 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 579
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: from the 1940 STCA Yearbook... |
  |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 579
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shadyblueamstaffs
Alpha Dog
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 3336
Location: Missouri USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very curious to know, alot say that back in the day some blues were so dark that they were mistaken as black. Is this dog one of those possibilities? I can't help but notice the eyes on this dog. They appear extremely light. Now of course it could just be the old picture. But I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shadyblueamstaffs
Alpha Dog
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 3336
Location: Missouri USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Come on now Carla. LOL You must have posted this one just for me.......
ok putting the joking aside, this dog was showing in the 1940's so PRETTY close to when the standard was written, so the people at this time WOULD know what was meant by the standard correct??? So if they exclusively wanted blue noses out of the standard, (you know the nose definately black thing) then why was this blue/white dog a reserve winner at a specialty show back around that same time???
Thanks so much for the picture. I think it really backs up my theory of the standard stating nose definately black to keep the red noses out, not neccessarily the blue nosed dogs. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shadyblueamstaffs
Alpha Dog
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 3336
Location: Missouri USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow, so many blacks and brindles, so when did the reds come into the picture. Was there one particular dog that started the "red" trend? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 3853
Location: va
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shadyblueamstaffs wrote: |
Come on now Carla. LOL You must have posted this one just for me.......
ok putting the joking aside, this dog was showing in the 1940's so PRETTY close to when the standard was written, so the people at this time WOULD know what was meant by the standard correct??? So if they exclusively wanted blue noses out of the standard, (you know the nose definately black thing) then why was this blue/white dog a reserve winner at a specialty show back around that same time???
Thanks so much for the picture. I think it really backs up my theory of the standard stating nose definately black to keep the red noses out, not neccessarily the blue nosed dogs. |
Just backs up mine aswell Kris.. People only use that def black excuse because they hate blues and problem loss money to them because they had reds. LOL This backs it up for sure. LOL I love it. LOL |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 579
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've never stated that blue noses were meant to be kept out....that it was red-noses that were to be kept out.
I have often used the Smokey example (not here, but other places) to show that the blue did come from the UKC dogs.
I have always maintained that there were blues from the very beginning, but that the noses APPEARED black to the early breeders/owners, and that is what should be strived for now, which I think it largely is...have seen some lovely blues...
I think it is BRED FOR more now...
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 579
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't pick and choose the pictures. I posted ALL of them from that book -- except a couple of the ads where the dogs were sitting, one of puppies and where not much is shown of the dog....I will post the rest if you want me to.
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ckramer
Alpha Dog
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 2910
Location: Kennesaw, Ga USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its really nice to see old pictures  |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ph1ngering
Alpha Dog
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 1056
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for these pictures, they are AWESOME...
You can really see even back then three different variations of the amstaff. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 3853
Location: va
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sagebrush wrote: |
I've never stated that blue noses were meant to be kept out....that it was red-noses that were to be kept out.
I have often used the Smokey example (not here, but other places) to show that the blue did come from the UKC dogs.
I have always maintained that there were blues from the very beginning, but that the noses APPEARED black to the early breeders/owners, and that is what should be strived for now, which I think it largely is...have seen some lovely blues...
I think it is BRED FOR more now...
Carla |
But yet I said the same thing about the red noses and you stated I was wrong and there weren't even many red noses around.. LOL I can see if I can find the post.
But thanks for posting what you have.. Backs up my belief even more.. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shadyblueamstaffs
Alpha Dog
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 3336
Location: Missouri USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sagebrush wrote: |
I've never stated that blue noses were meant to be kept out....that it was red-noses that were to be kept out.
I have often used the Smokey example (not here, but other places) to show that the blue did come from the UKC dogs.
I have always maintained that there were blues from the very beginning, but that the noses APPEARED black to the early breeders/owners, and that is what should be strived for now, which I think it largely is...have seen some lovely blues...
I think it is BRED FOR more now...
Carla |
Ok Thanks. I guess I always thought you were on the side that said the standard was written to keep blue noses out as well. I'm sorry, thats my misunderstanding. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Shamans
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 579
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shadyblueamstaffs wrote: |
Ok Thanks. I guess I always thought you were on the side that said the standard was written to keep blue noses out as well. I'm sorry, thats my misunderstanding. |
No prob... I do think the standard seeks to preserve dark pigment and that in itself will govern that the darkest charcoal noses are preferred.
I DO like to use the Smokey example for those that believe that dilution didn't exist in the UKC Pit Bulls....the gene had to exist in both of his parents, who look like they were UKC dogs...
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
k84
Elders
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 2222
Location: Transylvania, EU/ Cayman Islands
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for these pictures, that's great |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ruffenuff
Omega Dog
Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 110
Location: italy
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wow..thanks,really nice pics!great to see the old dogs. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
