Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: Good looking workers from the past - reasons?
Ok, stupid title but I can't for the life of me think how to phrase it. Its really just to share something that I found absolutely facinating and got me thinking on a far wider scale.
I bought a fantastic book many may have, at crufts this year from the KSSLRC stand. Judi Seall's 'The History of Retrievers'.
In the first few pages it gives a report from a Field Trial run in 1903 - The IGL retriever trial.
Part of the report reads regarding the prizes on offer:
" ... Given by Mr G R Davies £3.3s for the best looking dog or bitch at the meeting. Given by Mr G R davies and Mr F M Remnant, £4.4s for the best looking dog or bitch at the meeting showing the most dash combined with steadiness. Also given anonymously, £20.00 to the winner of the stake IF it is a Dog (not a bitch) and if it has won a total of three prizes at any two of the following shows: Edinburgh, Birmingham, Manchester, Crufts and/or Darlington. "
-------------
What a huge enormous amount of money for those days..... indeed for THESE days for simply (simply! Ha ha ha! I say that not without irony...) running a good looking example of the breed. There was real gain to be had and importance placed on looks.... to dish out that sort of money for what is something now holding much lower importance.
We often look back at old pictures of trial dogs, and compliament them from pre war on their excellent qualities, good conformation, some substance without any exaggeration etc etc. Indeed they look like some of the more substantial trial dogs of today, or some of the very moderate showdogs..... and we often muse a little about going back to that type etc etc, how that was the Dual Purpose Labrador type, but you can see why there was incentive to do so, and importance placed on it.... there was quite a serious monetry reward at trials....
I wonder if anyone offered special prizes at this sort of era for dogs winning in the ring who had field trial awards? I don't know.... maybe someone does.... it would be interesting to know.
No real point or question or comment but just something I found very interesting and gave some insight into WHY some of the trial dogs of those days were so damn good looking. they won more money for being so than a poor looking dog WINNING a trial!
Di
____________
The boys!
Read: Wylanbriar Dog Blog on the website: Updated! 1st February 12´!
That is a wonderful book Di and should be on all gundog enthusiasts shelf! I was staggered by the prize money awarded at trials in those days. Also the money some dogs were changing hands for.
But getting back to your point. I wonder if a conformation section at trials would help the breed? Some years back I was stewarding at the Spinone club's HPR working test, where there was a conformation class run in conjunction with the test.
As a thought, how about awarding marks for conformation and adding those marks to the test marks to arrive at a winner? Just a thought.
I just don't get the (whispers quietly) great divide between show and working. I'm learning that I don't like show or working dogs at either extreme.... so the real sturdy show dogs, or the very pointy skinny malinky trial dogs. To me, a dog that is somewhere in the middle is ideal and I can't quite understand why others don't necessarily share my sentiments, genuinely baffles me. I know looks aren't everything, but I don't want a trial bred pup that could go on to fantastic things but looks like it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. If that makes me shallow, then I'm shallow.... I want it all, brains and looks
Personally, IMH(and very inexperienced)O I think show dogs should have to demonstrate some gundog working abilities to be in the awards, and equally trial dogs should have to meet some sort of conformation type test/criteria to be in the awards too.
Thing is Mo, you are not a hard core trials person. Ability is all to some, and of course those would not be the slightest bit interested in conformation. But that is not limited to gundog work, a lot of top obedience and working trials people have the same philosophy, and in the same manner many show people have not the slightest interest in working ability.
Sorry, much as I'd like it, I have no doubt it's doomed to failure.
I seem to have been constantly having this conversation with people who have been asking my advice on pups they are buying (not mine) just lately and my standard line is I can't abide an ugly dog as I spend so much time looking at it.
For me a dog has to look pleasing to the eye as well as work. Neil has heard it so many times now I am sure he thinks I am mad!
[quote="JohnW"]Ability is all to some, and of course those would not be the slightest bit interested in conformation. But that is not limited to gundog work, a lot of top obedience and working trials people have the same philosophy, and in the same manner many show people have not the slightest interest in working ability. [/quote
Really? I just don't get it! Why not? What's the point in achieving great things in the show ring if the dog couldn't technically do a day's 'work' if had been trained to do so??? What's the point in achieving great things in trials if the dog bears little resemblence to the breed standard?
My GSD friend tells me that in germany show GSDs also need to have their schutzhund certificate to really be worth their salt and used at stud. I could have my facts muddled there, but in principle this makes perfect sense to me and I just don't understand why with labradors we're so far removed from dual purpose.
Di, you are right, it is a fantastic book, if I had to give up all my dog books but one, that would be the one I would keep.
Looking at the pictures (of which there are many) I don’t think things have changed that much in the working world, check out Prudence of Faskally, winner of the 1913 junior stakes, top right page 87 and Wenhaston Richard in 1912 on the opposite page.
I suspect either one would have been up for a good looking award. but look like modern day workers to me.
Di, you are right, it is a fantastic book, if I had to give up all my dog books but one, that would be the one I would keep.
Looking at the pictures (of which there are many) I don’t think things have changed that much in the working world, check out Prudence of Faskally, winner of the 1913 junior stakes, top right page 87 and Wenhaston Richard in 1912 on the opposite page.
I suspect either one would have been up for a good looking award. but look like modern day workers to me.
John
I think I have been duped, why have I not heard or got a copy of this book, I feel an interesting search coming on.
I know looks aren't everything, but I don't want a trial bred pup that could go on to fantastic things but looks like it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. If that makes me shallow, then I'm shallow.... I want it all, brains and looks
i know nothing of what is being discussed but your post made me laugh out loud Mo.
I enjoyed Mo's post. As for wanting both looks and brains, I can understand that too.
Charlie is a mix between show and working lines. With regard to how he looks, it works for me. Brains - he isn't daft by any means, and my guess would be that in experienced hands he would have loved being a working dog somehow.
What do I know anyway!? I know that I often find studying pedigrees and the history of labradors fascinating.
I hope I get a chance to read that book sometime. I see it is on Amazon for £30. Is it a hardback that will come out in paperback sometime? I'll have to get saving the pennies!!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
but look like modern day workers to me.
