Thanks for asking that question. Can the sun affected the color? I have not had Ivy long but when we went on vacation I think she got lighter, she is now blonder then before.

IMO, that is the reason why you don't see people speaking out against the black coated like you do chocolates, parti and goldens. Even though they do not have the standard steel blue, when used in breeding, it is with the intention of bringing richness of color back into a line and producing off spring that do meet the set standard.

In addition, I have to think that there is not as much criticism of the black coats being an off color because the exclusion of them is such a recent change.

It is not the variation of color or genes or change that concern me. It's the fact that there are alot of breeders out there breeding these dogs JUST because they are marketable as something rare. (The same could be said for alot of breeders of standard colors.) People who are of that mindset are what scare me. I'm guessing many of them don't even have purebred Yorkie lines--that scares me.
If there is a coordinated effort to have a standard set and recognized and eligible to show, then I am all for that. The problem is, the lack of movement to do that. What large scale, coordinated efforts are being made to set a standard, form a unique breed (or variation of breed) club? There are many people claiming they are trying to set a standard to justify breeding off colors. (And please realize that I don't mean this to imply EVERYONE who breeds off colors does this.) I guess that is my concern--kind of hard to put into words.

What kind of an argument is that? And someday TODAY wil be the past.

Ok, sorry, but your response did make me giggle a bit. :p

We're working on that. ;)

BTW glad to see you back. I've thought about you a lot.

We are not cross breeding to get the other colors. these off colored yorkies are 100% yorkie. They got their start from 2 traditionl colored parents, each carrying the off colored gene. Many of those carriers were champions.

That is where most people are confused. They wonder: How can these champion yorkies be carriers of this "awful" gene that results in these new colord offspring.

Well maybe you gals aren't...but I think the concern of many is that some of the people out just to produce dogs that may be a 'rare, trend' are breeding in something else. I know that it certainly would be grounds for me to question them.

Well I suppose you could try, but since there is already a club established for that color it doesnt make sense for you to do that.

As sue "pinehaven" has pointed out many times, the white does not come from the maltese because the maltese does not carry the spotting gene. I believe they mixed in the maltese to get the silky coat.

At one time the maltese and the yorkshire Terrier were both shown in the same group as broken haired scottish terriers. So it stands to reason that they would have bred them together.

There is a picture of Scotch Terriers by Edwin Landseer Titled "Ratcatchers" It cleasrly shows one Terrier wite with a black spot on the back.

I could only find a thumbnail of this painting. I enlarged it but the quality is poor.


Attachment 237809

Some of the breeders of traditional colored yorkies are also suspect of mixing breeds. that is where the importance of researching the breeders and the pedigrees come in.

Mine are all descendents of Ch. Rolls Royce Ashley, sire to the first AKC registered parti colored yorkie, Nikko's Mickey Spillane.

Multi-colored terriers
 

I understand your point but as I wrote, The Paisley Terrier weighing up to 16 LBS is alot different then some or most of our Yorkies today....
I see alot of women with teeny tiny Yorkies weighing only 3-4 LBS.
I don't think thats what the original breeder had in mind...My point is.... you don't think multi-colored Yorkies would improve the breed but teeny 3# yorkies are ok.
What would the difference be in the color or the weight???
The clysdale Terrier...This breed, originally exhibited as Skye Terriers, are simply the more silky-haired specimens of this variety. Skye Terrier enthusiasts have always regarded them as bad-coated specimens, more fitted for the drawing-room than the cairns, just as Fox Terrier experts would regard a soft-coated WireHaired as a bad Fox Terrier. The silky-coated dog, however, has his devotees, and along in the eighties a division was made in the Skye Terrier classes, the hard-coated, long and low variety being accorded, by weight of public opinion, the title of Skye Terrier, to which their character, working fitness, and tradition gave them an irresistible claim,, while the leggier and more silky-coated specimens were given the name of Clydesdale or Paisley Terriers. Since then the Clydesdale fanciers have developed the differences in the two dogs and by selection have cultivated the silkiness and lighter colors of the coat, which they have made a sine qua non of the variety. In all other essentials the character and conformation of the two varieties are practically one and the same. The coat of the Clydesdale should be long, straight, and silky; in both texture, color, and quality it should resemble that of the best Yorkshire Terriers, which has been largely used in its manufacture.
The Clydesdale Terrier was a small, silk-coated dog with shades of blue and tan and weighing up to eighteen pounds. The Clydesdale was extinct by the end of World War I.
The Paisley terrier was a small, silky-coated dog of various shades of blue and light blue, weighing up to sixteen pounds. One interesting aspect of this breed is that it once was considered it’s own breed until the clydesdale eventually merged with the paisley terrier to become a single breed.
Kat

Of course they are. Researching the breeder and pedigrees should always come as a general rule of thumb, regardless of breed. But when you have a dog that has a BIG difference in appearance or structure that varies form what is consdiered the 'norm', particularly when they are being marketed as 'rare' and for unusually high prices, I think that is grounds for increased concern and skepticism.

The "Tinies" "Teacups' "Micro minies" etc, many with health issues, are also marketed at exhorbitant prices, (I've see them for $10,000) and they fit the standard. I'm never sure what the issues is on the prices. Is it the high price that people object to or the color? And why would anyone care what price someone else charges?

Actually, I've said that the Maltese could be one place where the white has come from ... a maltese is the extreme white spotting pattern - they are basically one big spot! At one point, there were spotted and colored maltese, the first american born Maltese was white with black ears (if I recall correctly).

That's just it; they are being "marketed" as something unique, the YTCA forbids use of those words. I object to anyone breeding as a business, it should only be done to improve the breed, of you are interested in the profit factor of it, you will not be looking out for the long term affects on the breed. Many of us love the Yorkie just as it as, and want to preserve those qualities.

Sue, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you on that one. Thank you for correcting that.

It has been pointed out many times, those of us who breed the off coloreds are "ruining" the breed.

It is not taken into consideration that we are breeding to be able to set some predictable standards and establish a breed club. We are simply labled as BYB's that don't care about the breed and are just in it for the money. Which is not true of the parti breeders that I have been in contact with.

Well I don't agree with people marketing dogs as teacups or trying to achieve extremely small dogs either! Expecially when they are charging outrageous prices. I cannot for the life of me believe that someone who does those two things, particularly in combination of one another, is doing so for any reason other than to make money. I think once one's vision is clouded by that, the health and well being of the dogs is no longer the primary focus and concern.

If someone can prove to me that the higher price is due to increased medical testing or genetic research or importing dogs or to cover show expenses or an emergency c-section--something of that nature, I can understand that. But when someone has outrageous prices just because they can pull in a higher dollar amount because they are producing something 'rare' or 'trendy', then I don't believe their goals are where they should be.

Nancy said nothing about you gals 'ruining the breed' in her post that you quoted. :confused:

She was stating her concern regarding those just looking to turn a quick profit. Maybe that is not the case with you and the breeders YOU correspond with (and I don't think it is), but it certainly does exist. I personally think that one of the issues for me comes when people claim they are 'working to set a standard' but then can't give accurate, detailed, of how and are not coordinating their efforts with others who claim to be doing the same.
(Again, that doesn't mean you all, just in general.)

Given the current popularity of Yorkies in general, I have the same concerns for those who breed standard colors as well.

How about the cost of procurring the original yorkies. I'm just not understanding your concerns.

I bought my original dogs. I breed them. I cannot keep them all. The original healthy dogs that I bought are producing the babies, so how does, what I charge for the puppies, make my parent dogs lessor quality, or change my goals? I am still using the same dogs, and my goal is still the same, and the money that I make changes nothing.

I still take care of my dogs, I am still interested in their health and welfare, they are first and foremost my pets.

I guess any costs to the breeder, not just those few I mentioned. Charging in an effort to cover your costs should go without saying, IMO.

Huh? Where did that come from? I don't see where that statement was made...:confused: I think maybe we are misunderstanding each other somehow, because I am totally lost here.

You asked this question:
I was merely trying to answer it. I'm sure not all Parti, and Biewer breeders are created equally. I don't tend to throw everyone into the same class. I can imagine someone truly loving that look and breeding it because of that reason, and not to turn a profit. However, they are probably the exception rather than the rule.

I know that Nancy never said we were "ruining" the breed. What I was getting at is that regardless of the price we charge, or if we give the puppies away, many will claim that we are not concerned for the breed.

I am not at liberty to say who all is involved in the effort, or what point we are, but there are things in the works to establishing standards. We are not just breeding willy nilly. We do have goals.

Posters always link the price that is being charged with indiscriminate breeding, and breeding only for "the money", and I don't see where one has anything to do with the other. In fact most large puppy mills sell to pet stores for low prices. they believe in quantity rather than quality.

You are probabgly right, but we cannot control that any more than we can control the mass production of low quality puppies coming from the puppy mills.

It appears to me, that although we are still not all in agreement on this issue, we are moving closer to an understanding of it. However there are still many out there that still refuse to believe that these are not a mixed breed.

I don't think it's always the case, as I stated, I believe there are exceptions and definately people who fall victim to that unfortunate circumstance.

What then would be some possible reasons behind someone marketing a parti as 'rare' and charging astronomical prices for one? (Let's say, $5,000 or more)

I don't think that is always the case either, but I believe often times it is. Or it is at least enough to raise suspicion. If a person is a breeder of Yorkie and Maltese and they are selling Partis too...would you not be somewhat suspicious? Or if everyone's favorite TX miller had partis for sale, would you not question it?

The possible reason for "that" would be to sell at market value, but that does not mean the the main goal is money.

Yes of course I would and DO question that. But you know those of us on YT that breed partis, yet we are still lumped into the same category as BYB and puppy mills.

True, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the main goal either.

And I don't think that is fair either. I wouldn't like being put in that category as a BYB either if I were you. (I don't like being pulled over all the time because I drive a sports car.) I don't think anyone is trying to discredit anyone who goes about things the way you and a few of the others here do, it's those that DO fit that category that worry people and raise concern.

Many people got into the breeding of Yorkies due to their popularity, and not because of any special fondness for the breed. I object to this as well, I can't do anything about it, but this thread question of "Do you approve . . .", seeks people to state their opinions. I'm sure you've read of breeders on this forum, who are new to Yorkies, and can't sell their offspring for much because their breeding stock is so poor, but decide a Parti is just what their "line" needs. Personally if I were a Parti breeder and chose to breed them because I really loved the look, I would really be suspicious of other breeders who decided to breed them, and would hope that their motivations were the same as mine.

Duh!! Thats an analogy. Do you think that if I purposely bred "off colored "Biewers that I would be welcomed with open arms by the Biewer club members and breeders passionate about them? The same is so for the YTCA and breeders passionate about the Yorkie. There is already a set standard for the Yorkie. Its been around since the 1800's. Some small changes have been made over the years but color has always remained the same. Partis have never been included. Do you think the standard should be changed just because a pink Yorkie can be bred or because indiscriminate breeders can produce dogs so far from the standard? I have my own opinions about where the "off colores" came from. To bad there was no DNA or kennel inspections back then. And I do believe Sue wrote that the parti gene came from the Maltese amoung others.