Re: [pyrnet] Black Pyrenees, White Newf...

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/8/02 7:52:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bamb@monmouth.com writes:


> WHO does not allow black anywhere? It is certainly not in the US standard. And yes, I have and have had "marked" Pyrs. The color in their hair did not reach all the way to the skin. At the skin it was white,


Black that goes to the skin is a sign of cross breeding.  It always has been and was lamented by the old writers back at the end of the 19th and  beginning of the 20th century.  The color fades to white as it enters the skin in the Pyr, that is what blaireau is.  It is a grizzled color result and unique in that respect. 

Here is what the French standard says:

"White or white with patches of badger or wolf-gry, or pale yellow, or orange ("arrouye") on the head, on the ears and at the base of the tail. Badger colored patches are the most preferred.  A few patches on the body are permitted.
Faults:  Color other than those indicated above and which denote cross-breeding.
Elimination:  Patches of hair black down to the skin.

Here is what the AKC standard says:


> COLORWHITE OR WHITE WITH MARKINGS OF GRAY, BADGER, REDDISH BROWN, OR VARYING SHADES OF TAN. MARKINGS OF VARYING SIZE MAY APPEAR ON THE EARS, HEAD (INCLUDING A FULL FACE MASK), TAIL, AND AS A FEW BODY SPOTS. THE UNDERCOAT MAY BE WHITE OR SHADED. ALL OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED COLORINGS AND LOCATIONS ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE BREED AND EQUALLY CORRECT.FAULT:OUTER COAT MARKINGS COVERING MORE THAN ONE THIRD OF THE BODY.


No mention of black.  In some written comments in the illustrated standard the word black is used in connection with puppies sometime seen and fading.  I think this  is just an unfortunate use of the term.  I don't think the authors meant to designate a black color for Pyrs as being correct.  It might mislead some and certainly confuses the issue in some hands.  History is quite clear on this subject.  

Joe