainly it would not be a good idea to double up on missing teeth, I won't be doing any line breeding back on her, and missing teeth is something I need to consider in breeding her offspring, but you can get full dentition from parents who are both missing teeth. As far as I know, all the bites were OK. The girl earned a JH and was making good progress toward a SH when another field injury ended her career. Missing teeth are not a problem for retrieving, but the short muzzles favored by some breeders and judges are. Her son with a short muzzle has full dentition and a perfect bite. He is doing MH work and has to adjust his grip more than I'd like. The trainer doesn't send him for multiple long retrieves with bumpers because he "ships" so much water swimming back. He's OK with ducks. I think the length of the muzzle and possibly the shape of the head is a much more important functional issue than missing teeth. I don't know if it is true or not, but I have been told that some British breeders actually preferred missing teeth because they found the dogs to have softer mouths. My girl had a British grandfather.

Peggy, The part of me who shows in UKC is very sympathetic to your point of view. UKC does not list missing teeth as a serious fault, and I think theirs is the modal position in a more global world of Labs.

In fact, I am currently showing in UKC a boy I co-own. He has two missing molars. (Both his parents and the two littermates I kept have full dentition.) He's a nice boy, finished his grand championship easily, and is currently in the Top Ten points to be invited to Premier. He's never going to be shown in AKC conformation or bred, though I may continue with him in AKC obedience. Mainly I am showing him because his co-owner is so thrilled by his success and because he is a lot of fun to show.

I worry about the heritability of missing teeth, especially in light of what I have learned about problems in other breeds. I respect the wisdom of those who revised our AKC standard. And I REALLY respect the judges who choose dogs with correct dentition over those who do not. I call these judges both knowledgeable and courageous.

When I am showing in a registry, I try to play by their rules, just as I would in any other sport in which I participate. Fortunately, I have lots of options for competition if I have a nice dog who doesn't fit the AKC conformation standard.

I think you should reread the UKC standard.
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/LabradorRetriever
While missing PREMOLARS are listed as a fault, missing molars are a SERIOUS fault. In other words, your Grand Champion boy has two SERIOUS faults with two missing molars. If you really show according to the standard for each registry, that dog is in the same category (serious faults) in both AKC and UKC. Again, you might want to reread the standards. I think the UKC judges under which he finished so "easily" might want to do the same.

Kate, do you recommend those that have a dog that doesn't fit the AKC conformation standard show in *UKC only* as you're doing with this boy you co-own?

I think the problem with others doing the same or seeing you doing it is; they *will breed* a UKC GRCH and not worry about the heritability of missing teeth as you state you do Kate.

Sorry, you are correct about the missing molars. (Typing too early in the AM when I am doing other things). He is missing two pre-molars (the itty bitty ones near the lower canines to be specific) one on each side.

I am definitely not breeding to produce dogs who are missing teeth so that I can show them in UKC. I've shown most of my dogs in both UKC and AKC. The one who won BOB in the UKC Premier Top Ten Invitational last year has both a UKC Grand Championship and an AKC Championship and has also shown at Westminster and Potomac. I enjoy playing with my dogs in dog sports, and they seem to enjoy it too--especially staying in hotels and eating out.

In the case of the boy with missing teeth (and I still don't know what I did wrong to produce missing teeth), God gave me lemons, and I am making lemonade. Even if I wanted to breed him, his co-owner only wants to play the showing game, not the breeding game or AKC conformation. His co-owner will only let me have him for short periods; he is a family member first, not a show dog.



At no point in this discussion have I said that I find missing teeth good or even a necessary evil. I don't even encourage anyone to avoid "tooth fairy" judges. I do feel huge sympathy for those who produce nice dogs with poor dentition because I know how easy it is to do and how hard to avoid. But the world of dog sports is large, and there are places for all dogs where they can succeed.

I have never shown in UKC but thought I read this on here once before. Thanks for taking the time to correct this incorrect presumption.


TEETH - The Labrador Retriever has a complete set of evenly spaced, white teeth, ideally meeting in a scissors bite. Level bite is acceptable, but not preferred.

Faults: Missing premolars.

Serious Faults: Undershot or overshot bite, misaligned teeth, missing molars.

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but at the issue of how important are a few missing teeth, really? For my breeding program, in which I am trying to produce sound dogs that live to be 14 or older with no health issues like allergies, seizures, or orthopedic problems, that can go into AKC shows and win points on the basis of type and movement and that please my eye as they trot across my field, AND who can achieve obedience titles with a minimum of training, plus get advanced field titles, I am not going to discard a dog if it is missing several teeth. I am not breaking AKC rules by showing it; the standard says it is a serious fault, and I'll leave it up to the judges if they are going to penalize the dog so severely that I'll decide it isn't worth showing it. I finished a dog with a missing molar (she cracked it, and the co-owner called me to get permission to have it extracted while she was unconscious on the examining table), and I know of many cases where a dog with missing premolars has finished under the new standard. This doesn't bother me at all; I don't see it as affecting the health or performance of the dog and I see dogs with features that I consider much more serious faults like an open, too long coat, which does affect performance in the water, rewarded all the time. I have an AKC multi-pointed girl right now who is missing two teeth. I have decided not to breed her. Is it because of the teeth? No- it's because, despite having had the advantages of good field training, she sometimes refuses to retrieve, a much more serious fault in my opinion.

I do want to respond to Kate's comment that she respects the wisdom of the people who revised the standard. Is she aware that at the time the standard was changed by LRC, all the regional specialty clubs except one gave it a vote of no confidence? The generally accepted opinion at the time (and I was a relative newbie to the conformation world then, but I knew a number of experienced breeders and was listening to the dialog) was that it was a bad move, that it encouraged fault judging rather than judging the whole dog on its merits, and that it was out of line with the standard in the country of origin and with standards in the rest of the world. The issue of specifically calling missing teeth a serious fault is an example of both fault judging and non-conformity to other standards. I would prefer a dog with full dentition to one missing teeth if everything else were equal, but it is way down the list of things that I consider serious problems to an individual dog or to the breed in general.

I show in the AKC and UKC and have a couple of dogs with missing teeth. I can tell you the judges in UKC are stricter about missing teeth than the AKC. Probably because most of the judges in UKC are less experienced.

You are going to come across judges that will not put up a dog for missing teeth. There are also many judges that do not care about the missing teeth. To give you a list of judges who are tooth fairies is asking the impossible. Most of the time when you have a dog missing teeth and it does not win you immediately think it is because of the missing teeth. When in fact most of the time that is not the reason. There could be something else the judge did not like about the dog. The judges have to check the mouths because the AKC reps are watching them. I used to think that when the judge checked the whole mouth it meant they were counting teeth, but that is not always the case. I have had judges check full mouth on my ones missing teeth and they still gave them the points.

I have finished boy with a few missing pre molars. I have a bitch who needs one major to finish who is missing pre molars. I would prefer full denition on my dogs, why not make life easier, but sometimes some come up missing a few. It is not the end of the world or the dogs show career. When you do come upon a judge and you know they are a tooth fairy you just don't enter under them again with the dog that is missing teeth. It is something that is learned as you show and if you are the one showing the dog you get a better idea of what the judges like and don't like than what a handler tells you.

Peggy, Change causes some people--maybe even most people--to be upset. So the fact that people were upset about the change doesn't tell me much.

Fault judging is not limited to areas specifically spelled out in the Standard. As I said earlier, I favor judges who evaluate the whole dog; I think most judges try to do so even though it is a difficult task.

I am not advising anyone to stop showing their dogs because they have missing teeth. I recommend enjoying your dog in multiple sports, in multiple registries--especially so that you maintain perspective about all venues and so that you never loose track of the importance of having fun with your dog.

As I said earlier, the issue about whether to show your dog pales by comparison to the question about whether to breed your dog. Dentition is important enough to me, and I guess others, that I would choose a stud dog with good dentition over a dog who did not have it. Fortunately, we have lots of choices.

I still respect the wisdom of the Standard regarding teeth, primarily because of what I have learned from other breeds and because of the unknown mode of inheritance. I also respect the judges who decide that dentition is important enough to them that they will judge as they believe. I call them knowledgeable and courageous.

Well good for you. If you knew the truth behind that standard revision I don't believe you would "respect the wisdom of those who revised our AKC standard" (well, maybe you would - but most rational people wouldn't). The issue of teeth was forced through by one lone holdout, an old dowager who hadn't finished a dog in recent memory at that point in time, and who hasn't finished one since. Unfortunately, this person is still on the Board of LRC and isn't often seen outside the state of Texas except at Nationals. Another, a deceased former treasurer of LRC, tried for all he was worth to exclude references to double coat from the revision. This person, in cohort with another long time breeder and LRC power broker in New Mexico who also is known for having slick coats with no undercoat, would have ruined the breed under the guise of protecting it. He never did get over the selection of Sam of Blaircourt as the illustration of the former breed standard over his less desirable but well known alternative. Plus, the manner in which this standard was forced down the throat of the conformation community was completely devoid of honor - completely. Kate, I would suggest you learn a little history of that process before you hold those people up as either wise or honorable. They were/are neither.

Be sure to show under English Breeder Judges only! They couldn't care less for a missing tooth or two. It's the whole package that counts:-)

I make the best of what is.

And that is what the conformation community has doing ever since the new standard passed. Most of us were not members of LRC (Lots of applications for membership got "lost"; some were even flatly turned down) and therefore could not join the power clique and the field people in voting on the proposed standard. LRC was doing nothing for conformation people, so we didn't join. The national specialty was put on by regional clubs, not LRC. LRC took it over because they didn't like the dogs picked by British judges, who often were invited by the regional clubs to judge, as they are today. We still have no national programs like the Golden or Flat-coat people. Some people still don't go to the national specialty because they hate LRC so much! As someone who works in the field of behavior, I'm sure you agree that it is not WISE to cultivate so much ill-will in order to impose your views on other people.

To "Judge who prefers type" I didn't know who put in the provision about teeth, but a visit to the LRC website fixed that. Thanks!

The truth hurts, if you can't take it Jeewhiz, get off!

It is wise to learn from the mistakes of others. Most of us won't live long enough to make all those mistakes for ourselves.