Originally Posted by jencar98 (Post 3366536)

Debra, I know we don't agree on the parti subject and that's okay with me.:) I do believe there are a few good parti breeders and lots of bad parti breeders, just like with traditional color yorkies. As well as, I know there are many bad show breeders and a few good ones. Personally, I think probably 90% or more of all those breeding dogs today shouldn't be doing so. :(

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3366662)

I have a 5 page letter from Joan Gordon where she tells me they had a parti and she also talks of the other colors.
Heres a short bit about where she talks about the tri color......

"Dear Ms Mullins
Thank you for your letter, I'm glad you enjoyed our books
I must say however that I'm always fascinated by the amount of misinformation that is placed on the computer and even more so when it becomes exaggerated. WE actually had exactly one tri-color puppy born in all the years we bred Yorkies. After my sister died I gave up breeding extensively as it was what we did together. Since Jans death in 1985. I have bred exactly 4 litters and I stopped breeding completely probably 9 or 10 years ago. I could go look it up but I know Katie and Nicky were the last 2 puppies born.
I have shown several dogs that I purchased from others since then.
Our one tri-color puppy was born Dec. 10, 1976 and was a single puppy. His sire was Wildweir Counterspy and his dam was Wildweir Stitch in Time.
His Recorded name Wildweir Triplicate. He was reg with AKC #: TB426843. This was a first litter for either of his parents. We had the bitch spayed and the male neutered and both were placed as pets. I had heard of Yorkies being born in England that were Tri's but "Trippy" was the only one we'd ever seen.
We kept him until he matured. He was born a white dog with black spots and developed his tan marking as he grew up. His black spots turned to blue-gray and his tan markings came out by the time he was around six months. His temperament was all yorkie and size was very typical around 5 1/2 to 6 lbs. His coat was not as wiry as a fox terrier but certainly not as silky as a yorkie. We placed him with friends who had tried to buy him earlier when he was 2 years old and he lived to be 12 years old.
I don't have a problem writing about our "Trippy" but since the others who bred mismarked dogs that I knew about are deceased, I don't believe I can comment on them. I can only hope that they seek the truth and not just rumors!

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3366625)

Point me to a VALID reference that says the maltese was definately mixed in earlier years!!! I do not believe it exists as I have found absoltely NO evidence of maltese being bred into the Yorkshire Terrier as it was originated. I looked -- I did not form my opinion out of thin air and we had some lively discussions 2-3 years ago on this subject. Never once is a reference produced showing this was realistically done.

Some have GUESSED MAYBE there was a Maltese simply because of the long flowing coats. That could also have come from selectively breeding the best coats each time over the years. I don't think you can use Joan Gordon to support this as she writes:

"Joan Gordon

According to many present-day writers Yorkshires were the result of
a number of breeds being bred together to produce the desired points. How anyone could believe, or even imagine, these early fanciers would have bred from a Dandie Dinmont, a breed with an uneven top line; a Maltese, a totally white breed lacking any blue or tan markings or from a smooth coated Manchester Terrier (originally a smooth coated Old English Terrier) is not being realistic." this is n excerpt from the Yorkshire Terrier History.

She does talk of "off-color" yorkies in her book but I believe she is talking about the chocolate, gold, and red pups that do occasionally get thrown from purebred yorkies. The genetic science to understand that is solid -- WHITE is not. I did not see anything about her having a parti. Do you have a reference for that? Since she does not believe white is a genetic component of the yorkie, I find this hard to fathom.

I am always open to reading any VALID scientific evidence that shows the maltese was bred into that early Yorkie. I don't close my mind to it -- but as long as the professionals writing the Yorkshire Terrier history say it is not so and I can find no evidence that it was, I think I will stick with the YTCA accepted history -- NO WHITE, NO MALTESE.

I don't even understand why you all want to change the AKC/YTCA stance. You all have started your own breed clubs -- many of them. In fact until you all agree on what the dog is supposed to be, it is difficult to try to bring the AKC/YTCA to your side.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3366676)

Thank you for sharing that. I appreciate you going to the trouble of finding it and writing it here. I am surprised she did not include anything like this in her published writings. Still, she explains she had the parents spayed & neutered so no further offspring resulted from that mating. It was the first breeding of the pair and she had gotten them from another kennel. The tri-color dog did not have Yorkie hair so it would make me wonder again if another breed had emerged from some mismating way back in the line years and years before either of these breeders got them. I mean there are two pretty significant traits NOT found in the yorkie line -- I would think first of a mistaken mating instead of thinking it evidence of some long lost maltese connection. Finding evidence of one in the line of a breeder as prolific as this.....well....still not telling me it is happening naturally from yorkie alone or that maltese ever had anything OFFICIALLY to do with our breed.

I do appreciate the information, but it is still not convincing me that maltese was in there from the beginning. I think there is probably a LOT of maltese in our breed now as sad as I feel that is. But it is from recent "parti" breeders making their own. I think those of you that come here to plead your case and try to undo anything said against the white-coats genuinely have bred your partis with other parti's or at least carriers. But that is not the case with many. I just see a HUGE problem coming in the next century when we may not be able to count on a yorkie line to throw what has long been one of the most beautiful breeds around.

Originally Posted by capt_noonie (Post 3366457)

I've always wondered this. You send in the papers when they are puppies right? How will you know what their adult color will be? At that point they would still be black and tan puppy colors. Do you go off the parents?

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3366660)

.I hope we can disagree on this and remain friends as I do not want a difference of what is going to only be opinion (since neither of us has a genetics lab) :) to prevent us from talking on other subjects.

Originally Posted by jencar98 (Post 3366689)

Most definitely we can remain friends, even if we do disagree on this subject:) I have many friends and we don't always agree on everything...lol....that would be boring:)

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3366688)

I wonder this every time I register a pup. I have held Annie's registration just for that very question. I have always just registered them as black and tan as that is what they are at the time I send in the papers. But .... I hope she shows me blue coat soon and I can have that on her papers, since color is becoming more important for show and breeding. If she has not shown blue by 11 months, I'll send it in as black & tan because I don't want to wait over the year and have to pay the penalty for late registration.

We have had this question on here before and I don't think it was thoroughly answered. When CAN you register a yorkie pup as blue & gold or blue & tan? Can you send in for a correction if they turn blue? Does it matter?

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3366688)

I wonder this every time I register a pup. I have held Annie's registration just for that very question. I have always just registered them as black and tan as that is what they are at the time I send in the papers. But .... I hope she shows me blue coat soon and I can have that on her papers, since color is becoming more important for show and breeding. If she has not shown blue by 11 months, I'll send it in as black & tan because I don't want to wait over the year and have to pay the penalty for late registration.

We have had this question on here before and I don't think it was thoroughly answered. When CAN you register a yorkie pup as blue & gold or blue & tan? Can you send in for a correction if they turn blue? Does it matter?

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3366685)

It DOES NOT say she got them from another kennel.

Originally Posted by Mardelin (Post 3366706)

The longer your girl holds off on breaking blue, the better. I prefer them not to have them begin to break until about 9 months of age.

Since the pups I keep are for show, I usually send in their registration in at 5 months of age. You can no longer show on the litter registration and the pup must be registered individually before sending in entries for an AKC show.

No, you can't send in a correction if they turn blue. Does it matter? It should to the exhibitor that is showing the dog.

Let me add, by 5 months of age you can tell at the topline the coat texture. If it reflects light, you have a silk coated dog and more than likely break blue. I've only seen one true black silk coated yorkie.

Originally Posted by jencar98 (Post 3366689)

Most definitely we can remain friends, even if we do disagree on this subject:) I have many friends and we don't always agree on everything...lol....that would be boring:)

Originally Posted by jencar98 (Post 3366700)

I don't know what other breeders do and don't know if it really matters but, Reno's breeder listed him as Blue and Gold on his registration papers (that part was filled out by her). He was only 14 weeks old when I got him and still had his mostly black puppy coat.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3366723)

Thanks Mary -- I had a feeling you would answer! :) She reflects light. I had noticed in the sunlight outside and just took her in the dining room where the light is brighter and she shines. I also get none of that almost brownish look that a cotton coat shows. I think she is a silky coat-- she is from the same line as Ben, he is silky & blue. So, I guess I will send in her registration as blue & tan then. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Mardelin (Post 3366739)

Remember at times a brownish cast to a coat can mean an harmonal imbalance. I've had it with a couple of my bitches and once in full coat the cast had grown out and they were a dark steel bue and silk.....sadly to say with each Season and litter they lightened.

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama (Post 3366487)

Actually, I beg to differ. The term "hybrid dog" has nothing to do with a 50/50 mixture and everything to do with marketing by less than reputable breeders. In the past, the term mixed breed was used to describe these litters, as they were almost always a "whoops" and not planned for profit.

I would suggest that you take a look at the history of how the yorkie breed came in to being. It wasn't done willy nilly to fuel a marketing craze. The breed came in to being after the careful selection of the "parent" breeds for specific traits. And then, only the best examples of the breeds were used to create the Yorkie. Careful records were kept by selected breeders and the crosses were bred to crosses to create the Yorkie as we know it today.

That's a far cry from what's being done with this "hybrid" craze. Anyone with an off-standard yorkie will breed it to another off-standard dog to make it the latest trend. There is no "end goal" in sight, other than the almighty buck.

I do love Yorkies. Badly bred ones included. In fact, I have two badly bred ones that came from rescues. But the badly bred ones have helped create the many problems we see in the population today. The breed standard is set for a reason, and it's to maintain the integrity of the lines.

As for Biewers (which I think are gorgeous), there is a lot of controversy depending on who you talk to about their origin. There is a reason the AKC doesn't recognize them here, yet. I have no idea if they ever will. Same goes for Parti's. Chesapeake retrievers were recognized by the AKC in 1878. They trace their origins to Newfoundlands that were then bred to a multiple variety of dogs to attain the breed known today. No one tossed two dogs in to a room and, low and behold, a new breed was born.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3366714)

Sorry -- I mispoke-- your ltr does say the parents were both Wildweir. I was surprised she did not admit in a published book having the one tri-color in all of her very prolific years of breeding. I have "The Complete Yorkshire Terrier" she wrote and will get it out again. But I think we keep arguing different points. You said the Yorkshire Terrier originally had Maltese in it and that is what I try to speak to but you keep bring it back to Joan Gordan having one tri-color. I will concede that since you have the letter from her. I trust that. But it just does not lead me to believe the other things we are in contention over.

I will admit you threw me a surprise there as I had not remembered that if I had know it before. :) I definately don't have it all down, but I know I read plenty trying to find any justification for white in the breed and could not find it. Supposition is just not enough to convince me.

Originally Posted by concretegurl (Post 3366883)

Breezeaway,
1. What do you mean DNA-I don't want to start another debate on the reliability of Canine DNA tests, but I'm curious the company you use and the type of test you do.

2. Health test- you do genetic testing per the line and the individual dog?

3. Also I read something about Biewers having a general decline as they were being inbred so much. I was wondering what is the solution to out crossing...breeding Biewer to distant Biewer isn't enough at this point it has to be back to standard Yorkie (Parti) or something?

***Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post personal things on here I can see how maybe some of my questions may be rather personal, and I understand how many breeders don't like to disclose some things. I'm not a breeder, I'm just genuinely curious of the methodology and the genetic research.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3366843)

. . .
It was also published that Hemingway's grandfather had a white yorkie named Tassel. I highly doubt this was a misprint or a lie since he was a distinguished writer. . . .

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3366931)

Where was it published Ernest Hemmingway's grandfather had a white yorkie? Ernest Hemmingway was born in 1899, I'm assuming his grandfather had to be pretty old by the 1940's. People misname dogs all the time; this could have just as easily been a West Highland Terrier, a Maltese or a mix breed. I'm always reading this antidote as proof that the parti has been around for years. Are there any types of AKC records for this? Just because he was a famous writer, it doesn't mean everything that was written about him and his family is true.

Originally Posted by Nancy1999 (Post 3366931)

Where was it published Ernest Hemmingway's grandfather had a white yorkie? Ernest Hemmingway was born in 1899, I'm assuming his grandfather had to be pretty old by the 1940's. People misname dogs all the time; this could have just as easily been a West Highland Terrier, a Maltese or a mix breed. I'm always reading this antidote as proof that the parti has been around for years. Are there any types of AKC records for this? Just because he was a famous writer, it doesn't mean everything that was written about him and his family is true.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3366944)

This is the stuff I am talking about with people and the parti's. No one wants to believe what is written and always just casts it off as fiction. I don't think if it was fiction it would be written in several different books and by several different people, back then they didn't care. Is there any AKC proof that there were not a tri's or whites years and years ago? As you say, so in the yorkies makeup, people misname dogs all the time and so the true heritage of the yorkie can NOT be proven one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Breezeaway (Post 3366843)

Actually no one knows 100% what dogs went into the Yorkie. Does it matter to me , No. I just want people to stop saying they are not purebreds and that yorkies were never born as tri colors when it has been proven that they were born in various colors. If the tri wasnt a yorkie then why would Joan and Jan register Trippy with AKC as they did? Why did they not just pet him out? .
It was also published that Hemingway's grandfather had a white yorkie named Tassel. I highly doubt this was a misprint or a lie since he was a distinguished writer.
I love the parti color yorkie but I also love my traditional color yorkies too. I do agree there are alot of yorkie breeders whether it be parti or traditional that are out for the almighty dollar and that some of the partis are crossed with something else ,so are the traditional colors and so are the biewers. That is why all of my dogs are DNA'd, health tested and are only placed with a select few. I urge all people before buying any of these to do the same, make sure all dogs in the pedigree are dna'd, health tested and that you research the breeder thoroughly.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 3366463)

Wow -- don't think I have ever had my name thrown around in one post as many times as this one!!!! I was going to skip but how can I not respond if only to reiterate what I have said before.

I have read just as many scientific explanations that show there is NO "parti" gene in the actual Yorkshire Terrier's past. Where is the white-coated breed in the ACTUAL breed background that would somehow materialize over 100 years later????? No one comes up with a believable origin -- just that there is some gene! I don't buy it. I had to read carefully on both sides and come to my own conclusion. But I do not believe for a minute that there was a white gene in there. Others do and they have just as much right to their opinion as I do. However, the proof is on the side of the parti's. And I have not read anything that convinces me after careful dissection.

The Yorkshire Terrier is a beautiful breed. Many, many years by so many yorkie enthusiasts have gone into improving this magnificent breed. It would be such a shame in my mind, to try to dilute it, suggest these modern day parti's are all natural Yorkie anomalies and now breed FOR the fault.

To use poor purebred breeders as some excuse for me not to have a stance against "partis" is ridiculous. That is like saying there is only one bad breeding practice and you can't say anything against all others???? Does that make any sense at all? No! I am against purebred breeders who use poor breeding practices, those breeding tinies, those breeding off standard (which includes COLOR by the way), those not selecting the best examples of the breed, those not humanely breeding, those who sell to pet shops, brokers, the list goes on......but I am still against "parti's" as they are a FAULT, a DISQUALIFICATION according to the only two governing breed organizations -- AKC and YTCA.

The "parti" people go out and start their own breed club, try to come up with their own rules, standards, etc..... but then they want to be yorkies too!!! Can't have it both wys. You want to be a yorkie then you go by the rules of the YTCA and AKC (or other country's equivalent -- I don't mean to make this like the US is the end-all but I am not familiar enough with other countries' breed clubs). Now they want to SHOW their dogs at AKC shows when the AKC has said that the color white is going to be an immediate disqualification.

It is sort of like this site -- if you don't like the rules, then you are free to go elsewhere! Don't try to change the WHOLE Yorkshire Terrier world, just because you want to breed off-color dogs. (Speaking of a metaphorical "you" -- not the author of the quoted material).