Originally Posted by Woogie Man  I always see the argument that Partis don't fit the breed standard and therefore shouldn't be recognized (shown). The YTCA calls it a DQ but I believe the founders of the breed wouldn't have considered them Yorkshire Terriers at all.
There are many 'histories' of the Yorkshire and here is a bit of one from Wikipedia.
"Yorkshire terriers were shown in a dog show category (class) at the time called "Rough and Broken-coated, Broken-haired Scotch and Yorkshire terriers". Hugh Dalziel, writing in 1878, says that "the classification of these dogs at shows and in the Kennel Club Stud Book is confusing and absurd" in lumping together these different types.
In the early days of the breed, "almost anything in the shape of a Terrier having a long coat with blue on the body and fawn or silver coloured head and legs, with tail docked and ears trimmed, was received and admired as a Yorkshire terrier".[16] But in the late 1860s, a popular Paisley type Yorkshire terrier showdog named Huddersfield Ben, owned by a woman living in Yorkshire, Mary Ann Foster, was seen at dog shows throughout Great Britain, and defined the breed type for the Yorkshire terrier."
Now that's not a complete history, but it does show that at one time many types of dogs were shown together. Also, the Maltese was once shown in this class. In 1874 the first Yorkshires were registered in the Kennel Club's stud books. It wasn't until 1886 that Yorkshire Terriers were recognized as an individual breed and there was no breed club formed until 1898. There were many intervening years of 'anything goes' until a true breed standard was set forth to identify the Yorkie for what it was intended to be. My own belief is that is how the Parti gene got into the breed and has carried forward but the Yorkshire Terrier was always intended to be a blue and tan dog.
I have seen many historical mentions of white or silver Yorkies, but never in a positive light. Just as, over time, the Clydsedale and other influences on the breed have been bred out to make a more well-defined dog, the Parti gene has no place in a Yorkshire Terrier.
We still see oversize Yorkies, along with wire coated, flop-eared and Yorkies of other off colors besides the Parti color. While they can be registered, they cannot be shown. What makes the Parti different from those others that they should be shown? All of the above mentioned variations are true aspects of the Yorkies' history, but they are not TRUE Yorkshire Terriers, no matter their parentage.
I know this all sounds very critical, but I truly am not trying to disparage Parti breeders. I don't question your ethics or dedication. I do think the question I posed needs to be answered, though, before there is complete acceptance of the Parti.
I'll be the first one to say that I love ALL Yorkies, no matter what. That are an enchanting breed. I've had a teapot bred from 2 well pedigreed parents. He's a beautiful dog, but not a Yorkshire Terrier in the true sense of the term. He's more like a Clydesdale than a Yorkie and there's a definite resemblance to Huddersfield Ben, but he does not measure up to being a true Yorkshire Terrier as we know it. I wouldn't think of breeding him even though I could say that breeding for his traits could bring back the Clydesdale. It wouldn't be 'unethical' but, if I did, I would not try and call the offspring Yorkshires, as they would be Clydesdales more than anything.
Here's a pic of the boy I mentioned. it's a shame there's no 'place' for this kind of dog in the show world, but that's just the way it is. A breed is a breed because of its adherence to the standard and there's just no way around it. |