Breed Standard Mistakes in the smooth breed standard

Mistakes in the smooth breed standard

Dianne: Smooth Collie Standard "Appears as gifted with intelligence, alertness and activity. Stands with dignity governed by perfect anatomical formation, with no part out of proportion to whole, giving appearance of working ability." In France, "giving appearance of working ability" has been completely missed from their translation of the FCI standard. In Belgium, it is claimed that the rough and smooth standards are identical. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/132 http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/133 Please check the standards as issued by the British Kennel Club with those issued in your country and report if they are translated correctly or incorrectly. I think this is very important - there are five differences between the rough and smooth collie standards - the key one is "giving appearance of working ability" and may have helped the smooth to remain a more rustic and less fearful dog who moves well.

- 46, : 1 2 3 All

Jack Mack: In german it is translated like this in a separate sentence: Insgesamt erscheint er fhig zum Arbeiten. I would translate it like this: Altogether he appears to be able to do work.

Roberta Semenzato: in the Italian translation we read: Deve dare l'impressione di un cane capace di lavorare - that you can read as - giving appearance of working ability so, it's OK for us

JT: In estonian it is: "Rahulikult seistes vrikas ja tiusliku kehaehitusega, mis vljendab tvimet". And it means - while standing calmly it looks dignified and with perfect anatomy, what gives an expression of ability to work. So in estonian it is noted.

Spiritwind: Here is a link to the AKC Collie breed standard: AKC Collie breed standard The standard for roughs and smooths are exactly the same, except for coat.

Dianne: Hello to everyone, and thanks for your replies so far. JT from Estonia writes: In estonian it is: "Rahulikult seistes vrikas ja tiusliku kehaehitusega, mis vljendab tvimet". And it means - while standing calmly it looks dignified and with perfect anatomy, what gives an expression of ability to work. So in estonian it is noted. My husband is Estonian and we were married in Helsinki were "rauhu" has a similar meaning to "rahulikult" - as you will see below, the smooth collie standard does not include words which can be translated as calm or peaceful. General Appearance Smooth collie Appears as gifted with intelligence, alertness and activity. Stands with dignity governed by perfect anatomical formation, with no part out of proportion, giving appearance of working capability. Compare with the rough collie standard: General Appearance Rough collie Appears as dog of great beauty, standing with impassive dignity, with no part out of proportion to whole. I wonder whether we are going to find other mistakes in the translations of the smooth standard. The AKC collie standards are quite different from the British ones. It is worth a look as some people prefer this standard as a description of the collie. Dianne

Spiritwind: Here is part of the AKC standard (both rough and smooth): The Collie is a lithe, strong, responsive, active dog, carrying no useless timber, standing naturally straight and firm. The deep, moderately wide chest shows strength, the sloping shoulders and well-bent hocks indicate speed and grace, and the face shows high intelligence. The Collie presents an impressive, proud picture of true balance, each part being in harmonious proportion to every other part and to the whole. Except for the technical description that is essential to this Standard and without which no Standard for the guidance of breeders and judges is adequate, it could be stated simply that no part of the Collie ever seems to be out of proportion to any other part. Timidity, frailness, sullenness, viciousness, lack of animation, cumbersome appearance and lack of over-all balance impair the general character. What I found interesting in the FCI standards was, that at the bottom of the page the rough standard was last updated January 2009. The smooth standard it says was last updated in September 2000. Just curious what was recently changed or added to the rough standard? The most recent update to the AKC standard was in May 1977 so its been a while since the standard was changed, and I believe at that time the only thing that was added was adding color headed whites as an allowed color. (I could be wrong, but I think that is the only thing that was added). Before that, according to the Collie Club of America website the last change was done in 1950. However the AKC cannot change make changes to the Collie standard, only the Collie Club of America can do that. There is currently a big debate in the US as to whether or not they should add Sable Merles to the breed standard, since they are already shown and finished - the #1 smooth in the country right now is a sable merle. The Canadian standard already allows sable merles.

Dianne: Thanks Spiritwind for this information - isn't the AKC standard terrific - great use of language to give a description of this wonderful dog? I believe that the collie standard is again under discussion in Britain - I wonder what they will come up with - when I asked an English breeder, the retort was - NOT MUCH!!!!!

Spiritwind: I really don't understand why all the changes to the standard is done? The roughs in Europe today are NOTHING like they used to be. They look completely different, not to mention the HUGE coats that do not even fit the dog. I could not EVER deal with a rough with that much coat! I often think they change the rough standard so much just to match what the roughs look like now. This is a discussion from a rough collie forum I go to, that I think you all might find interesting. This was from sometime last year, but there are many good links to check out on this forum with old historical pictures of what rough collies USED to look like many years ago. The changing rough collie

Uruk: In Slovenian language it says * ...in daje vtis dobrega delovnega psa * wich can be translated as * gives the impression of a good working dog * So, the standard description is ok, the only problem is, that we have only 2 smooths registered in Slovenia ( besides, I am living in Greece for the time being... )

Dianne: Thanks, Spiritwind, for the link. The information is telling. I hope many smooth breeders will read it. Although it applies to the rough collie, we smooth breeders should read it and ask, "Are we being careful enough to produce smooths who still fulfill the standard?" I know the smooth is much nearer to his origins than the rough, but perhaps we are also going down the slippery slope. I see dogs of "greyhoundy" type (tucked up) and with not enough bone winning prizes in the smooth world. Judges, (most of whom know little about the smooth) criticise our dogs for not having enough stop, but the collie standard requires a slight stop. One rough breeder told me that the rough in France has so much stop that it is now more like a chow or nordic dog than a collie. We are also criticised for having dogs with eyes that are too open - I hope the smooth will not be bred to have eyes that appear as narrow slits. I apologise to the many judges who have taken the trouble to study the differences between the rough and smooth standard. The nordic smooth, a very elegant model, is distancing itself, in some ways, from its British origins and the British type is now largely influenced by this model through Nordic imports - my own Sadie is half Nordic, half British, and of course, her puppies have been influenced by the northern model. I know that breeders in Finland, Sweden, and Norway, Estonia and Russia, have the standard at heart. An Estonian dog, Milli Miller Viisikas Virginia, with Finnish origins won Crufts this year, and dogs from Sandcastles have also won Crufts. So far, most people would agree that the slight change does not deviate from the standard. But, I hope that the ignorance of some judges in European countries, who prize types which resemble the modern rough or stray too far from the ideal of the collie as a working dog, will not change the smooth collie. According to the rough collie forum in your link, this is what has happened to the rough: judges, prizing certain types, have had a huge influence on the understanding and application of the standard and this has changed the aspect of the modern rough . http://collie.heavenforum.com/breed-standard-and-actual-tendencies-f10/new-types-of-collies-where-are-we-heading-to-t18.htm This is getting rather distant from our original discussion - it should, perhaps, be a separate topic altogether. I am still basically interested in mistakes in the smooth collie standard as I believe that the phrase "giving appearance of working ability" is one of the things which has saved the smooth and kept him from straying too far from his origins as a working dog. Having the ability to work is what gives our smooth his intelligence, his drive, movement, resourcefulness and his relative fearlessness (this again is a whole different topic) Lastly, if anyone wishes to check whether there have been any changes to the smooth, most of you know the site of smooth collie champions, already a part of this International Smooth Collie Database, which Fay Hutchings painstakingly created. http://foxearthcollies.co.uk/champions_gallery/

Tentola: Dianne It is very interesting looking at Cruft's winners past and present. Some of the more recent winners are of a finer type and when standing their rear pasterns are further back then the point of buttocks. What I noticed at cruft's this year was that the english bred dogs were of correct type (my opinion) but were sometimes poorly presented and handle, where as the foreign exhibits although not as correct were shown and presented expertly. Also I find Smooths in Europe are often moved at high speed which can disguise construction faults. I looked back at past Cruft's winners remembering a ring full of quality exhibits, unlike in recent years where I feel top quality is lacking. Hopefully soon we will be looking for a new Smoothie, so will now be watching different lines with renewed interest.

Dianne: Thanks for these remarks, Tentola, it could confirm what I suspect about the Nordic smooth -it seems to me that the hind legs are held like this because the thighs are longer, and therefore more bent in the stifle than those of the English model, but wonder whether this is just an impression. Never having worked in the English show scene, I can't really judge very well - I have only photos to go on. You have worked in Britain and abroad, so you really have experience of both. I think you will agree that in the past, in Britain, smooths were shown very naturally - they were not expected to stand out at the back, but that on the "continent" dogs are now shown in this extended position, which surely is very elegant, but is more suitable to gun dogs. However, needs must - we try to show our dogs as is expected of them in Europe. Rough collies, on the other hand, still stand naturally, even badly, with their hind legs too far under them. Once again, we are getting far from my original topic into one about differences between Nordic show collies and British ones, but it is all very interesting, and why not? We first met collies moving fast in the ring at Dortmund World Dog Show where we also met you for the first time. A collie from a famous Finnish breeder ran into us from behind in the ring which spoiled the way our dog moved and made her nervous about dogs behind her ever after. There is no excuse for over-running another dog if the breeder is experienced - the most natural reaction would be to take the lead if one wants to move fast. It happened to us again at Lucern, but this time it was an amateur. I think that one possible reason for moving a smooth fast is done to try to differentiate smooths from roughs many of whom move badly. Breeders want to show that the dog has thrust and drive, but maybe you are right, and this fast movement in fact disguises some faults. For example, the daisy-cutting action which is admired now could be the result of a straight shoulder - the dog has limited movement and cannot lift his leg so high and therefore moves the leg in a straight line when moving at speed.Some breeders who have dogs with high tail carriage, move them more slowly because the dog carries its tail lower at a more moderate rate. To sum up - smooths now stand and move differently - it could be because of morphological developments. Or simply more professional show techniques - another interesting topic - would someone please put this as a new topic to be discussed separately - it surely merits lots of people contributing. Finally, I'm still interested to hear about the standard in spite of the fact we have strayed so far from our subject (though of course, all this is related). How is the standard translated in your country? There are five pricipal differences between the smooth and rough standard and they are important to the smooth collie - they were put there for a reason.

Spiritwind: I asked this before, but no one replied. What are the 5 difference between the rough and smooth FCI standard? Personally I don't think the FCI standard is so different from the AKC/CKC standard that the FCI roughs should look so VERY different from the roughs in north america. I know, from being on 2 different rough collie forums, breeders in FCI contries think north american roughs are horrible.. As I've said before, I don't think they should have EVER split up the rough and smooth and made them as two separate breeds in Europe. Roughs and smooths have been bred together since t he beginning of the breed.. and I wish it would have stayed that way. I am very glad were I live, we are able to breed roughs to smooths and kept them as the same breed.

Tentola: Spiritwind Even when you were allowed to mate Rough to Smooth in UK only a few Smooth people did, but I never heard of someone using a Smooth to mate to their Rough. I agree that they should look the same apart from their coats and to be honest the majority of Roughs in Europe do not match the breed standard. I feel that the American collie is nearer the standard, although your standard for height is bigger. A large problem with many breeders in Europe is that they only see a few of your collies and like to condem them all. Like in all countries there are good and bad. We have been to the states many times, both for CC of A, and to visit breeders and the thing I like most about the American collies is the temprement. Also on the whole movement is better. We were once a show in CT and there was a bitch from Canada that was not dis simular to a European collie and when we spoke to her owner we realized that she was not being shown and her head had not been trimmed. I do find many of the American collie heads to deep, but this is sometimes due to the fact that we are not used to seeing trimmed heads. I am looking forward to next years CC of A to see if your collies have changed much over the last 5-10 years? The last time we visited Bronze Talisman was the flavour of the day, but although I liked the heads on his offspring, I was not too keen on some of the back ends and was concerned that people would start to only look at heads and forget the overall dog. A mistake I think they made in the UK in the 80's and they are still paying the price for.

Dianne: Hello Spiritwind (what a lovely name) - as Tentola says, the standard in America is identical for the rough and for the smooth apart from the coat. However, if you compare the two Kennel Club of Great Britain standards, the main difference is found under "appearance" and "temperament" and other smaller differences under forequarters (the difference lies in the pasterns), ears and body (the difference lies in the back). http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/132 rough standard http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/133 smooth standard In each case below, the smooth collie standard is first. General Appearance Appears as gifted with intelligence, alertness and activity. Stands with dignity governed by perfect anatomical formation, with no part out of proportion, giving appearance of working capability. General Appearance Appears as dog of great beauty, standing with impassive dignity, with no part out of proportion to whole. Temperament Gay and friendly, never nervous nor aggressive. Temperament Friendly disposition with no trace of nervousness or aggressiveness. A great companion dog, friendly, happy and active, good with children and other dogs. Ears Moderately large, wider at base, and placed not too close together nor too much on side of head. When in repose carried thrown back, but on alert brought forward and carried semi-erect, that is, with approximately two-thirds of ear standing erect, top third tipping forward naturally, below horizontal. Ears Small, not too close together on top of skull, nor too far apart. In repose carried thrown back, but on alert brought forward and carried semi-erect, that is, with approximately two-thirds of ear standing erect, top third tipping forward naturally, below horizontal. Forequarters Shoulders sloping and well angulated. Forelegs straight and muscular, neither in nor out at elbows, with a moderate amount of bone. Forearm somewhat fleshy, pasterns showing flexibility without weakness. Forequarters Shoulders sloping and well angulated. Forelegs straight and muscular, neither in nor out at elbows, with moderate amount of round bone. Body Slightly long compared with height, back level and firm with slight rise over loins; ribs well sprung; chest deep and fairly broad behind shoulders. Body Slightly long compared with height, back firm with a slight rise over loins; ribs well sprung, chest deep, fairly broad behind shoulders.

Spiritwind: I'm going to reply to both posts above in the same message..... First... Tentola wrote: Spiritwind Even when you were allowed to mate Rough to Smooth in UK only a few Smooth people did, but I never heard of someone using a Smooth to mate to their Rough. I agree that they should look the same apart from their coats and to be honest the majority of Roughs in Europe do not match the breed standard. I feel that the American collie is nearer the standard, although your standard for height is bigger. What I mean is, even though people didn't often breed roughs x smooths, the banning of it, to me was not a good move. Though I understand in some parts of Europe smooths are not real common. Smooths in the US aren't real common either, I mean your average pet person has NO idea what they are. You wouldn't believe some of the crazy mixes people have thought my smooths were LOL As far as the height standard, while yes the standard for height is 2 inches taller, there are still plenty of collies in the US that are under the height standard. You talked about Bronze Talisman, he produced a lot of small offspring! Dogs that would mean the FCI standard. I have a smooth tri bitch that is at the VERY most 22 inches tall - which is the top end of the height standard for FCI bitches. My rough sable bitch Amy, who has the 1 puppy now, is barely 22 inches as well. Bree, the smooth sable bitch that placed at the CCA national in April is a tiny bitch, she will likely be between 21-22" at the very most. Though I have to be honest, I do prefer my dogs to be larger, but I won't place a dog as a pet just because of height. Tentola wrote: A large problem with many breeders in Europe is that they only see a few of your collies and like to condem them all. I guess its really no different than what breeders in the US and Canada do when they see some of the European dogs. Mainly the roughs.... Tentola wrote: I do find many of the American collie heads to deep, but this is sometimes due to the fact that we are not used to seeing trimmed heads. Are you talking roughs or smooths here? Because we do not trim heads on smooths. Its not really possible. Roughs yes, and roughs in Europe, in my opinion, REALLY need head trims badly LOL Though I don't know that I agree with the deep head thing. While yes, there are lines with bad heads -- a deep head is one thing I cannot put up with!... Another thing I cannot tolerate is bad tail sets! Tentola wrote: I am looking forward to next years CC of A to see if your collies have changed much over the last 5-10 years? The last time we visited Bronze Talisman was the flavour of the day, but although I liked the heads on his offspring, I was not too keen on some of the back ends and was concerned that people would start to only look at heads and forget the overall dog. A mistake I think they made in the UK in the 80's and they are still paying the price for. I will not be going to the CC of A next year.. or more than likely won't. Its in California, which is the complete opposite side of the country (I'm on the east coast - north carolina). Bronze Talisman was over bred, in my opinion. I never bred anything directly to him, didn't care for him much, but he is behind some of my dogs, but he is several generations back. I am planning to breed my smooth bitch, Paris, if she ever decides to come in season. She'll be bred to a rough tri dog. Paris - CH Spiritwind Barely An Angel She'll be bred to: Corey - CH Blu Ridge Lookout I'm VERY much looking forward to this litter. Paris' daughter from her last litter was the one that placed at the CCA national. Corey is the sire of my singleton litter I have right now - a rough sable bitch puppy that is 3 1/2 wks old. Corey x Amy puppy Now for my reply to the 2nd post: Personally for me, from the FCI standard I see the biggest different just in the lack of words in the rough General appearance. Temperament - Rough Friendly disposition with no trace of nervousness or aggressiveness. A great companion dog, friendly, happy and active, good with children and other dogs. Temperament - Smooth Gay and friendly, never nervous nor aggressive I mean essentially it says the same thing, just in less words. Never nervous or aggressive is the key words here. Friendly and Gay and Friendly and Happy.. same thing. The most noticeable difference to me, is the ears. I think the roughs ears are to small. The only difference in the "Body" part of the standard is the word "Level" but they still say firm with a slight rise over the loins. Now this is just my interpretation of the standard, as everyone else does. Just thought it would be interesting to compare what is above with AKC standard as well: AKC General Character: The Collie is a lithe, strong, responsive, active dog, carrying no useless timber, standing naturally straight and firm. The deep, moderately wide chest shows strength, the sloping shoulders and well-bent hocks indicate speed and grace, and the face shows high intelligence. The Collie presents an impressive, proud picture of true balance, each part being in harmonious proportion to every other part and to the whole. Except for the technical description that is essential to this Standard and without which no Standard for the guidance of breeders and judges is adequate, it could be stated simply that no part of the Collie ever seems to be out of proportion to any other part. Timidity, frailness, sullenness, viciousness, lack of animation, cumbersome appearance and lack of over-all balance impair the general character. AKC Ears: The ears are in proportion to the size of the head and, if they are carried properly and unquestionably break naturally, are seldom too small. Large ears usually cannot be lifted correctly off the head, and even if lifted, they will be out of proportion to the size of the head. When in repose the ears are folded lengthwise and thrown back into the frill. On the alert they are drawn well up on the backskull and are carried about three-quarters erect, with about one-fourth of the ear tipping or breaking forward. A dog with prick ears or low ears cannot show true expression and is penalized accordingly. AKC Body: The body is firm, hard and muscular, a trifle long in proportion to the height. The ribs are well-rounded behind the well-sloped shoulders and the chest is deep, extending to the elbows. The back is strong and level, supported by powerful hips and thighs and the croup is sloped to give a well-rounded finish. The loin is powerful and slightly arched. Noticeably fat dogs, or dogs in poor flesh, or with skin disease, or with no undercoat are out of condition and are moderately penalized accordingly. AKC Legs: The forelegs are straight and muscular, with a fair amount of bone considering the size of the dog. A cumbersome appearance is undesirable. Both narrow and wide placement are penalized. The forearm is moderately fleshy and the pasterns are flexible but without weakness. The hind legs are less fleshy, muscular at the thighs, very sinewy and the hocks and stifles are well bent. A cowhocked dog or a dog with straight stifles is penalized. The comparatively small feet are approximately oval in shape. The soles are well padded and tough, and the toes are well arched and close together. When the Collie is not in motion the legs and feet are judged by allowing the dog to come to a natural stop in a standing position so that both the forelegs and the hind legs are placed well apart, with the feet extending straight forward. Excessive "posing"is undesirable.

Tentola: Spiritwind I looked at the picture of Blu ridge lookout and really like him and thought he reminds me of the Countryview dogs, so I looked at their website and really liked Blu Ridge Let it Ride. And when I looked at his pedigree I see he goes back to my favorite Smooth Ch. Kimegan Kattia and looks so much like her sire Starrs Crackerjack, who at one point Cheryl was thinking about sending to us when we lived in the UK. We saw her last year and she is still looking fab. Do you know Cheryl Kenny/Lang? I did mean the trim on the Roughs head. Also I think in Europe some Rough bitches strugle to make 20 ins. Our Rough is 22 ins with a good neck and so many people say she is too big. She is Esp & GBZ Ch. Brooklynson Estupenda Tentola and is by the Int. Brz Ch Lakefield Love is in the Air, so carries some American Lines. I think we have upset quite a few people in Spain as she is such a different type to their small fluffy stuffies! But who cares she shows and moves like a dream and we made her up in the minimum of time. Tentola

Dianne: Hello Spiritwind - I love your dog Paris. About the standards - I think that the main difference you have hardly mentioned and that is the one of the phrase "giving appearance of working ability". The rough is not required to have attributes which would make him capable of a hard day's work and to many people's minds, this has been his downfall in Europe - why does he move badly - why is he fearful? Where is his motivation and drive? Gay is not the same as friendly - it has a quite different connotation. Pasterns are also important - we see so many roughs with weak pasterns here - they are crippled by ten years of age. Firm and level are also very different. The rough stands with impassive dignity - the smooth appears as gifted with intelligence, alertness and activity. What could be more different? This is a different dog we are talking about and smooth breeders wished it so and fought hard to be allowed a standard which was different from the rough's. Dianne at Clos des Castagniers

Spiritwind: Tentola wrote: Spiritwind I looked at the picture of Blu ridge lookout and really like him and thought he reminds me of the Countryview dogs, so I looked at their website and really liked Blu Ridge Let it Ride. And when I looked at his pedigree I see he goes back to my favorite Smooth Ch. Kimegan Kattia and looks so much like her sire Starrs Crackerjack, who at one point Cheryl was thinking about sending to us when we lived in the UK. We saw her last year and she is still looking fab. Do you know Cheryl Kenny/Lang? I did mean the trim on the Roughs head. Also I think in Europe some Rough bitches strugle to make 20 ins. Our Rough is 22 ins with a good neck and so many people say she is too big. She is Esp & GBZ Ch. Brooklynson Estupenda Tentola and is by the Int. Brz Ch Lakefield Love is in the Air, so carries some American Lines. I think we have upset quite a few people in Spain as she is such a different type to their small fluffy stuffies! But who cares she shows and moves like a dream and we made her up in the minimum of time. Tentola Yes... Corey is basically half countryview and half Southland/Tartanside. I LOVE the look. I saw Corey for the first time as a 6-9 month puppy at a local specialty and LOVED him and knew I had to breed something to him, a little over a year later I did... I bred Amy, my rough sable bitch to him, and got the one rough sable bitch puppy pictured above. Beautiful puppy!! I can't wait to breed Paris to him!... Rio (Let it ride) is beautiful! He is 2x Cracker Jack. On one of the rough collie forums I go to, that is based in Europe, last year was it Crufts maybe?? That some of the people on the forum were very unhappy that the rough winner looked more American bred than European bred... I THINK it was crufts they were talking about.. and I think it was last year.. either than, or the year before..

Dianne: this is an amendment to the rough standard Collie (Rough) Gait/Movement Distinctly characteristic in this breed. A sound dog is never out at the elbow, yet moves with front feet comparatively close together. Plaiting, crossing or rolling are highly undesirable. Hindlegs from hock joint to ground when viewed from rear to be parallel but not too close; when viewed from side, action is smooth. Hindlegs powerful with plenty of drive. A reasonably long stride is desirable and should be light and appear effortless. Absolute soundness essential.

Spiritwind: Dianne wrote: About the standards - I think that the main difference you have hardly mentioned and that is the one of the phrase "giving appearance of working ability". The rough is not required to have attributes which would make him capable of a hard day's work and to many people's minds, this has been his downfall in Europe - why does he move badly - why is he fearful? Where is his motivation and drive? This is just my own point of view, but I don't see how those 5 little words can make such a difference. Just because the rough doesn't have those words in its standard, shouldn't mean anything, because 5 words don't make up a dog. What makes up the dog is what is described in the entire standard. This "giving appearance of working ability" is not in the AKC or CKC standard yet we have many roughs and smooths that are working dogs, working sheep.. cattle, other livestock. Dogs that are used as service dogs for the blind or disabled. Dogs that are used in search and rescue and other "working" areas. Collies are supposed to be the all around farm dog, able to do many tasks. When everything else talked about in the standard comes together, it SHOULD make a good all around working dog. Now I'm not saying the roughs in Europe are good all around working dogs, what I am saying is they SHOULD be. I don't think the lack of those 5 words is the reason for the Roughs being like they are today. Dianne wrote: Gay is not the same as friendly - it has a quite different connotation. Pasterns are also important - we see so many roughs with weak pasterns here - they are crippled by ten years of age. Firm and level are also very different. I never said Gay and Friendly were the same. Rough standard: Friendly disposition with no trace of nervousness or aggressiveness. A great companion dog, friendly, happy and active, good with children and other dogs. Smooth standard: Gay and friendly, never nervous nor aggressive. What I said was both standards basically said the same thing, one just as less wording. Both are NOT to be nervous or aggressive. Smooth says gay and friendly. Rough says happy and friendly. Gay and Happy are the same thing, look the two words up in a dictionary, they mean the same thing. If roughs are fearful as you said above, then that that does not meet what the standard asks for. As far as pasterns go, I've seen many many dogs, of different breeds that had weak pasterns by 10yrs of age... roughs.. smooths... shelties, labs, boxers.. all sorts of breeds. At 10yrs of age that could be caused by all sorts of things. Now if it was seen in 4-5 yr old dogs I would be worried! Dianne wrote: Firm and level are also very different. The rough stands with impassive dignity - the smooth appears as gifted with intelligence, alertness and activity. What could be more different? This is a different dog we are talking about and smooth breeders wished it so and fought hard to be allowed a standard which was different from the rough's. Again I never said firm and level were the same thing. Both standards call for the back to be firm. the smooth calls for the back to be level, however both standards call for a "slight rise over loins" which in reality means the backs can't be REALLY level anyway... Yes.. on the rough standard in General Appearance it says: Appears as dog of great beauty, standing with impassive dignity, with no part out of proportion to whole. and in smooths is says: Appears as gifted with intelligence, alertness and activity. Stands with dignity governed by perfect anatomical formation, with no part out of proportion, giving appearance of working capability. However in Characteristics for both rough and smooth it says word for word the exact samething: Physical structure on lines of strength and activity, free from cloddiness and with no trace of coarseness. Expression most important. In considering relative values it is obtained by perfect balance and combination of skull and foreface, size, shape, colour and placement of eyes, correct position and carriage of ears. So roughs should also have structure that shows strength and activity. I understand they are NOW considered two different breeds in Europe. I personally think its a shame. I'm not saying roughs meet the standard or anything like that.. what I am saying is I don't see the HUGE differences in the two standards people talk about, that would be the reason for the roughs and smooths to look SOOO different. I think much of the differences people talk about are just the standards using different words, that really mean the same thing. Again, just my opinion.

Tentola: The dog that won at Crifts was Ch Brooklynson from Rio who is the same breeding as mu Champion and in my opinion is as close to the standard as Rough's get in Europe these days. Now back to the standard and for me the difference between types in different European countries. I feel that the standard is very important, but it is open to interpretation. What is more important or indeed lacking is newcomers to the breed having a good mentor. In the UK many years ago breeders would experiment and learn from their mistake and also their successes and would pass this knowledge on to newcomers. There were also alot of stockmen around who would be looking for soundness rather than beauty, and you would be in the breed for years without getting to judge and give your opinion. The future of the breed was firmly in the hands of the big kennels and reliant on them to breed correct dog to the breed standard, just like the board of directors of a company. If they have the interest of the company at heart then they will do the best for the company and not their own pockets. During the late 70's the collies in the UK I feel were at their best, head were balanced of good length with correct eyes and they could still move well and they had correct coats. Then Roughs with ig fluffy coats and short heads began to appear with movement appearing to be of no concern. This is when the Roughs & Smooths began to take different paths. The Smooths were never going to be a pretty dog, so movement and condition were there strength. OK smooth heads were no as good but judging is all about weighing up the good and bad and making a decision which exhibit is closest to the standard and will benifit the breed in the future. Unfortunatley the UK is an island and most exhibitors only see what is in the UK. we have always travelled and feel we have expanded our knowledge of the breed by visiting show around the world and listing to different views. For example we had a Smooth who had not won much, but after our first visit to the USA we were amazed at the presentation and showmanship and adopted a whole new approach to how we showed our dogs. And the Smooth who had not won much went on to be a Ch. within a year. A benifit of being in the UK & the USA is that there are seminars of all sorts allowing breeders & Exhibitors to learn about the breed and to clarify the standard and what it really means. The problem with many European countries are that they have been dictated to by breeders in the UK and have been sold dogs that are not the standard. We have now been in Spain for 6 years and where possible hold meetings with other collie people to share our knowledge and encourage them to have a vision of what a collie should look like and aim to breed dogs of that (hopefully correct) type, rather than keep buying and hoping for something nice. There are breeders in spain who a couple of years ago had no collies and now have dozens, and know everything. Another problem I feel in Europe is that judges are qualify to give an expert opinion as they judge every breed under the sun and are often never accountable for their judgement. As Spiritwind stated if it very hard to make a judgement without seeing shows first hand and saying that Collies in different European countries can vary. These are purly my thoughts on types of Roughs in some countries. I not this is only Roughs as I feel the are good Smooths being bred in most countries. UK - After going through a fluffy incorrect stage I feel now there is a big improvement with many breeders trying to get them back to the standard. Germany - They appear to mainly have stuck with a Rough with a working capabilty although not always the best heads. Holland - Simular to the UK there are some very nice and not so nice collies. Scandanavia - On the whole the breeders take great care to produce healthy correct collies that are bred to the standard, this seems not just in collies but in all breeds, which is why I think we see so many winning at crufts. Also the present their dogs to perfection. Spain - Sadly I find the breeders have a complete lack of knowledge and just buy from top winning kennels as they think they will win. France - I will not comment too much as all the Roughs i have seen are are so far from the standard that they appear to resemble a different breed. Short heads with deeeep stops (standard say slight but perceptable!!) Gay tails over coated. The only way things will improve is by judges knowing the standard are evaluating the exhibits correctly. and most of all only putting up SOUND dogs. A dog will only move correctly if it is made correctly. I have shown under judges who have openly said to me that it is not important to know the standard. "on the rough standard in General Appearance it says: Appears as dog of great beauty, standing with impassive dignity, with no part out of proportion to whole." Appears as dog of great beauty. Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so this could mean anything. I alway view a collie as Regal. Tentola

Spiritwind: Tentola, I totally, 100% agree with your post! I have said to people on other forums and message boards... in the US and in different parts of Europe. JUDGES are a very important part of any breed! If they keep putting up dogs who do not meet the standard, dogs with horrible structure or head or coat faults.. the problems will just keep being bred because they are still winning! If they did not win in the ring, people would not breed them! I don;t know how judging is done in different countries, but in the US if the judge has a class of dogs that is of poor quality, the judge does not have to place the dogs, or award ribbons, the judge is allowed to within ribbons and not award anything. I've only ever personally seen it done once... I am not in Europe so I cannot see the different roughs, but based on pictures I have seen agree, that roughs in different countries do look different from one another. Not all of them, but a lot of them. I will also agree that after about the 1970's is when the roughs really started to change.. based on pictures I've seen of course. I hope no one minds me posting some pictures. I LOVE talking about breed history! I find it very interesting. GB CH Anfield Model - born in 1902, later imported into the US. he was the ideal that many breeders were striving for in head and expression GB and AM CH Wishaw Clinker Born: 1898-1913 GB CH Parbold Piccolo Another great dog that was imported into the US in the early 1900's. According to the book Collie Concept, the day he arrived in america his owner let him loose and the dog ran away and was never seen again... this was considered one of the greatest loses to the american collie fancy at the time.. GB Ch Ramsey of Rokeby - Born: 1966 GB CH Royal Ace Of Rokeby - 1965-1977 "Ch Halbury Jean" born in 1924, is often referred to as "the mother of the U.S.Collie". She was a Collie of outstanding quality, and the dam of El Capitan Of Arken "Ch Silver Ho Parader" born in 1943 became the foundation for the Parader line, which, in turn, became the foundation line for most of the significant US Collie lines today.. "Ch Black Hawk Of Kasan" born in 1966 was the first Smooth Collie to win Best In Show at the CCA National Specialty; first Smooth Collie to win an all breed Best In Show, and six times won Best Of Variety at the National "Ch Laund Lynne", born 1917 in England, This beautiful blue merle Smooth Collie would surely be competitive in today's show ring. She had no fewer than 95 Best In Show (or "Best Female In Show") wins and worked as a sheep and cattle herder. She retired from the show ring at the age of ten to successfully raise a liter of seven puppies. "Laund Loyalty Of Bellhaven" , born 1928, was the only 'Collie ever to win Best In Show at Westminster. It was his first and only appearance in the show ring, as he was retired after threats were made on his life "Ch Tartanside The Gladiator" born 1969 , was an all breed Best In Show winner , and won the CCA National Specialty three times, once from the Veteran's class. He went on to become one of the most influential Collie sires in the U..S.. "Ch Shamrock Smooth Rocket U.D." (1957) was a graduate Guide Dog For The Blind and the first Champion Collie to earn the Utility obedience degree from the AKC. He sired multiple champions, obedience titlists, guide, therapy, and assistance dogs.

Alertness: Thanks for sharing the pictures Spiritwind! Most of these collies are very nice. I hope you don't find Parbold Piccolo a good specimen though, he lacks quite a lot in construction, don't you think? For one thing he has no neck Also Anfield Model might have been a good-looking dog, but he is said to have been less so when it comes to temperament. Some sources claim he was nervous (or aggressive?) and also passed this unfortunate trait on to his progeny. I don't know of this is true. But it is always good to keep in mind that when it comes to the breed standard, there is both the looks, the health and the temperament to take into consideration. Thanks everyone who is contributing to this thread; it is very interesting read! Berit

Spiritwind: every dog has its faults. I never said anything about what was a good specimen and what wasn't. I posted pictures of collies from the late 1800's to early to mid 1900's for comparison. Every dog has its faults, you can't always fault judge a dog, you have to look at the dogs virtues as well. Also the point of breeding is to produce better than ones sire and dam. I agree Piccolo had a no neck, but again, that doesn't mean he produced it. I don't know if he did... he very well could have.. but he very well could have produced better than himself as well. You are correct on Anfield Model. From the book Collie Concept it says: "Ch Anfield Model, 1902. Model was one of the most highly touted dogs between 1900 and 1910. He was the ideal that many breeders were striving for in head and expression. The mid-west in particular was dominated by the line-breeding to Model. Unfortunately his temperament was not a virtue and this shyness attributed to the loss of favor which the collie suffered after the end of the first world war" Yes I agree.. there is more than looks to take into consideration when breeding, I never said there wasn't. I was simply showing how the rough collies in Europe have changed (tho some of the dogs above are american bred), physically from what they used to be. Many of the roughs in the pictures above certainly resemble the current roughs in North America more so than they resemble the current roughs in Europe.

Sanna: Hi, I have read this subject with great interest since translations of the Collie standards ower the years have generated discussions, and even the smallest change of meaning can have a massive impact on the intended tool - the guideline for judges and breeders in various countries. The interpretations becomes more or less rules to adjust to - escpecially if supported by well respected judges. It is also easy to detect a new trend, set by judges in different countries. I think it should be perfectly clear to all active in the breed that the smooth Collie should remain a dog with great working ability. The smooth Collie is a great dog to work with - trust me :) In Sweden, a collie must have a certain degree of a working title even to gain a show title - hence, many Collies have working merits and titles. It is also interesting to read about the look upon dogs e.g. in Scandinavia. I can not relate to, nor agree to the generalized determination of the "Northern type of Smooth" as being one only - but it resembles certain dogs who have been amongst the winners during the last ten years. Yes, we know them too. Not all Scandinavian Collies are presented like trotting horses either, most Collies are shown on loose strings as is reguested by many Northern judges. When it comes to interpretations of the standards and judgeing smooths - I also wonder how it is possible for judges from some foreign countries to become authorized on breeds they have never even seen in real life? I know that many judges pass their final test on roughs but fail in smooths - in Scandinavia - because they lack neccessery hands-on experience. I believe that far too many CC's are given to smooths in Scandiavia - and in the rest of Europe, according to the quality of the dogs. Perhaps at least one CC should have been won under a specialist judge to become a champion? It would be interesting to view a nicely handled smooth, presented in perfect gait and in well adjusted tempo! Perhaps someone could put a clip on YouTube - and let us all have a look - it would be interesting:) Regards, Sanna

Alertness: My apologies Spiritwind; I thought you presented all those pictures of the old collies as examples of perfect specimens, my mistake . I'm not an expert on rough collies, but as far as I understand the short neck did get more common in the breed after poorly constructed sires like Anfield Model and Dazzler of Dunsinane were used extensively; they were both used (solely?) because of their exquisite head pieces. Even today it is not uncommon to see modern, short backed and short necked European collies with an excessive amount of coat. Some say though that the trend in England is now moving away from these "chow-like" collies towards better built roughs again, I hope they're right. Berit

Alertness: Here's a very interesting link regarding the short necks in the collie breed; the article and collie silhouettes are presented by my breeder Mrs Myrna Shiboleth. She pinpoints quite precisely how the breed has changed regarding neck length and, especially poise and regal bearing. Have a look: http://myrnash0.tripod.com/colliesnetivhaayit/id68.html As you can see there are also a couple of silhouettes of smooth collies to compare Berit

Lisa: Wow, Berit, this was one of the most interesting things i've seen in a while... it is so fascinating to see how both breeds (rough and smooth) changed completely or remained the same throughout the years! Thank you!

Spiritwind: Alertness wrote: My apologies Spiritwind; I thought you presented all those pictures of the old collies as examples of perfect specimens, my mistake . No problem. However, there is NO perfect specimen. Every dog has its faults, and its the breeders who have to decide what faults they can live with and try to improve in future breedings and what faults they cannot even tolerate Alertness wrote: I'm not an expert on rough collies, but as far as I understand the short neck did get more common in the breed after poorly constructed sires like Anfield Model and Dazzler of Dunsinane were used extensively; they were both used (solely?) because of their exquisite head pieces. Even today it is not uncommon to see modern, short backed and short necked European collies with an excessive amount of coat. Some say though that the trend in England is now moving away from these "chow-like" collies towards better built roughs again, I hope they're right. I don't know about in Europe, but Piccolo wasn't ever used himself, in the US because right after he arrived in this country he disappeared and was never seen again. Model was used a lot in the US, until everyone realized his temperament (shyness) was poor. He is a son of Piccolo, but if you have ever seen the book Collie Concept there are a lot of great historical pictures of dogs around the time of Model.. and shortly after, and short necks were not a big problem. This is mainly in the US though. So I'm not sure about Europe. Your silhouette website was very interesting. While the roughs have obviously changed, and some do have shorter necks (and probably very straight fronts) the other thing I noticed was the massive amount of coat in the silhouette of the modern roughs, which can, make the body look shorter and stuffier, as well as make the neck look shorter. Obviously many of them still have short necks... but the massive coat doesn't help. That is even addressed on that website down by the smooth silhouettes: What is interesting is that the smooth collies have not gone through these changes. Smooths of today are very much the same as the smooths were in the early days of the breed. There is not a profusion of coat to disguise the actual lines of the dogs. Very interesting website though!! Thanks for sharing!

Alertness: The short necks is (was?) probably a bigger problem among European roughs than American roughs. Berot

Tentola: Sanna wrote: When it comes to interpretations of the standards and judgeing smooths - I also wonder how it is possible for judges from some foreign countries to become authorized on breeds they have never even seen in real life? I know that many judges pass their final test on roughs but fail in smooths - in Scandinavia - because they lack neccessery hands-on experience. I believe that far too many CC's are given to smooths in Scandiavia - and in the rest of Europe, according to the quality of the dogs. Perhaps at least one CC should have been won under a specialist judge to become a champion? Sanna I agree, I have been showing Rough's & Smooths for 23 years and although have awarded CC's in Smooths for the past 7 years have only just ben passed to award CC's in Roughs even though I have judged over 500 different Rough's. It is so hard to get to award CC's in the UK where as in Europe judges can award CACIB's etc with much experience in a particular breed. Although in the UK you may not always be happy with the judging at least the judge is qualified to give his/her opinion. The judges are responcible for shaping the breeds so it is imperative that they know and understand what they are judging. Many people watch have no knowledge and are prospective exhibitors and breeders and will buy a type just because it is winning. We have never be to scandinavia to watch a show, but will have to make the effort. Our youngest Smooth is a Skalle Per son. Nick & Anne Smith

Dianne: Hello - I've been away for a time and have been missing out on the developments in this fascinating discussion. First, I would like to go way back to something Spiritwind said. Spiritwind wrote: T his is just my own point of view, but I don't see how those 5 little words can make such a difference. Just because the rough doesn't have those words in its standard, shouldn't mean anything, because 5 words don't make up a dog. What makes up the dog is what is described in the entire standard. This "giving appearance of working ability" is not in the AKC or CKC standard yet we have many roughs and smooths that are working dogs, working sheep.. cattle, other livestock. Dogs that are used as service dogs for the blind or disabled. Dogs that are used in search and rescue and other "working" areas. Collies are supposed to be the all around farm dog, able to do many tasks. The American standard says: As the speed of the gait is increased the Collie single tracks, bringing the front legs inward in a straight line from the shoulder toward the center line of the body and the hind legs inward in a straight line from the hip toward the center line of the body. The gait suggests effortless speed combined with the dog's herding heritage, requiring it to be capable of changing its direction of travel almost instantaneously. This surely describes the movement a working dog is capable of even if the text does not mention "giving appearance of working ability" Stella Clark who is an admirer of the AKC standard says words to a similar effect in her book on rough and smooth collies. Tentola wrote: The British version gives no mention of the collie as a working dog, whereas the smooth is described as "giving appearance of working ability". This would, by implication, mean that the rough collie is obsolete as a working dog, and that it is incapable of carrying out a day's work. This , I believe, is a major omission. A true collie should be able to run like the wind and change direction instantly; to turn on a sixpence. Most rough collies today are far too heavy to do this, and they also carry far too much soft coat, exaggerating the "glamour"" of the dog and losing sight of its working ancestry. Mia Ejerstadt-Conti says words to similar effect. Lastly, Spiritwind, you are referring to American collies which are really quite different, it seems, from European ones. I am sure American rough and smooths can do a day's work - many European roughs could not. The standard I am discussing is the KC standard and the collies I am talking about are European smooth and rough collies. Dianne

Dianne: So sorry - Something crept in at the end - for "Tentola wrote," please read "Stella says". Dianne

Spiritwind: Dianne wrote: The American standard says: ` As the speed of the gait is increased the Collie single tracks, bringing the front legs inward in a straight line from the shoulder toward the center line of the body and the hind legs inward in a straight line from the hip toward the center line of the body. The gait suggests effortless speed combined with the dog's herding heritage, requiring it to be capable of changing its direction of travel almost instantaneously. This surely describes the movement a working dog is capable of even if the text does not mention "giving appearance of working ability" Yes.. it does say this. Funny thing is, neither FCI rough or smooth standards (that I could find - correct me if I'm wrong) mention anything about the collies single tracking, though its pretty much known Collies are to single track. It doesn't say this in the standard, but everyone knows this is how they are supposed to move. I take little stock in the quote "giving appearance of working ability".. because just because a dog might give the appearance of working ability, doesn't mean it really has the ability. Again, these 5 little words do NOT make the dog. Once everything that is in the standard, comes together correctly, THEN you have the dog you are supposed to have. Also regardless of whether it says it in the standard.. smooth and ROUGH collies in Europe have a herding heritage, no matter what they are used for today. This is their heritage. I will say it again, I'm not saying most of the European bred roughs meet the standard or are good working dogs.. but they SHOULD be! Dianne wrote: Stella Clark who is an admirer of the AKC standard says words to a similar effect in her book on rough and smooth collies. Tentola wrote: ` The British version gives no mention of the collie as a working dog, whereas the smooth is described as "giving appearance of working ability". This would, by implication, mean that the rough collie is obsolete as a working dog, and that it is incapable of carrying out a day's work. This , I believe, is a major omission. A true collie should be able to run like the wind and change direction instantly; to turn on a sixpence. Most rough collies today are far too heavy to do this, and they also carry far too much soft coat, exaggerating the "glamour"" of the dog and losing sight of its working ancestry. Mia Ejerstadt-Conti says words to similar effect. Saying that rough collie is obsolete as a working dog, is just crazy. If the North American collie standard and the European Collie standard is so different, why are American bred roughs, that are sold overseas to different European counties winning under the FCI standard?? Most (European) rough collies today are far too heavy to do this???? How do you figure that?? To heavy how? Most rough collies I've seen pictures of are fine boned, light weight dogs, with nothing to them... other than their massive, over grown coats. I agree their coats are to HUGE and I would never want a rough with a coat like that.... but I don't see how these dogs are to heavy. American/Canadian Collies are bigger and heavier and have no problem with working ability. I don't think being to heavy is the European roughs problem.... Dianne wrote: Lastly, Spiritwind, you are referring to American collies which are really quite different, it seems, from European ones. I am sure American rough and smooths can do a day's work - many European roughs could not. The standard I am discussing is the KC standard and the collies I am talking about are European smooth and rough collies. Dianne Yes.. you were talking about the FCI standard. So was I... and I was comparing it to the AKC standard... I just disagree with what you were saying. Everyone has their opinion, and its more than likely we won't agree.

Dianne: Stella Clark says: by implication the rough collie is obsolete, not that the rough collie is obsolete. All it means in plain English is that as the rough collie is not required, in its standard, to be capable of working, breeders will not necessarily try to breed a dog with good gaits and therefore a dog constructed in a way that its gait is good. I think this is now clear. Later, I'll scan and post what Mia Ejerstad says on the same subject.

Alertness: Thanks Dianne, I didn't know breed experts like Stella Clark and Mia Ejerstad share these views about working ability. Very interesting, and I totally agree with them. The collie, no matter the length of coat should be bred for working ability both physically and mentally. Berit

Dianne: Hello Sanna - nice to read you here and to listen to your still, small, voice of calm!!:-) Sorry to have used sweeping generalisations to prove a point and sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't like the smooths coming out of the north. Of course, Scandinavia is full of breeders who produce dogs which fulfill the standard admirably and whose work everyone admires. And I can't but agree with you that judges influence the type of dog being produced. We have just been up before a judge who admits he doesn't like smooths much, and who seems to like very fine dogs without much substance. He made a very fine-boned dog up to champion last year and I have to admit she is a very beautiful dog and a great dog who wins frequently in agility to boot. We should not have been surprised when he put our Miss(average bone) over our young male (good bone) in a recent show. Bone wasn't his only criteria - in fact he told me he finds many smooths in France have steep shoulders and he thought Miss has a better shoulderthan her half brother (all in the eye of the beholder as Tentola says). We hope that a trend will not emerge in France privileging dogs which are fine however beautiful. All that said, I have been rethinking ideas that I held and things that I have said, as I think more about the subject of the collie and its standard. There were the two smooth silhouettes on this site http://myrnash0.tripod.com/colliesnetivhaayit/id68.html that showed two rather different models coming from different epoques. If you look back on the smooth collie champion gallery http://foxearthcollies.co.uk/champions_gallery/ or if you have the book, Smooth Collie Champions, 1884 to 2002, you will see that there have always been two types of collie - a finer boned and lighter model and a model with more bone. In the two silhouettes, the model from the 1970s seems to be a heavier coated dog and is probably the result of a rough smooth mating or a rough factored dog. I am not sure that it has ever been proved that the rough and smooth have always been bred together - there are various theories - one saying that rough and smooth were born in the same litter, another saying that the smooth is descended from the cur dog and bandog (smooth dogs as I understand it) and was always selected for the droving of sheep and cattle to market rather than the herding of sheep. According to Iris Combe, (who gives a very detailed history of herding dogs in general and the smooth collie in particular), in her book, The Smooth Collie, a Family Dog, 1992, there have been two periods in collie history when rough and smooth were mated together. The first was when smooths first began to be shown - they had a greyhoundy look and so were mated with roughs to eliminate this trait - to give them substance. She says that the first collie club for smooths was founded, in 1955, by a very small group of enthusiasts who felt "that this ancient type of herding dog, which all agreed came from a different ancestral tree than the Rough, albeit they had been interbred for some considerable time, should be recognised as a separate breed with its own standard." But, probably the mystery of the origins of the smooth will never be cleared up and so we must work with the material we have. As we distance ourselves more and more from rough/smooth matings, will we find a different smooth? Back to the silhouettes - the second one - the dog who is a recent champion, is distant from any rough matings and is an example of a smoother coated dog which is emerging, but rough factored dogs are still common. If I think about my ideal dog, one which fits the bill is Champion Peterblue Nigel, who is the founder of Sire Line One, information about which can be seen in Smooth Collie Archives produced by the Smooth Collie Club of Great Britain and edited by Jean Tuck. Many modern smooths are descended from him and his type is still frequently seen. Sanna - there is so much to talk about in what you, Alertness and Tentola have written that I don't know where to start answering. I wanted to talk about modern smooths lacking forechests, judges and judging and many other topics, but I think this is a long post, and best to stop here for now and to start up again tomorrow. I have been at this on and off all day!! Dianne

Dianne: This is the scan I promised in connection with the working ability of the collie where Stella Clark and Mia Ejerstat-Conti agree with one another. And here is some further information from Mia's book: Enjoy!!!:-))))javascript:pst3(' ','','','','')

Dianne: And here you can see how the top winners at Crufts this year move. What do you think? I am no expert!!!!!!! Youtube link to Crufts 2009 smooth and rough collie winners

Spiritwind: I agree with the articles you posted... As for the 2009 crufts rough and smooth winners on Youtube. The Rough looked like it would rather be somewhere else. It basically looked like what my handlers call a "gag and drag".. the dog was basically being drug around the ring by the handler LOL As for the smooth.. you could see the smooth in the background while the rough was being examined hands on by the judge. The smooth looked terrified! At 22 seconds into the video the smooth cowered to the ground... tail tucked. When they first showed the smooth right before the judge went over it, it seemed to be showing pretty well... but when the dog was gaited in the ring, it moved terribly, it looked like he was trying to move as fast as he could just to get out of there. Something scared the dog in the ring and he was very nervous to be there!...

Sanna: Hi Dianne, I realize that your subject has become wider as every day passes by, and I haven't been here for some time. I would like to focus on the smooths, I'm far too upset when it comes to the roughs transformation ower the last three decades, so in order to keep my blood pressure on a resonable level - I will stick to what I think I know a little more, and write about my my personal opinions on what I think is happening with the smooths... Yes, I have the "champion parade book" and I have read Mrs Combe's books, and we have been in contact a few times ower the years regarding the linguistic interpretation of the meaning of "Collie" and the resurch of the Gaelic word for "useful" (but that's another story) - and I am so sad that she she is no longer with us. I hope I've got quite a good idea of the smooths history, the geneology and the known documents written on the subjects. I'm not so sure that all things said about the origin and the breeding of smooths, ideas taken for granted and even passed on in books and traded from one generation to another is always correct, but nevertheless - interesting reading. If you e.g. consider the by now well known cluster four group with various hearding dogs, based on morphological DNA-sampling, (2004) it provides us with a great more information than we had only ten years ago, don't you agree? I think that when it comes to the origin of the smooth collie and the relations with other collie types mentioned in 19th century documents the most obvious point is that there were a number of various types of hearding dogs long before then, developing into the at least ten documented collie types - known long before the standard collie breeds we know of today. (among them the ban dog and the cur). Since many of the Celts in Wales, on Ireland and in Scotland kept hearding dogs of these types, all with various lenght of coat and colour I believe that this is the pre-origin of theese at least ten collietypes, as is aslo the origin of the non-official colliebreeds today as the Welsh sheepdog, old farm collie, the working keplie (kelpie collies), the Australian koolie (originated from a smooth blue merle bitch exported 1874) etc. I'm quite an optimist - I think that future gene technology will provide even more information on the development of the collie. As when you talk about Scandinavian smooths as "one type", my personal opinion is that there have been more than "two types" of smooths in Britain since WW II. All this because of the few remaining smooth collies, and depending on the roughs used as stud dogs. (As you probobly know Birgit and Trevor also went to America for new blood.) The very elegant smooths and the more bony smooth have always existed - along with the types in between (many of the most important dogs). We share the same interest in old images and photos, and it is clear that the size of collies have varied a lot - ewen ower time. I can't say that I have seen all smooth from 1970 up til today, but I have had the pleasure of seeing some of the most well known dogs in Britain since 1978 and many of the British smooth imported to Scandinavia ower the last three decades, i.e. the forefathers of today's smooths in Sweden and Finland. Many different types, elegant and bony, trends coming and going, very small bitches, really heavy males - also realyy heavy bitches and extremely elegant males too. Many smooths have been imported, and from various blood lines, combined into and having produced a variety of types - this is my conclusion. I agree with the opinion about some smooths appearing and shown more or less like sighthounds, whippets or even basenjis. I must admit to being a little worried that the development of the breed is taking such a gigantic step towards becoming a super elegant show dog - (only?) and again, I reapeat my concern about the fact that judges are so keen to follow this trend. In addition to what I wrote before - why even bother judging a breed if you "don't like smooths"? I know for sure that this breed is of a great working kind, built for a good days work on the field, with good stamina, strength and with a bold and social personality. These are the reasons why I have kept smooths all these years. I am not a judge and I am not a breeder, so perhaps I shouldn't even speak my mind?! But I am devoted to the smooths and I have been so since the late 70's. I hope that it's ok that I share my thoughts :) and I hope I haven't ofended any one, at least it is not my intention. (My comment on the YouTube-clip: Once again, please put a nice presentation on YouTube of a correctly and nicely handled smooth (shown on a loose string) moved in correct gait and having that very special appeareance that we like to see:fun - it would be lovely to watch.) Kind regards, Sanna I'm not sure I have been perfectly clear, it's nearly 1.30 in the morning...ZZZ Nick & Ann, Your interest in visiting a show in Scandinavia is noted - and you are always very welcome :)

Spiritwind: Dianne wrote: All that said, I have been rethinking ideas that I held and things that I have said, as I think more about the subject of the collie and its standard. There were the two smooth silhouettes on this site http://myrnash0.tripod.com/colliesnetivhaayit/id68.html that showed two rather different models coming from different epoques. If you look back on the smooth collie champion gallery http://foxearthcollies.co.uk/champions_gallery/ or if you have the book, Smooth Collie Champions, 1884 to 2002, you will see that there have always been two types of collie - a finer boned and lighter model and a model with more bone. In the two silhouettes, the model from the 1970s seems to be a heavier coated dog and is probably the result of a rough smooth mating or a rough factored dog. Again, just my opinion, but the silhouette you say appears to be a heavier coated dog, could just be a larger heavier built dog with more bone and substance.. has nothing to do with a dog from a rough x smooth breeding, he could just have more bone and substance. I know I have posted this picture before, but this dog is from a smooth x smooth breeding, his mother is a proven pure for smooth bitch. Dianne wrote: I am not sure that it has ever been proved that the rough and smooth have always been bred together - there are various theories - one saying that rough and smooth were born in the same litter, another saying that the smooth is descended from the cur dog and bandog (smooth dogs as I understand it) and was always selected for the droving of sheep and cattle to market rather than the herding of sheep. From this website: Collie Breed History it says: "One ot the earliest Collies of note was a dog named "Old Cockie", (also called "Cockie Boy") born in 1868, and said to be the first known sable and white (or brown and white) coloured Collie. This dog was highly lauded for his endearing expression and fine head detail. He was among the first "herding breed" dogs to be shown in England., at the Birmingham National Dog Show in 1870. Old Cockie was the sire of Maude, who was bred to Trefoil to produce a dog named Ch Charlamagne. Born in 1879, Charlamagne became the grandsire to Ch Metchley Wonder, a top winning Collie who was purchased for such a high price that the sale made headlines. His son, Ch Christopher, born in 1887, was bred extensively in Britain before being exported to the U.S. All Collies today are descended from Ch. Christopher. A point of interest here is that the mother of Ch Christopher's great grandsire, Scott, was a Smooth Collie by the name of "Ch Waite". She was the very first Smooth Collie champion, and thru Ch. Christopher, is an ancestor of all Collies today. Thus there exist no Rough Collie lines in which Smooth Collies do not appear." Dianne wrote: According to Iris Combe, (who gives a very detailed history of herding dogs in general and the smooth collie in particular), in her book, The Smooth Collie, a Family Dog, 1992, there have been two periods in collie history when rough and smooth were mated together. The first was when smooths first began to be shown - they had a greyhoundy look and so were mated with roughs to eliminate this trait - to give them substance. She says that the first collie club for smooths was founded, in 1955, by a very small group of enthusiasts who felt "that this ancient type of herding dog, which all agreed came from a different ancestral tree than the Rough, albeit they had been interbred for some considerable time, should be recognised as a separate breed with its own standard." That's interesting because The Collie Club of America Inc. was organized in 1886, two years after the establishment of the American Kennel Club, and was the second breed parent club to join the AKC. While smooths were obviously not as common as roughs, they were certainly around back then.

Tentola: Diane Thank you for the cruft's clips. Watched the breed but were heading back to Spain when the group was on so it is the first time i have seen it. Neith BOB would personally be MY choice. I find it worrying when the best out of 200 Rough's has to be a puppy, although I am friends with the owners and sooo please for them. For me he was a little short all over and although moved well enough did not have much drive and was dragged a touch. I agree the smooth looked edgey and although moved at a good pace was not flowing and looked a little weak on the elbows? I agree also the there has always been two types of Smooth in the UK. I have and old photo of a very fine Smooth with the wording. "Greyhound type highly undesirable". Sanna What time of year is the best Collie club show in Sweden? Nick

Sanna: Hi Nick, The Swedish Collie club has an annual main championship show during the summer, (along with several other CC-shows during the summertime) and usually there are quite a number of smooths entries. I suppose the largest number of smooths shown at the same time at one show would still be the Stockholm X-mas show in December (The Swedish Kennel club - Int. championship show). At this show smooths from all Scandinavian (and sometimes European) countries are entered. Smooth of various types (still holding on to my idea that there are more than one heavy and one light variety of smooth :) will be presented. This year the main Collie club show is set in the Northern part of Sweden, which may reduce the number of entries, because even though Sweden is a small country, it is considered very far north. (the location is Pite.) The main collie club shows, when set more centralized in Sweden, has statistically resulted in a higher number of competitors. Kind regards Sanna

catrin: I warmly would like to invite you all to Speciality Show to Finland on August the 2nd. There will be almost about 60 -100 smooths in the show. Our other Speciality Show in May gathered 113 smooths alltogether. That was something we have ever seen before