I want this dog!
 Not this dog  Why do most of the sheepdogs I see have sooo much undercoat? Does anyone else prefer the bobtail with long shaggy flowing hair?.....and do any breeders still produce such a dog? |
|
|
| Jenn, buckle up as this may get bumpy. This is a very touchy subject for most. There seems to be a growing list of show people who want to put a halt to the 'poof' in the second photo. There have been several threads on this in recent memory with many posting on both sides of the fence. If I can find them I'll post the links to some of those other threads. BTW, count me it that list of those wanting to drop the poof. Vance |
| I've always kept mine like the top photo and not the second. There's plenty of undercoat, but I do use a rake which strips away a lot. Last couple of years, I've even put my dogs in a puppy cut. Obviously, we never were a show family. I get the super pouf, in a way. The dog can be groomed so that the coat really accentuates the shape of the dog, especially those characteristics which are so very much OES. But it's not my thing, really. |
| The show stuff aside, I can tell you why Mady often is poofy (and we have never shown her). It is her lazy mama! Stripping undercoat is so tiring, but we have to get better at it, as she can't herd with so much undercoat, it just gets too hot. So I need to unlazy myself, for the sake of Mady's comfort. |
| I am an unpoof fan and don't show. I love the look of the first dog, which is very similar to what the girls have all of the time. Once you get the undercoat out, I don't think it is hard to keep the undercoat out. I get a large bag of hair every week for both girls. We just sit on the floor in front of the TV and comb. |
| One is show poof, rather like performance attire, party attire, go to church attire. Those not in the show ring, perhaps working or just relaxing on the couch need not be poofy.....nor ever get poofy. I prefer mine in "cutoffs and flip flops".......short cuts. |
I like a sheepie's coat to look like this: |
SheepieBoss wrote: One is show poof, rather like performance attire, party attire, go to church attire. Those not in the show ring, perhaps working or just relaxing on the couch need not be poofy.....nor ever get poofy. I prefer mine in "cutoffs and flip flops".......short cuts. Oh, god yes. I'd rather see an OES in a sporty puppy cut than long hair and no undercoat, so looks like a beardie  Or even bald, if it's a nice looking dog whose structure I can enjoy looking at in the nude   Now, I understand that a lot of companion dog owners can't/don't want to spend the time to groom properly, and so just rip out all the undercoat (some is fine), and that's OK. But then don't leave it long and pretend to have a dog "in coat". In coat includes undercoat. My pet peeve.As for the two dogs above - both coats are less than ideal and roughly equally incorrect (grooming, or lack thereof, aside). Can anyone step away from the poofy discussion long enough to see what the true faults are? Because they aren't grooming induced. if in doubt, read the standard.  Kristine |
| I like both! I think they're cute either way. I'm not a huge fan of the puppy cut, I like the nice long fur. However, I don't like how the head of the less poofy one looks, it reminds me of a sea lion or something more than it does a dog, cause of how it just kinda all flows back. I dunno, I think I prefer the poofy dog. |
| To each his own. We are fortunate in that we can groom our breed in many different manners. Only so much you can do with the short haired breeds....maybe shave designs in their sides? Color the hair? |
Mad Dog wrote: Oh, god yes. I'd rather see an OES in a sporty puppy cut than long hair and no undercoat, so looks like a beardie Or even bald, if it's a nice looking dog whose structure I can enjoy looking at in the nude Now, I understand that a lot of companion dog owners can't/don't want to spend the time to groom properly, and so just rip out all the undercoat (some is fine), and that's OK. But then don't leave it long and pretend to have a dog "in coat". In coat includes undercoat. My pet peeve.As for the two dogs above - both coats are less than ideal and roughly equally incorrect (grooming, or lack thereof, aside). Can anyone step away from the poofy discussion long enough to see what the true faults are? Because they aren't grooming induced. if in doubt, read the standard. Kristine According to the AKC......the bearded collie and russian ovtcharka are named as being bred to create the OES. So it would seem to me that the OES should have similarities to both: Bearded Collies  and Russian Ovtcharka  and OES many years ago did not look to have nearly the undercoat that they do today:  Our breed IS changing......I believe the standard has been modified a few times over the years.....for what reason.? When I see many different looking sheepdogs, I am intrigued. It is my nature to research, and try to understand those changes. Everyone has their own preference for how their OES should look, but I wonder.....with more and more breeders selecting for sooo much hair, where will it stop? And what about those of us who liked the OES with it's original coat? |
| Aha...and what does your research tell you about coat texture and color? No matter where they may or may not have come from, and that is not established, an OES is NOT a beardie and should not resemble a beardie. Horrors. For one thing they are supposed to be SQUARE. And even in that old picture (pre-power dryers <g> ) the coat texture is clearly nothing like that of a beardie. And topline? What can you tell me about the respective top lines in the three dogs above? Are you coming to the national this September btw? It's in Wisconsin. There is a really great seminar the Sunday before on anatomy and structure. Probably much more valuable than getting hung up on the hair. Seriously. Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: Aha...and what does your research tell you about coat texture and color? I have no problem with the texture or color of the conformation OES today, just the overabundance of undercoat. No matter where they may or may not have come from, and that is not established, an OES is NOT a beardie and should not resemble a beardie. Horrors. If the AKC does not know where our breed came from, why do they list those two breeds in our history? Thinking of all the very different looking dog breeds out there....OES and beardies do look similar enough that the AKC is listing them in our breed's history. So why is it such a "horror" that they would resemble each other at all? For one thing they are supposed to be SQUARE. And even in that old picture (pre-power dryers <g> ) the coat texture is clearly nothing like that of a beardie. I agree....the coat texture of the OES and Bearded Collie are quite different. And I do not feel any of the OES in pictures I posted have hair like a beardie. Are you coming to the national this September btw? It's in Wisconsin. There is a really great seminar the Sunday before on anatomy and structure. Probably much more valuable than getting hung up on the hair. Seriously. I am hoping to come to the specialty in September, and I would love to attend the seminar. I will also continue to be "hung up" on the hair, because it interests me. Kristine I really do value your input Kristine, and every bit of advice you have ever offered to me. You know so much more about the breed than I will know anytime soon, but I am in love with the breed and will continue to research and speak with many people who know about these beautiful dogs. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and differing ones keep things interesting! Hopefully everyone will continue to chime in, I really enjoy hearing what EVERYONE has to say.   |
| Ditto to the above, dont compare OES with beardies !!! Completely different dogs !!! |
Millielover wrote: [I really do value your input Kristine, and every bit of advice you have ever offered to me. You know so much more about the breed than I will know anytime soon, but I am in love with the breed and will continue to research and speak with many people who know about these beautiful dogs. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and differing ones keep things interesting! Hopefully everyone will continue to chime in, I really enjoy hearing what EVERYONE has to say. And that's fine, Jenn, but you are asking a forum which is probably 90% companion only owners, and there is nothing wrong with that, except all you will get is opinions, hopefully ones that concur with yours. You, on the other hand, by virtue of showing your girl, are held to a different standard. There a bible - it's called the breed standard. It bears studying. It holds the answers to the questions I've put to you; what are the coat faults on both OES #1 and #2 that you've shared, and what sets the breed apart from the beardie, among others, in terms of top line? These aren't trivial questions. As I've said before, if your girl isn't in coat -and she's at an akward age, still - do yourself and your pocketbook a favor and don't show her until she is. If she's still regularly losing once she's in coat, you need to take a long, hard look at structure and remember that her breeder was not breeding with the standard in mind. That doesn't mean she doesn't have nice qualities - my rescue dog has no bone and no head, her coat is horrible to live with, so I keep her shaved, but she actually has decent angulation and neck and can move half-way decently. I wouldn't show her, even if I could, because she is lacking in basic breed type. Doesn't mean she's not a nice dog. She's a great dog. But I'd be hard-pressed to call her a nice OES if the standard is the measure. I'm not saying your girl lacks breed type, I've never seen her. I am saying that I've heard a lot of newbies, and not so newbies, come to think of it, with little to no understanding of the standard get their noses all out of joint when they habitually lose, and blame it on grooming. There's real education available for you, at the specialties. I know it's hard to travel, though you're not too far from really active OES areas, and if you're serious it's truly in your best interest to meet more actual breeders, get yuor hands on as many different dogs as you can, and attend seminars before you condemn what you're seeing. Or, more to the point: if you're going to condemn dogs, at least condemn them for their real faults And that only comes with a lot of hands-on education with people who are A LOT MORE experienced than I am.I would just hate to see you get frustrated because you're not being set-up for success. The breed desperately needs people like you. Kristine |
| I don't think the first picture looks like a beardie at all, except that both have long coats. In my opinion, the poofed out coat detracts from the beauty of an OES, and obscures rather than enhances features of the breed. Obviously, I don't show nor am I interested in such. One reason is that I simply don't care much for the poofy look. The other is that on principle, I think dogs should be groomed in a style and manner that is fitting for the breed's purpose. The first dog in the OP looks like s/he could herd sheep, and not just because of the motion in the photo. The second one does not. Of course, grooming and photos say nothing about how well either dog would actually handle anything. When we were deciding what kind of dog we would get all those years ago, the image of an old english sheep dog I had in my head was like the ones I saw on TV or in movies when I was a kid: they looked much more like the first dog. If I had seen photos of the second dog, I probably would have passed on the breed. But it brings up a point: dogs being shown today are groomed very differently than they were a (people) generation or two ago. I have a couple of out of print books about the breed and the photos are quite different compared with modern dogs. Honest question: why the change in style of grooming? How does this change serve the breed? |
| Just as predicted by Vance.....it has gotten a bit bumpy! I hope people will continue to respond. I know, "90% of you are companion pet owners and it's just your opinion"......but that's what I wanted.  I really don't care if you agree with me or not....I just enjoy hearing what everyone thinks. After all, us 90% are buying the OES right? The coat standard as stated by the AKC seems to describe both dogs and is subject to interpretation. Well, maybe not dog #2, as it does mention the coat should not make the dog look overly fat. And certainly states the coat should not be altered to change the natural outline of the dog, which does happen. I invite you all to go witness an OES being groomed for a conformation show. Not sure why my Millie is being pulled into the conversation, as she was not in any of the photos that I posted. Nor did I discuss anyone else's dog. Sad turn of events, IMO. Mad Dog wrote: I would just hate to see you get frustrated because you're not being set-up for success. The breed desperately needs people like you. Kristine If you mean people who are willing to calmly discuss what is going on and why within our breed,....I couldn't agree more. Now back to the original topic, how do you all like your OES to look? |
| I like the poofy look...but I have to admit, the texture issue is a real pet peeve for me. My older girl, Abby (who was a show dog -retired now), has a relatively course coat, with a fair amount of undercoat, but not as much as a lot of show-bred dogs Ive seen recently. Eggbert my young guy on the other had, has a MASSIVLY heavy undercoat, and very soft (almost puppy-like) texture. Bert's coat is a nightmare to maintain, even at a shorter length. He mats like a juvenile still, at 6 years old!  Worse...he also has an awful problem with his ears. He has *SO* much hair in his ear canals...and so deep in...that we literally cannot safely remove it all ourselves and have to have the vet put him under and remove the deep hair on a yearly (at least!) basis. I dont know for sure if this is related to his heavy, soft undercoat or not...but Ive always suspected so. I'd love to hear breeders and more experienced sheepie people's opinions on this! Otherwise...on preferences..I'm voting for SHORT and SASSY these days  I love seeing a sheepdogs distinctive body shape and gait more easily that way! |
| Well I have met the fellow a few times who invented the Poofy look. I sent Vance the details also if you want more info he wrote a book. Very nice fellow also Val knows him I think |
| I like oes all scruffy and shaggy (first pic) I just think that over poofiness looks unnatural, you loose the dog in the poof. Bloos coat is like a porcupine at the moment! Its so harsh and brittle feeling, almost like horse hair. I wish he had fur i could make fluffy  Its too harsh.Anyway i vote first pic, as they look normal like they should without human interference. |
ravenmoonart wrote: I like the poofy look...but I have to admit, the texture issue is a real pet peeve for me. ! Bingo! And that's much more of an issue on this side of the Atlantic than elsewhere. My Mad has a relatively soft coat, her sire's contribution, not that she otherwise came from a line of fabulous coats, but not a lot of undercoat. I bred her to a European import in part to improve coat. Most of the resulting litter had improvements, except Chewie, who is maybe a bit better than his dam, but not much (sorry, Dawn) but in very varied ways! Sybil and Che have much coarser coat texture, which I love, but suddenly the type of undercoat that mats much more easily even as adults. It's not that it's excessive, it's that it's cottony, you know what I'm talking about obviously, ugh. I hate that and keep the boy naked, whilst I usually fight Sybil's undercoat from hell because I like trialing her looking fluffy (actually, most of the time she looks like hell, but I try ). Their sister, Mace's, coat texture is better than her dam's, not as good as her two siblings mentioned - more like the first dog Jenn depicted; somewhat acceptable, but not truly correct, the second dog looks to have better texture, but color is a bit off, though - and she grows hair like nobody's business. She rarely ever mats and if she does the mats come right out, so she gets high marks in the maintenaince department, even though she does have a propensity to look like a yak if i don't trim and strip her regularly.  There are some lines in North America that have maintained better coat texture, but you don't seem to see a lot of it anymore. I put both Mace and Sybil in a puppy cut for the summer. Got tired of fighting all that damn hair. And that's the beauty of the breed. If you don't like it or can't be bothered with it, you can chop it off. A lot of dogs look great that way - I love pics of your dogs running full out and proudly naked - and a true working dog would have been shaved once or twice a year anyway. Kristine |
| I like both looks but who am I I have rescue dogs with not so good coats and have been keeping them in a puppy cut because I am a bad groomer LOL I think all dogs should be shown in a more natural coat Still boggles my mind on the poodle clips!! They look much nicer with just the feet and nose clipped BUT I do not show poodles nor have one Now to throw another twist I would love a sheepdog with a tail let the fun begin.................. |
| I don't mind the "poof" (and I love the big poofy posteriors ) except for the big poofball head look. But that is only for the ring, after the show is over, groom them out, put their hair up in a topknot, and they look fantastic. I still wish the show look trended away from the poofball, I think it looks terrible and completely contradicts the sheepdog "look" that caused so many of us fell in love with the breed. |
Baba wrote: I don't mind the "poof" (and I love the big poofy posteriors ) except for the big poofball head look. But that is only for the ring, after the show is over, groom them out, put their hair up in a topknot, and they look fantastic. I still wish the show look trended away from the poofball, I think it looks terrible and completely contradicts the sheepdog "look" that caused so many of us fell in love with the breed.Exactly! |
| I think the main issue is just not the poof look. It has gone further than that these days. Its sculpture look in old english sheepdog. So in the UK we have not gone that way but in the US you have gone too far as all the dogs/bitches look the same. So in one had your show your dog but you need to become a hairdresser to get any where & that's wrong. Remember the poof look in the front and back is only for the ring & needs too be brushed out due matting but once you have sculptured your dog/bitch that cannot be removed from the ring. Don't the breed standards state that you are not allowed to alter the state of the dog i.e cutting and shaping. From the US breed standard Neither the natural outline nor the natural texture of the coat may be changed by any artificial means except that the feet and rear may be trimmed for cleanliness. UK strong, square-looking dog with great symmetry and overall soundness. Absolutely free from legginess, profusely coated all over. A thick-set muscular, able-bodied dog with a most intelligent expression. The natural outline should not be artificially changed by scissoring or clipping. |
| [quote="Parwaz"]I Remember the poof look in the front and back is only for the ring & needs too be brushed out due matting but once you have sculptured your dog/bitch that cannot be removed from the ring.[quote] Huh? Yes, it says natural outline should not be changed, except butt and feet. That said, you can't tell me that doesn't happen elsewhere And increasingly so, actually. Not saying it's right, though in fact, as a performance person, it really doesn't bother me, because as soon as you're out of the ring it's some water on the head to brush out any crap you put in there/the teasing so the dog can see in the ring - we don't allow barrets or anything like that to gait the dogs as I understand they permit in some places elsewhere - and done. They don't mat any more. Actually, less, because they carry less hair. I strip and trim my performance dogs much along the excessively sculpted look you see in North American breed rings long after I've finished their breed championships because otherwise they become too excessively hairy to work. The other option is to shave them, which I've done as well, once done with breed. But trimming allows for a happy medium - they still look cute and fluffy, but not so hairy they can't be sent into the brush after stock, or risk taking down jumps with their stomach or leg coat. It's a nice, tidy, lower maintenance compromise. It may help explain why nowhere outside of the US do you have as many OES actually DOING something, breed champions especially.HOWEVER, all that said, I totally agree that the trimming & teasing makes it much harder for new people. Even learning how to brush so as to not take out all the undercoat. Hard! This is not an easy breed, and many a time I've looked longingly at the wash and wear dogs in other rings. Seriously. It's a steep learning curve. I still can't groom respectably, never mind the fact that i cannot tease to save my life. Other people in the ring with me will be "poofing" (brushing/teasing) energetically and all I can do is stand there, what ya see is what ya get, babe, can we move now? With my second girl I finished her with a group 1, beating a national specialty winner for breed (OK, so he was her uncle and he was being a butt head ). I finished my first bitch, her mother, on my own without ever learning how to tease and so on,and I did just fine showing the proverbial four-legged haystack. I finished her at a regional specialty to boot. When it started raining I started cheering quietly to myself as I figured the rain would be the great grooming equalizer and we'd all look equally pathetic in the hair department and the judge would have to judge structure. (And, trust me, she didn't win on coat quality, sad to say) All that to say that if people don't like the sculpted look THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. Simple. But you do need a decent dog. Doesn't have to be great - those are few and far between. But decent helps a lot. There are many ways to - ouch - skin a cat. That's why I get so tired of this endless poofy discussion. If ya don't like it, don't do it. How hard is that? Based on how often I hear the discussion, and I mean from American exhibitors - obviously you're not going to impact grooming on this side of the Atlantic - I just don't understand why they don't just present their dogs the way they feel they should be presented? That would change things pretty darn quickly, wouldn't it? Of course, you still need a nice dog, grooming notwithstanding. But non-poofing exhibitors unite! Stop talking about it: unpoof your dogs and create a new more "natural" trend. I don't have this breed for the hair. That was never what drew me in. I love them for their tremendous loyalty and sense of fun, for their extraordinary intelligence and creativity, for their intuitiveness and sensitivity. Get under the hair and you have the most extraorinary breed on the planet. Get hung up on the hair and...well. To me it's a waste. Kristine |
| I would say the second for showing but the first one looks good but its coat has been cut so you don't get a true idea on the look. If you take the second one without the poof look it would look like the first but with a fuller coat. |
| Well Kristine just read your post & few good points. As we are new too showing & still have a lot too learn but have a very good bitch maybe in a show sense too good for us as we are new the game but as you said its the dog that counts & not the hair. Yes I would say that people in UK do trim there dogs but if you get a good judge they will not win. If you get a OESD with good movement & a good unsculpture coat and then they look great also graceful |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|