The posts on conformation and field lines gave me this idea. For a little humor, what breed has your conformation lab been called? My handsome 85# boy is usually called a mastiff or a mixed breed. The neighbor even thought he was a pitt bull mix because of his broad head!! When I had him at an obedience class, no one believed me that he was a lab, until the instructor took the time to say that "this is what a lab is supposed to look like!"

My 85lb boy is called a newfie mix almost constantly as he was growing up. And still on occassion. He has the most gorgeous mardas type head ("raintree slippery when wet" grandson). I love that dog!

My 85-lb has a big head.
He was called a Rottweiler-type with short legs :(

I was on the other thread as well...Burmese Mountain Dog, Rottie Mix, Mastiff. But most of all, I hear...He doesn't look like the Labs I remember....duuhhhh

Are you all saying that the Labrador standard describes a head that is similar to that of a Rottie?

I think what we are saying is some of the public isn't used to seeing labs of specialty quality, and mistake them for mixes of other breeds. I know in my area it is saturated with lovely but pet quality labs, sold as "english style" but without the looks or head a show dog would possess.

NO I am saying that a lot of the public who see male labs of pet quality, who are neutered too soon, are not used to seeing such big heads and "think" they look like rottie heads.

ya think that maybe we are overdoing these dogs????

Are we really doing good for our breed????

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

NO I am saying that a lot of the public who see male labs of pet quality, who are neutered too soon, are not used to seeing such big heads and "think" they look like rottie heads.

We had a Yellow boy, granted he is a big guy, at the vet today for update on shots. We were asked repeated what breed was he. Answered ... Labrador... question.... purebred? Answer yes, Labrador. The vet finally interjected, yes a Labrador! He's very foxy in color...... maybe that was the confusion ?????

No, I don't. Matter of fact I think the BYB's have "overdone" the incorrect type that everyone seems to think is a "labrador"!!!!!!!!!!!

I must agree with previous posts. Most people I meet think my big boy is a MIX with something like a Rottie. He does not have a Rottie head, but is not the thinner Fieldy dog which I believe most people are familiar with.

I have a Black male that many think is a Rottie. He had to have his tail amputated at 2 yrs of age due to cancer. So he is my black Rottie. It doesn't help that he is big and with a very strong head. So he wasn't meant to be a show dog, just prior to that, he didn't pass his elbows! But he is the best babysitter

The "fieldy" labs and BYB labs are outnumbering the confirmation labs and that's what people recognize as a lab now. Unnecessary forced neutering/spaying practices and limited registrations in a lot of breedable confirmation labs which are (IMO) trending to the overdone.

Ok, I ignored it the first time but if you are going to preach about something at LEAST know how to spell ot PROPERLY!!!

CONFORMATION = as in to CONFORM to the standard....

Yes, in our area most field breed or byb are so small, lean, long nose. So when they see a good Lab they first think what has a big head and go to Rottie. And no a good Rottie head would even look different. And yes, they say that is not what am use to. So you have to say, well it should be. These are bred to the standard of what they should look like. Silly and a shame. Got to say we are turning the corner just a little on knowledge of appearance.

I had a lady show up for a grooming apt(unschedualed) and I was away. My father was watching the dogs, and she was all in a huff about not being able to get her dog done right THEN. Well of course my girl takes that moment to run out the door. The lady freaks out, and starts and saying, "is that a pitbull, is it a pitbull". My father, who had had enough of this womens rudness, stated, That is a vrey expensive purbreed show labrador. The funny thing is, she has a proper head, but definatly a feminine head. It's not the first time I've been asked it what she is. The local back yard breeders produce dogs that look like lab whippit crosses.

Boxer mix, pit bull mix and my personal favorite someone once asked if my yellow girl was a Beagle mix?? HUH?? LOL

While at obedience class with one of my girls, I was asked why her tail wasn't docked... They thought she was a rottie!!!

And most of the public (at least here in Ar.) have never seen a well bred Rottie either. So they are compairing those heads (not the ones you see in the show ring).

I've also gotten a golden mix or a pit mix.

My champion chocolate boy is also an active therapy dog. We visit the local hospital on a regular basis, and I get the "What kind of dog is he?" question almost every time.
My favorite so far is the guy who asked, and when I replied that he was a chocolate Lab, the fellow answered back "No, he's not. I have a chocolate Lab and he doesn't look anything like that." Sigh...
Kathy

Glad to hear that I am not alone. I take my Chocolate boy for walks at one of our local outside shopping centers. Very dog friendly. We always sit at the cafe tables for a rest and some water before we load up to go home. I can't tell you how many times I have the same discussion. What is he? Labrador. Purebred? Yes. Are you sure? UH YES! They sit and stare and you can see them just trying to figure it out. In my area, there are few Labs that look like him, so people are always confused/interested. Generally, people LOVE him (he happens to be a big dope too) once I explain to them he is a Lab.

I have Dorothy Howe and Helen Warwick's books in front of me as I write. It seems to me that the foundation by which the modern show lab originated is somewhere in between the incorrect "field" labs of today and the equally incorrect Rottie looking "show" labs of today. (It is important to note that many modern show breeders are not breeding Rottie looking labs and many field people have dogs that certainly have "correct" type by anybody's interpretation of the Standard.) If I get on the web and look at real "English/British" bred Lab of today, they are somewhere in between the old time labs and the modern American show lab.

Now.....I am just "generalizing" about "type" at the moment and am not getting into correct bone structure. The problem with type, unlike bone structure, it is not as objective and we should probably accept a much wider view as to what is correct. Maybe all of us, including me, should be more sensitive to the use of the work "correct" when referring to many aspects of type. Of course there are characteristics that are clearly incorrect and for the good of the breed, we can not by shy about discussing those. But we all need to be very careful of labeling a certain type of head incorrect because it is not to our taste.

Mary Roslin Williams book was the one that got me to understand that a truly good judge understood that many types of lab are necessary to do different types of hunting. The goal is to be able to determine quality within the different(acceptable) types. Demeaning what other people accept as true type, especially when it resembles the original pillars of our breed, is not fair. Also, if you are focusing on the positive in other people's dogs, temperament is an essential part of type and we should go to hunt tests and marvel at the wonderful display of this aspect of breed type.

I've had one man stand there and actually contemplete out loud to me about what kind of dog my boy is. Insult my kids but not my dogs! When I told the man he was an English Labrador with champions all over his pedigree he looked at me like I grew another head!

Having imported from abroad, and visited other countries shows and kennels I can say that the USA is not the only country with 2 kinds of Labradors (not including BYB as a kind). We hold up the English Labrador as a "standard" but England too has a "fieldy" and a "benched" look that is separate and they moan about.

Gee, if we are getting all of this feedback on what kind of dog we have, and I have gotten it also, maybe we might want to question "type" in our breed. I wonder if some of our health issues such as ED and hearts have something to do with how large we have made these dogs....heavy people have more issues also......

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I have Dorothy Howe and Helen Warwick's books in front of me as I write. It seems to me that the foundation by which the modern show lab originated is somewhere in between the incorrect "field" labs of today and the equally incorrect Rottie looking "show" labs of today. (It is important to note that many modern show breeders are not breeding Rottie looking labs and many field people have dogs that certainly have "correct" type by anybody's interpretation of the Standard.) If I get on the web and look at real "English/British" bred Lab of today, they are somewhere in between the old time labs and the modern American show lab.

Now.....I am just "generalizing" about "type" at the moment and am not getting into correct bone structure. The problem with type, unlike bone structure, it is not as objective and we should probably accept a much wider view as to what is correct. Maybe all of us, including me, should be more sensitive to the use of the work "correct" when referring to many aspects of type. Of course there are characteristics that are clearly incorrect and for the good of the breed, we can not by shy about discussing those. But we all need to be very careful of labeling a certain type of head incorrect because it is not to our taste.

Mary Roslin Williams book was the one that got me to understand that a truly good judge understood that many types of lab are necessary to do different types of hunting. The goal is to be able to determine quality within the different(acceptable) types. Demeaning what other people accept as true type, especially when it resembles the original pillars of our breed, is not fair. Also, if you are focusing on the positive in other people's dogs, temperament is an essential part of type and we should go to hunt tests and marvel at the wonderful display of this aspect of breed type.

I always get the usual, "Is that a Newfoundland?" Gosh, non-show people even have heard of a newfie, but they don't know a lab when they see one. :D

About the posts above. I do see where some of you are coming from, but if we look back to see what labs were ORIGNALLY bred for, we will see, that again, they were bred to retrieve and jump into the icy waters of Newfoundland, hence they have big heads, thick bodies, lots of thick dense fur, bog bone, stamina, energy and most of all, a laid back, sweet temerament.
Now, can we say who was "Americanized" in the first place? If you are stil clueless, please, go check out that BYB again, and tell me that those scrawny , thin-boned, single-coated dogs can jump into freezing water. :)

Just my two cents

I was asked if my chocolate girl was a St. Bernard. I asked the woman if she looked like Beethoven. She said, kind of!

Breeder Two quote: "Got to say we are turning the corner just a little on knowledge of appearance."

Years and years ago I was NEVER asked "what breed is it?", there was no need to educate people. Most conformation labs of today are overdone in both size and type and their numbers are smaller in comparison to the entire lab population.

Our dogs are now predominately larger than those in the UK. How did this come to be? Why would a hunter or anyone want a larger lab? There are more advantages to a smaller size as long as the dog can pick up a bird. I personally like to see labs in the lower range of the standard size and if smaller than the standard was acceptable, better yet. When my puppies are around the 50-60 lb. range I get numerous comments from people saying "if only they wouldn't get any bigger they would be the perfect dog".

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Breeder Two quote: "Got to say we are turning the corner just a little on knowledge of appearance."

Years and years ago I was NEVER asked "what breed is it?", there was no need to educate people. Most conformation labs of today are overdone in both size and type and their numbers are smaller in comparison to the entire lab population.

Our dogs are now predominately larger than those in the UK. How did this come to be? Why would a hunter or anyone want a larger lab? There are more advantages to a smaller size as long as the dog can pick up a bird. I personally like to see labs in the lower range of the standard size and if smaller than the standard was acceptable, better yet. When my puppies are around the 50-60 lb. range I get numerous comments from people saying "if only they wouldn't get any bigger they would be the perfect dog".

Twenty years ago, I was asked if my 7-month-old Aslan grandson was a purebred beagle (he went on to become an Am/Can CH, CD)!

Keep on educatin'!!!!!

While it is true that the finely-boned, single-coated, scrawny excuse for a Lab is NOT capable of the breed's original purpose, neither is the oversized, wheezing, drooling monster we are seeing lately--the kind that no longer wags its tail, and has to be coaxed w/ food to move ten steps at a time.

Follow along with the image you described: the powerfully built, densely-furred dog leaps from the fishing boat into the sub-zero waters of Newfoundland--but then the luckless, soaking behemoth is too heavy to be pulled up and out of those freezing waters back to the safety of the boat, even by the brawniest of fisherman...

I think the job of the original Labrador water dog calls for a combination of guts, power, thick bone and a water-tight coat, BUT perhaps coupled with a slightly smaller size, or to quote one early author a "handier" size, than the original water dog. (There is in fact a reason why the smaller dog was bred.) Keep in mind that a dog of this size could only have had more energy and more stamina than his cumbersome big brother.

A quote that gets missed by many concerning the first Labradors:

"...generally black and no bigger than a Pointer...is extremely quick running, swimming, and fighting..." (Colonel Hawker, 1830). Seems that a for a lot of show Labs of late, the only thing 'extremely quick' about them is their breathing...

To sum up--a Lab should have all the necessary bone and brawn, but his overall size scaled down just enough to allow him to function at maximum efficiency.

Were the original Labs called the "Lesser Newfound Dog" and the "Greater Newfound Dog" went on to become Newfies??? Do I have this right?

The Labrador Retriever ancestors were taken to Newfoundland by explorers, fishermen, and settlers from England, Europe,and Norway.

The Labrador Retriever descended from dogs left here (in Newfoundland)in the early years. They evolved into two distinct types. One was the large heavy-coated dog which became known as the Newfoundland. The other was the smaller shorter-coated type and was called the "black Water Dog," the "lesser Newfoundland," and later the "St. John's dog."

We are proud to have two breeds that have origins to this province!!!!

I so agree that many of the labs seen in the ring today are just too much. You can actually hear them huffing and puffing while moving around the ring. Looking at the photos of labs in days of old, they do not look like our show labs today and actually tend to lean more toward the more moderate field labs of today. Thought a breeders responsibility was to preserve the breed, not re-do to what wins in the specialty ring. Many of the older all breed judges still will put up a moderate dog.

Hi,

The ideal of what a Labrador Retriever should look like: Ch. Sandylands Markwell of Lockerbie.

Who's responsible for the over-done trend? Breeders or judges?

I am glad to hear that I'm not the only one thinking that many specialty type Labs are overdone. I know that in the terrain that we have here for hunting and testing, the Labs of the specialty build would not be as effective as more moderate Labs. We have think sage brush that leaner dogs are much better at navigating, the waters are often quite muddy and can suck a heavier dog in easier.

As far as ideal Labradors, my two are Ch Ilderton Ben ( LINK) and Ch Dar Star of Franklin (LINK).

Oh wow, that first one of Miss Howe's... That straight front hurts my eyes.

I think we have come a long way in Labradors, and some of the nicest Labrador Retrievers in the history of the breed are alive today.

Keep in mind that this thread is about "TYPE". We could start a whole new thread on the bone structure of the modern lab. I see some wonderful examples of structure in the modern ring and many horrible specimens. And of course ideally type and structure work together and maybe really are not two different things. But having said that, this whole thread is about type.

I've had people argue with me at the vet's office over whether my specialty winning bitch is purebred or not. "She doesn't look like my brother's Labrador and he's AKC certified!" But the funniest mistake someone made recently was with one of my Havanese. She weighs about 10 lbs and I had her on the table. She's grey and white. Someone asked me if she was an Old English Sheepdog! lol

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Who's responsible for the over-done trend? Breeders or judges?

Pit and Rottie are what most people think. What's even sadder, that some take one look and get all freaked out. He "looks like a "bad dog"(of course BSL and uneducated twits take a nice roll in that) :( . Beau has a broad head, pretty big boy around 86lbs. Oh, he'll kill you alright, with his toung lol.He's a big cuddle bug if you ask me


1-1/2 years old in the above picture

5 months in this one- he was a Hunter for Halloween 2006 lol

My first chocolate had some loose skin and we got the Shar-pei comment a few times. The pizza guy once asked if they were Rottweilers, and I said no they are Labs but if you were to threaten me I could tell them to act like Rotties. Of course they would eat the pizza and forget all about me!

Some heads are over done sure, but if they have a soft but intelligent expression - it's not so bad as long as it's balanced with the rest of their body. I field train with a guy that imported a Drakeshead bitch from England and she is beautiful. Maybe a little rounder in the eye than I would like - but conformation wise I think she would do well. I've gotten calls for Bucket head Labs and block heads and even green-eyed Labs ?

When I saw "meet the labrador":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPh7rQQU_xY

I was simply chocked. I watched it over and over again. Just wow. I think all these people who produce puppies to grow up and look at this, should be ashamed. :( This is NOT what a Labrador Retriever should look like. Look at them they are OBESE.

Look at the bowl of food: thats more than my normal sized lab is eating in a week! So sad.

And what makes you an authority on this breed ?

That is silly. Sure the bowl was a prop and full to show the food and the dog. PLEASE. Did you want the ones that look like they really need to be fed. Think some field think it is good to have those thin, almost pitiful looking dogs running. That was a very nice adv. Love it and the breeders.

Oh, brother - here we go again. Ann, I can hardly wait until February. That's when we get to read all the posts about fat Labradors the day after Westminster. None of which was ever written by anyone who had ever put hands on one of these dogs and felt the muscle under that coat. The dogs in that commercial were what is described in the standard as "active", not the freaky, hyperactive, can't keep 'em in the house kind. There are plenty of places to go to learn about how a Lab is "supposed" to look (and behave). Start here:

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/109

Look very hard at that picture. They've been at it a lot longer than we have. Maybe what you have a picture in your mind of what a Lab is supposed to look like is something else entirely. Boy, this kind of stuff really hits my button.

"I can hardly wait until February. That's when we get to read all the posts about fat Labradors the day after Westminster."

Unfortunately, that's because they are. Take a look at the Purina Body Conditon Score on their website. Most specialty Labs are obese. Fat is fat and it doesn't matter how much mucsle they have underneath the fat. I challenge any of those specialty winning Labs to spend a day in the field, in the agility ring, or hiking with their family. They can't do it. Until the top breeders realize this, judging won't change.

Many are fat. Maybe some are well-conditioned fat, but and some are REALLY fat, but they are fat and that is the style. They stand out if they are too thin.

And I loved the video, but they are fat!

It's weird that many tend to be in Egypt in "de Nile" about this.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"I can hardly wait until February. That's when we get to read all the posts about fat Labradors the day after Westminster."

Unfortunately, that's because they are. Take a look at the Purina Body Conditon Score on their website. Most specialty Labs are obese. Fat is fat and it doesn't matter how much mucsle they have underneath the fat. I challenge any of those specialty winning Labs to spend a day in the field, in the agility ring, or hiking with their family. They can't do it. Until the top breeders realize this, judging won't change.

I only read the tail end of this thread and don't
post often. However, and as always, some just
cannot and will not accept the FACT that some
Labradors just have more substance and type
than others! Coats are very deceiving to the
eye and should not be judged until you actually
put your hands on that dog!

Some also have incorrect information about these
"FAT' dogs not being able to spend a day in the
Field?? That is simple NOT true.

Size,type or lack of, has absolutely nothing to
do with retrieving ability. Just that field driven
breeders are at it more than others. After all,
they can't take their dog in the show ring(:

Be nice now:)

"I challenge any of those specialty winning Labs to spend a day in the field, in the agility ring, or hiking with their family. They can't do it. Until the top breeders realize this, judging won't change."

Baloney. They will last longer than the family on an all-day walk about. Fact is, families normally don't go out and keep at it all day, no more than retrievers are called on in the "real world" to retrieve a double blind at 500 yards. I don't get the point of all this. When you Yanks let the field trialers to change the standard hoping to finally be able to compete, something got lost. Perhaps it was civility. On our side of the pond we may disagree but it isn't like we hate each others' dogs - or each other, for that matter.

Sure, there are *some* specialty winners who may be too fat to do a days worth as a gentleman's hunting partner, but there are many who have hunting titles and have gone from the ring to the field.

A few that come to mind are Ch Raintree's Slippery When Wet, who regularly hunted into double digits (in age). Last year's National BISS has her JH and the winner's bitch went on to get a leg on her JH at the National, the day after winning a 5 point major! I'm sure there are plenty of others, but those are the ones that come to mind.

Our show dogs can hunt and do. No, they are not emaciated and they do not "do" upland game. They aren't supposed to! But they are short coupled waterfowl retrievers with proper double coats, otter tails, a layer of fat to keep warm, and a correctly laid back shoulder and keel. Waterfowl retrievers are not built for speed on land, they are built to swim in cold weather. Go to a field trial and count how many double coats you see. You'll be lucky if you need your second hand to count on!!

"they do not "do" upland game. They aren't supposed to!"

What kind of hunting to you think they mostly do in Britain? Because it's not waterfowling.

What always strikes me about the British standard is it says the coat "Distinctive feature, short dense without wave or feathering, giving fairly hard feel to the touch; weather-resistant undercoat." It seems like we're getting away from that here in the USA. More and more people are beginning to think that if the coat isn't long and wavy then it's not a good coat. Short and dense is not a single coat. There are typey, athletic dogs that win in the show ring.

OK.....someone calls your house and wants to know if you breed "English" Labs. You know they probably mean big and blocky, but do you clarify in case they may be referring to more moderate dogs like those actually shown in England???

What about when someone says...."My dog is so typey"??? Do you even bother asking what their interpretation of type is or do you just assume they probably mean big and blocky and haven't even considered the worth of other types of labs???

The funny thing is that I am a boring moderate and can see both sides. I find that to a point, a dog with more substance is more pleasing to the eye, but it also seems to me that all other things being equal, a slighter dog is much more functional in many hunting situations. If I were King of the dog world I guess I would like to see more value and acceptance given to different types. The key would be to recognize quality within each type.

Now having said all that........it still bugs me that the phrases "English Lab" and "typey" appear to be used very much incorrectly. And also that many show people assume that the big, bulky lab is better breeding, often to the point of arrogance. Again, I am not saying the more substantial lab is necessarily poorly bred (there are some darn nice heavy boned dogs out there) but it is equally valid to prefer more moderation.

I agree with you about misusing the word "typey". Too many people refer to overdone dogs as being "typey". I prefer a more moderate, athletic dog like an Ole. He was very correct, had beautiful angles and was very balanced. He also got a hunting title.

Overdone is beyond "typey" hence, "What breed is it?"

"I challenge any of those specialty winning Labs to spend a day in the field, in the agility ring, or hiking with their family. They can't do it. Until the top breeders realize this, judging won't change."

My girl worked a pheasant shoot all day last fall - retrieving over 60 pheasant. She was a specialty WB, and produced a BISS. All of my dogs get to hunt. Their bone and coat enable them to go straight through cover both in land and water and that makes it easier for them to mark. They don't have to go around and lose track of the bird.

I've been thinking of making a bumper sticker - "My show dog can hunt. Can your hunting dog show?" But I thought I might get lynched at a hunt test .

Had a man pull in my driveway inquiring about my landscapers sign out front.

When my girls ran up to him - and scared him - he asked if they were Pit Bulls. LOL..................

""My show dog can hunt. Can your hunting dog show?""

---

I am sure many hunting dogs/field trial dogs can be taught how to stack and strut their stuff in the show ring. So, yes, they can be shown. But even the best looking of them won't win because they are not the type that the judges put up; they are not as angulated front or rear, don't have pronounced keels, longer-legged, leaner, longer muzzled, with short and dense coat instead of rather long and wavy. It's the same as entering show dogs in field trials; it certainly can be done, but they won't win.

Hunt test are a different story; there are no placements in hunt tests to pick the best on that particular day. I am almost certain that if hunt test allowed placements, overwhelming majority of placements would go to non-show bred dogs (this includes field trial bred, hunt test bred, BYB).

There are some show bred dogs that are outstanding and can be competitive (not just pass, but place if there were placements), but unfortunately there are so few of them compared to the total number of show dogs (I would guess significantly less than 1%). Again, I'm not talking about a dog being able to do a day's hunt or get passes in hunt test; I am talking about being competitive and able to win against other skilled retrievers.

I think there is room in the standard to appreciate a range of styles within the breed without losing true Labrador type. If a dog does have type, it is unlikely that it will be mistaken for another breed. While some people may be surprised when non-breed people mistake their dogs for Rottweilers, etc., it is not always a surprising since many heads these days are overdone, have harsh expressions, are short-muzzled, etc. I have read judges’ comments that have also remarked that heads, especially in the males, are moving away from the classic Labrador head. If this is what our breeder judges are saying, then how can you fault the public for thinking the same thing? It is not necessarily because the public does not know a good Labrador, it could be because the Labrador they remember is not seen as frequently today. To me, a classic head is a Mandsergh head, and it is not a style that is seen as frequently today. Styles in Labradors HAVE changed. What was winning in the breed ring 20-30 years ago looks quite different than what is winning today. What was winning at Field Trials 20-30 years ago is different that what is winning today. Shows have changed (in the beginning I believe most of the dogs shown came out of working kennels and were to exhibit breeding stock for working dogs-many of the top winning dogs of today are not working dogs and it is rare to see dogs shown in true working condition). Field Trials have also changed (there is nothing about a modern-day field trial that resembles a realistic hunting situation). Yes, some changes have been positive, but improving on structure does not necessitate adding a massive amount of bone and coat, and improving drive does not necessitate eliminating bone and coat. I would say that more dogs 20-30 years ago were actually working dogs than Labradors today, and the bone and coat of those dogs was sufficient for them to perform their jobs. Fronts have improved but rears seem to have deteriorated-there are a lot of dogs out there with huge fronts and no rear and many dogs have no balance. Unfortunately, when people are rewarded for breeding to extremes, more and more extremes will be bred.

"Unfortunately, when people are rewarded for breeding to extremes, more and more extremes will be bred."

Very well said. The extremes are in both venues, field vs breed ring, of the Labrador.

Look at the pictures of the Tabatha girls. They aren't overdone in any way. - I've seen them in person. They are very typey and say "Labrador" when you see them. Beautifully balanced. Also, when you look at them on the Tabatha website, you'll see that almost every one has at least a WC.

What do you mean, not overdone? Haven't you seen the links to those two god-awful specimens that Tatyana put up as her favorites?????

Tatyana is not Tabatha

"Tatyana is not Tabatha"

---

And I am not hiding behind the "dot" either. The dogs in the photos are not some backyard bred dogs that I found down the street; they were highly successful and widely admired in their day and age by pillars of the breed of that time.

But times change, old favorites become labeled as "hurting eyes" and old pillars as not having enough knowledge. If history teaches us anything, it's that the favorites of today so highly admired and the pillars of the breed so highly respected will also go out of style. The old will become new and popular again. I am still young enough to be here 50 years from now, and I do wonder what will happen to the breed by then; I be the pendulum will swing.

What I find ironic is that many of the people claiming to have “English” labs are unhappy with the style of dog put up at shows by “English” breeder judges. A dog with classic "English" type will win under a variety of judges, not just a judge that prefers the supersized style developed here in the U.S. The Tabatha dogs are a perfect example of this. These dogs have been bred with consistent type and style throughout the years without concession to the fad of the day, and continue to be successful in the ring under a wide range of judges.

I agree with what Breeder says about Tabatha - Carol Heidl has established a readily recognizable line that has held up over the years. She values working ability and puts WCs on almost all of her dogs. Her dogs are certainly more moderate than some of the dogs that are the subject of some criticism here. But while they are not overdone, they are most certainly not underdone either. I would be happy to fill their food bowls anytime.