Originally Posted by PrincessDiana (Post 1985634)

I think the difference though, is that people who use the term "teacup" are generally misinformed and need to be corrected. People who use the term "teapot" know that teacups don't exist, just like teapots don't exist. Both are terms used for referencing the size of a Yorkie. However - the term teacup is used mainly by breeders who want to take advantage of buyers, or buyers who are about to be lied to and cheated out of their money. Hence the corrections. It is also used by snooty people who think their dog is better than yours because it weighs 2lbs.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 1985797)

I cringe because I think they are going for some "look" that's fashionable today without taking the needs of the dog into account. There's nothing wrong with using a carrier for your pet, but a yorkie shouldn't be an accessory. Many of these same people give their dogs away after a few months when it's too big for the purse or too much hassle. I've read threads where people didn't want the yorkie anymore because he reached 7 pounds. Dressing my dog has nothing to do with me making a fashion statement; he's making the fashion statement.

Originally Posted by Jaya and Jenna (Post 1985736)

First off, I would just like to say how much I respect the OP of this thread..... Your choice of words and the way you express yourself is just great... especially with such a controversial subject. I'm so glad that you had enough courage to post this thread

Second, I completely agree with almost every post in this thread!! Teacup is mainly used to describe and 'sell' for size. Right now "small" is in demand... you see the hollywood purse pups, and every woman in the country wants a cute, cuddly furball... its just the way the ball rolls... and we just need to educate the public about what it means to have a dog that is under 3-4 lbs, and we need to do something about those businesses who breed for such tiny dogs. There is nothing wrong with small dogs... what is wrong is when those small dogs are a unhealthy size

I must admit that I was one of "those" people who went out and looked for a "teacup" sized yorkie and came home with Jaya. I had wanted a small sized dog for many reasons, especially the cute factor. When we got our second yorkie, size no longer mattered - we had fallen in love with the breed.

Jaya is now fully grown and is barely reaching 3 lbs. She is very petite, and turned out to be exactly what we had been looking for initially. Jenna is about 4 lbs, sturdy and strong, and will most likely get to 5 lbs. She is clearly larger than Jaya, but still very petite and compact. In my opinion she is perfect because she is so sturdy.

I am in a constant state of fear for Jaya... she is very athletic and strong and outgoing, but she is so petite that she can easily get hurt. My constant stress is "is she eating enough"... I have food out for her all the time, and I just want to put some meat on her!! I do not have nearly as many worries with Jenna...... and it is clear to me that breeding for such tiny dogs may in fact endanger them.


I think I've gone off on a tangent....... i just think this is a huge problem and I dont see it going away any time soon. I feel sad to think about how many yorkies are being bred for size - how many yorkies are being put in danger - simply for size and especially for a certain weight - a weight that many people are not able to safely handle, a weight that makes life difficult for the actual dog, a weight that just isnt right.

And if I - a person with good intentions - can fall into the trap, I wonder how many others are falling into it. I just dont know what we can do to stop this frenzy for fragile little dogs that has totally spiralled out of control.

Originally Posted by oopsmyhalofello (Post 1985831)

I work with a woman who's mother breeds Yorkies. From what I have "heard" about her breeding practices she is in it for the right reasons. She and her daughter both however refer to the smaller of the yorkies as teacups. I have never once corrected her or explained any of what is said her (and I agree with) about the selling of teacups for a larger price. Reason being is that they don't go by this so what is the harm in them calling them teacups? To them it is just a size description, they do not breed to get them as small as they can and they are using it as a descriptive word.. no more no less. I used to get irked when I would have people ask me if my girls were teacup yorkies, now I just don't care because I realize that not everyone is on the internet searching for yorkie information, or belonging to message boards about yorkies. To them we would probably be considered fanatics. LOL

Originally Posted by Jaya and Jenna (Post 1985736)

First off, I would just like to say how much I respect the OP of this thread..... Your choice of words and the way you express yourself is just great... especially with such a controversial subject. I'm so glad that you had enough courage to post this thread

Originally Posted by BakersDozen (Post 1987162)

I will just throw in my two cents here, there are a lot of opinions on this topic and I think always will be. I personally am not bothered at all by a breeder using the term "teacup", to me it is merely an adjective, just like "teapot" or "teakettle". It does not bother me as long as the breeder does not use it as a breed name, and preferably makes it clear that it is only an adjective. With this in mind, I prefer to see, on a website for example, "teacup size Yorkie" instead of "teacup Yorkie". By including the word size, it makes it clear that the term is referring to the size and not a separate breed. Or sometimes I will see them put the term "teacup" in quotation marks--I prefer this as well. I am slightly bothered by seeing Teacup Yorkie, capitalized like it is a title.

Originally Posted by Epsilon (Post 1987221)

I have to disagree. Every reputable breeder knows that there is not such thing as a breed called a "Teacup Yorkie". So why in their right mind would they choose to call their puppies "teacup size Yorkies". I believe it should be the job of every breeder to educate their buyers on the issue, not further confuse them. The term needs to be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Epsilon (Post 1987221)

I have to disagree. Every reputable breeder knows that there is not such thing as a breed called a "Teacup Yorkie". So why in their right mind would they choose to call their puppies "teacup size Yorkies". I believe it should be the job of every breeder to educate their buyers on the issue, not further confuse them. The term needs to be eliminated.

Originally Posted by MindieRose (Post 1987330)

Since there is such a large variation of sizes in yorkies though, I wonder if at some point, there will be different size groups (like the 13 and 15" beagles) for them. I mean, look at how diverse the sizes are on YT alone. Not one size proving to be "better", its just a matter of opinion. I personally wish that AKC would consider different size groups in the future. :)

Originally Posted by crb (Post 1983409)

I agree, "tiny" and "teacup" are pretty much the same thing, especially if you're using the word to charge more. When I was breeding, all my pups, with the exception of one have been under 4lbs. full grown and I knew they would be little, but I didn't charge more for them, even though I knew I could probably get more. I sold all pups for the same price, regardless of sex or size.

Originally Posted by katelin (Post 1987401)

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I've been of the opinion for awhile that the AKC standard is too restrictive for Yorkies. I'd love to see two size categories. It seem that now many dogs are both too small and too large to show. What does that say about the breed and our current standard?? Why is there so much variation in color, coat, size allowed in some breeds but not in Yorkies? It can't be because the purists are trying to save the breed, because the current standard isn't even close to the original Yorkie.

Having said that, I do try to breed to the standard. But I think a little more flexibility wouldn't hurt.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 1987467)

I may be wrong, but I didn't think they had restrictions on what was too small to show. Since many show dogs are used for breeding, I thought that they just showed dogs suitable for that purpose. The yorkie is a relatively new breed as dog breeds go, but I can't see a real need for changing the standard. There doesn't seem to be a real need to purposely try to breed larger, the public seems to want smaller and smaller. Right now there is no limit on how small a yorkie can be, only a limit on what size a female yorkie can safely be bred. I guess I don't see the advantages to changing the standard, although I realize it is very difficult to achieve, but when you do get it, it is something really remarkable to behold.