An individual who appears, by overall attitude and facial expression, quite authoritative and gives the impression of being exceedingly well-informed, makes a telling and emphatic comment to a friend and fellow fancier to the effect that a particular dog, a quite successful exhibit of hers, has a head “to-die-for”. Indeed, one might say; home-bred, of course! Her companion rather bravely ventures to enquire as to particulars and asks whether there might not be something, however little, that the breeder would like changed, would like differently. Her exact words go something like this “are you telling me that he has, in your considered opinion, an absolutely ideal head?” Upon which, in immediate reply, without even a moment’s hesitation, the breeder retreats to the defensive and begins to deliver a litany of minor qualifications to the original statement. “Well”, she says, “his ears could, I suppose, be a tad bit smaller and set slightly higher up and maybe even somewhat further apart”. Pause to think, then she continues “now that I think about it, the back skull could certainly do with more width and the muzzle chiselling could, perhaps, be marginally finer”. Sound familiar? What an admission. Now that’s honesty and that’s connoisseurship!

This well illustrates the fact that, as we all know, no dog is ever totally perfect in anyone’s mind. Unless, of course, one is suffering from a chronic and severe case of kennel blindness. Moreover, it is the natural reaction of a wise fancier to always second-guess, amend and ameliorate, if there is ever a temptation on his or her part to claim perfection! This is always something to retain at the back of one’s mind when making any claim as to the ideal form. Absolute perfection in anything is an elusive virtue. The purebred dog is no exception. It is one of those imagined but yet utterly unattainable things that we have to contend with when considering the relative merits of any specimen. The conceptualization of perfection is essentially infinite. A preassigned finite value is never fully achievable, however hard we try. There are simply too many variables, too many factors that cannot be controlled in unison. As they say, the perfect dog has not yet been bred, and perhaps never will be! It should perhaps be added that there is not much use in despairing over the impossible. Appreciation of individual features is a reasonably straight-forward undertaking, or should be to most people, once the appropriate comparative yardstick is adequately comprehended. The activity is more or less derivative and does not demand much originality. But this takes practice and experience.

One has to, first of all, develop a feeling for correctness and one has to have knowledge of the mentally-conceived ideal, even if that is unachieved, before a totally meaningful and valid comparison can be made. One has to have an eye for detail and the refined taste to go along with it. This is a cultivated facility; this is where sophisticiation comes in. We each have to work assiduously and unremittingly at it. There is really no substitute for careful, persistent attention to detail; there are no short cuts. Cutting corners in the acquisition and accumulation of knowledge can be disastrous. The history of a breed, for instance, is not something that can be gleaned overnight. This is one of the things that makes judging such a specialized activity, if satisfactorily performed. To be a good judge one has to be the ultimate connoisseur, no more no less! One cannot fully adequately adjudicate and arbitrate the relative merits of exhibits unless one has a thoroughly firm grasp of the minutiae and of the background of each breed; what is correct and what is not. We are dealing here with the comparative values of relative virtues! A rather tricky case of balancing positives and negatives, of making trade-offs, in the intricate process of determining what approximates perfection and what does not. The adage that real consciousness comes about by constantly changing patterns of awareness is as true in the cultivation of this connoisseurship as it is in other areas of man’s mental creativity.

The other dimension of this connoisseurship involves consideration of the overall picture; the dog in totality. This is a rather more complicated task, although one can easily be deceived into thinking that it is the easier of the two levels of evaluation. Obtaining a false impression of reality is a not easily recognized danger that one can rather readily fall into when deliberating on such things as structure, movement, balance, type, and so on. To make an educated determination of merit in regard to such peculiarities is a highly-developed skill. What looks simple enough is, in fact, the more difficult, unless one has the natural talent for it. Not everyone does! Some folks have to work at it but, unfortunately, never seem to get it quite right. Accurately assessing the cumulative merit of the total package is by no means as straight-forward as it looks.

To come back to the subject of details take, as an example, the matter of ear size, shape and placement. All pedigreed dogs have breed-specific peculiarities in this regard. In fact, the wide degree of variance that there is in this aspect of form is nothing short of astonishing. Add to that the use of ear lobes, in particular the way they are oriented in response to sounds, and the impact this has on expression. Mobility of the leather or pinna, or lack thereof, is of critical importance in some breeds. The integration of a dog’s various senses is an aspect that is critical in the evaluation of countenance. The ears contribute significantly to the ‘look’ of a dog. The constitutive expression of audial sensitivity varies between breeds and groups of dogs, reflecting their origin and background in terms of function. A highly-developed sense of hearing has been, traditionally, an important requirement in some breeds but not as much in others.

Let us review, for the sake of interest and elaboration of this thesis, some of the differences and subtleties found among the various ear types. This will, hopefully, again bring home the fact that to be a real connoisseur one has to be conversant with the details. It might be useful to begin by considering the disparity in this regard among the sporting breeds. Here one finds some rather striking anomalies. Take the Brittany, once designated as a spaniel, for instance. The breed is essentially setter-like in the way that it works game but yet has a very characteristic high ear set, well above eye level. The ears, which are short and triangular in shape, lie close to the head but are not pendulous. Contrast this with the typical setter ears that are set low, at or below the level of the eye, and well back. Spaniel ears are also set level with, or lower than, the line of the eye. The standards of the respective breeds particularize and specify requirements, in this regard as in many others, to a different extent. In terms of precise placement, the standard of the English Cocker Spaniel merely asks for the ears to be “set low”. That of the Field Spaniel calls for ears that are set “slightly below eye level” and, in the case of the Sussex Spaniel, to be correct the ears have to be set “moderately low, slightly above the outside corner of the eye”. How about that for exactitude? Consider then the dictates of the English Springer Spaniel standard, which is quite elaborate and perhaps, compared to most others in this Group, with the exception of that of the Labrador Retriever, rather excessively-worded. The desirable ear set is at eye level and “not too far back on the skull”. Sophisticated connoisseurship has to presumably kick in and carry the burden of determining, on a case-by-case basis, what exact position is deemed “too far back”.

In the pointers and retrievers also there are small, subtle differences in ear placement that the connoisseur has to be aware of. Compare the difference between the Pointer and the German Shorthaired Pointer. In the former the ears are set at eye level, in the latter a little higher, just above eye level. Interestingly, ear position is not mentioned in the German Wirehaired Pointer standard. Among the retrievers it is instructive to review the various requirements and also how standards are changed. In the old, as well as the newly-revised, Chesapeake Bay Retriever standard the correct ear set is described as being well up on the head. In the standard of the Curly-Coated Retriever the ears were one described as being “set on low”. In the present standard of that breed the ears are said to be “set on a line slightly above the corner of the eye”. Now that’s what quite a difference. Perhaps the two ways of describing the placement amount to the same thing, which tells you something about standards. In the old Labrador Retriever standard the ear placement was described as being “rather far back” and “set somewhat low”. In the newer version exactly the same words are used, with a little juggling, and addition of “slightly above eye level”. The standard of the Flat-Coated Retriever calls for ears to be “well set on” and not low set, hound-like or ‘setterish’! Oh the many nuances, the many variables.

Let us now turn, briefly, to the matter of ear size, shape, orientation and mobility. In a dog such as the Cardigan Welsh Corgi, possession of large ears that are moderately wide at the base in proportion to the size of the skull, and oriented somewhat obliquely when viewed from the front, is of paramount importance to breed type. Small ears, more resembling those of the Pembroke, are obviously a serious fault. A similar situation exists in the Chihuahua, where the ears are again large in relation to the size of the head. Although more or less upright when alert, these ears flare widely, to an angle approximating forty-five degrees, when in repose. This increases the breadth between them. So-called ‘bat ears’, such as are typical of the French Bulldog, are highly undesirable in the Chihuahua, even though no actual mention of shape is made in its standard. Incidentally, presence of an ear other than one which is broad at the base and rounded at the top, the ‘bat’ type, is a disqualification in the Frenchie.

How an observer, and a judge in particular, views the use of ears and the difference between their position when a dog is alert, as opposed to when in a more relaxed condition, is worth comment. In a breed such as the Schipperke, for instance, a dog cannot reasonably be expected to maintain the constantly-forward, ‘starched-ear syndrome’ for an interminable length of time while being exhibited. Although the standard of the breed requires the ears, which are placed high on the head, to be “very erect” when at attention, some movement is a natural behavioral condition in a breed that is intrinsically inquisitive. Of course, the closer together the ears are set the greater the tendency for them to remain consistently vertical and forwardly oriented. A sensitive judge of this breed, a real connoisseur, will generally not insist on immobile, stationary, ‘starched’ ears because familiarity with breed temperament leads to a realization that a curious little dog is not going to keep its ears still for minutes on end, as if it was a porcelain figurine. That’s sophistication for you. A fancier of this breed made an interesting remark to me recently to the effect that penalizing a Schipperke for moving its ears is not fault judging but idiocy! Point well-made and well-taken.

All this is not to say that ears in many breeds should be carried other than erect and vertical when at attention. In the Keeshond, for example, ears not carried thusly are a fault and this is appropriately so noted in its standard. Erect ears can, however, be very mobile, as are those of the Finnish Spitz, Norwegian Elkhound and Pharaoh Hound. In some breeds ears that are set high and held erect can be pulled back in relaxation, as occurs in the Elkhound. Here again a judge has to make allowance and this is specifically mentioned in its standard with the instruction that a dog which pulls its ears back during a judge’s examination should not be in any way penalized. The case of the Basenji, where the ears are set well forward on top of the head, is another condition again. And so it is, each breed has its individual characteristics, its unique peculiarities. The connoisseur is perfectly aware of all of this and has a firm grasp of the subtleties.

One has, of course, in any evaluation, to start with the requirements of the standards but, beyond that, personal interpretation comes into play. That is the critical part; the individual visualization of the essentials. Everything has to be placed in a proper perspective. Standards should not always necessarily be treated as if they have come down from on high; they haven’t! That might sound like a bit of irresponsible sacrilege but it really isn’t, if you think seriously about it. They are only as good as the people who wrote, or continue to write and revise, them. By that I mean that they still vary considerably in quality, depending upon each writer’s command of the English language and the respective skill at word choice and usage of those who authored or author them. While they should certainly be viewed with respect and deference, they are really only a starting point in the development of understanding of our various breeds. They are the foundation upon which the connoisseurship in built.

In the continuing and seemingly never-ending quest for perfection breeds change, sometimes for the better, sometimes, regrettably, for the worse. Taste, too, changes. There is almost always an irrevocable drift occurring in the matter of taste, perhaps today moreso than ever. That seems to come with the territory as we approach the twenty-first century! With the persistent flux among the fancy, constancy is not something that characterizes this connoisseurship. This phenomenon has a serious downside. It constitutes an ongoing danger. Unfortunately, there is really no effective way to guard against it, nor to control it, if and when it becomes discernible. Once an extreme is reached, where exaggeration has culminated in its ultimate expression, some serious retrenchment becomes, however, an absolute necessity. The well-being of our breeds lies in the hands of those who know them best. That almost goes without saying but yet, oftentimes nowadays, the motivating force comes from a newer generation, much less secure in its knowledge and understanding. That threatens a legacy. Look around you at the dog shows.

The true connoisseur looks for the happy medium, for balance, for moderation, for beauty that is subtle and understated; that is in no way overdone. Much too much of anything jeopardizes the virtue of that which is valued. The standards are there as a safeguard, as an anchor. But they inevitably evolve just as taste and preferences change. That is why it is always so important to remember the origin of breeds and their intended purpose. In other words, without knowledge of their history, breeds can easily, over time, almost randomly drift so far away from their original form as to be no longer typical. We have seen that happen time and time again. It happens, perhaps astonishingly, with the tacit acquiescence of the fancy! Moreover, this is not, by any means, readily reversible. But is a passive acceptance inevitable? Should it be condoned? There is nothing static in all of this. That is why history and background are so very, very crucial. Moreso than standards, in a sense. Individuals, as they practice their personal connoisseurship, develop their own likings and partialities and not everyone always even agrees as to what exactly constitutes correctness of one feature or another! That complicates the whole business and muddies the waters considerably. So how sophisticated are you when it comes to appreciating the subtleties of breed type and all the other wonders of the pedigreed dog.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. He carries the title of Distinguished University Professor at Auburn University, where he has been a member of the faculty for thirty-five years. He is approved by the AKC to judge Best in Show, the Hound and Toy Groups, six Sporting breeds, and Pembroke Welsh Corgis. He can be reached at morgangj@charter.net