FACT is, I wasn't even going to post on this thread until those who actually know what a Yorkshire Terrier is were called ignorant haters.
That is between you and the person that said it
FACT is that there are several historical mentions of off-colored Yorkie-type dogs. NONE of these mentions are flattering in any way or serve to legitimize the parti. Here's one from 1894 that you choose to ignore time after time and it's typical of the other historical mentions of these dogs.
FACT: Alot of dogs were not flattering back in those days, Do we Care? No
"There are some other rough-haired toy terriers, which are, however, of little account, because they have never been bred to any particular type. Occasionally wee things very like what a miniature Skye terrier would be are seen; and, again, some smart little dogs with cut ears, evidently a cross between a Yorkshire terrier and some other variety of small dog, are not at all uncommon, and were quite numerous before the dog show era commenced. Since then the general public will not look at anything other than what is considered to be of blue blood. At one of the early London shows separate classes were provided for Scotch terriers under 7lb. weight and white in colour, fawns with the same limit, and blues likewise, each of the three attracting a fair entry, most of which were, however, what we should now call "cross-bred" broken-haired toy terriers." I think "we should now" says it all.
From this link...
Yorkshire And Other Toy Terriers. Part 4
FACT is the Yorkshire Terrier standard has ALWAYS been that of a blue and tan dog. Any 'history' about any other dog is not talking about a Yorkshire Terrier. I would refer you to the above quote from 1894 to determine what type dog your FACTS talk about.
FACT:The yorkshire terrier is man made and they set a standard all those years ago. What about the other dogs that were part of that genetic makeup. Those genes didn't just disappear because they set a standard.
I said that the color code that AKC now allows partis is inarguable. I give you that. However, AKC went against its own protocol in doing that. The parent club is the one that sets the standard and AKC merely sanctions it. Here's the link to AKC's own procedure for writing breed standards.
http://www.galomyoak.com/files/AKC_B...rd_Writing.pdf Find for me if you will where the AKC can arbitrarily go against the parent club in revising standards. Really, the first paragraph says it all.
FACT is, I'm not a member of the YTCA so no need to bring them up when addressing posts made by me.
It is probably because you keep bringing them into it, You know that parent club you talk about.
FACT is there are no FACTS in the parti Yorkie *history*.
FACT is there is
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fairness, I'm posting the links to the parti history by both parti clubs. People can read for themselves and decide what to make of it. Here they are...
Heres another Link for you...
Clippings - CYTC...Party Color Parti Yorkie - PARTI YORKSHIRE TERRIER CLUB
In the last link, you can click on the Joan Gordon letter to read it. It's about her 'tri-colored dog' and includes her opinion on mis-marked dogs.
Joan Gordon is a firm believer of the color standard of the Yorkshire Terrier, She is a Pioneer in the breed. No one ever said any different. But yet she did register her tri color Yorkie with AKC. If it had been a mix breed she would have NEVER NEVER have registered him.
All pure bred dogs came from cross breeding other dogs. That's a given. Once a type has been set and a standard written, it's just basic breeding to breed only to/for the standard. That is one of the essential tenets of pure bred dog breeding. Purposely breeding FOR a fault goes against this very basic concept of pure bred dog breeding. It's disingenuous to promote a fanciful 'history' to justify breeding for off-standard dogs, even the cute ones.