# Coat length variations, what is the deal?



## DogBuddy (May 2, 2008)

I have been doing some research on my next puppy and have found several breeders that routinely talk about discounts for coated (long coat) and talking about the coat length of puppies. This has led me to believe that at least some breeders are not very sure what is going to come out for coat lengths.

My question is this...It seems like breeders are fairly confident on size, color and temperament why isn't coat length just as easily predicted?

I am a former Rottie owner and currently own a APBT and an Amstaff so all coats are pretty much the same.

In any given litter how much variance is their?

Also a side question....How much difference is their between "Stock" coat and "Close Stock"?

Thanks for any info you have!


----------



## TRITON (May 10, 2005)

To produce a longcoat, both parents have to carry the recessive for it. Usually a coated puppy is easy to tell...I knew with my last litter before 3 weeks. Some dogs have a "show" coat, that really full but within the standard that you see often in the german showlines. Actually it can be seen in the workinglines also, the male I bred to in my last litter has a coat like that. 
Now after Jan 1st supposedly the SV in Germany is going to recognize long coats again in their breed books. The coats will be shown in the breed ring in their own classes and can attain show ratings and Koer Klass again. So, they may not be discounted anymore. I don't think it's that difficult to tell the differences in pups. 
Stock coat to me is a normal coat...a close coat is a really short, tight coat...sometimes people would refer to this as a mole coat.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

i have a German import show dog. a coatie was in his litter. the breeder offered the coatie to me for $600.00 less than what i paid for my dog.


----------



## DogBuddy (May 2, 2008)

Great info. Are close coats rare, is it bred for or a mistake like long coats?


----------



## Kayla's Dad (Jul 2, 2007)

Dogbuddy, longcoats are not a mistake. It is another GSD type presented to us by Mother Nature - just one that is not recognized (yet) in breed rings. And IMO that is their loss (same with the White GSD BTW) and the reason many breeders put huge discounts on them. But some of the best looking GSD's I've seen are long coats-again my opinion.


----------



## DogBuddy (May 2, 2008)

sorry..poor choice of words on my part. I should have said "unplanned out come"


----------



## Maraccz (Sep 3, 2005)

From all I have learned (I own a coatie) it is a recessive gene so both parents must carry it and "throw" it. Remember basic gene diagrams from middle school science. They are other wise the same. In my case It was lucky for me. He was sold until it became obvious he was coated and so was available when I contacted his breeder. Yea me. He is a super dog with a great temperment and good drive.
Very few breeders are SURE unless they know both dogs are not carriers of the long gene. 
Just FYI Rotties also carry long coats







interesting dogs to see too.


----------



## DogBuddy (May 2, 2008)

Wow...never saw one (goes off to google)


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Everett54Dogbuddy, longcoats are not a mistake. It is another GSD type presented to us by Mother Nature - just one that is not recognized (yet) in breed rings. And IMO that is their loss (same with the White GSD BTW) and the reason many breeders put huge discounts on them. But some of the best looking GSD's I've seen are long coats-again my opinion.


Considering the *working* heritage of the GSD breed, there are very valid reasons for considering some coat types faulty.

The standard stock coat is the most maintenance free and weather resistent. This is why it is the preferred coat type and the only type allowed under the standard.

A very short stock coat, with little to no undercoat, called a "close coat" or "mole coat" is faulty because the lack of undercoat provides less insulation against heat and cold and less water resistance. Things that are important to a dog working outside in all sorts of weather.

The true long coat (without an undercoat) has the same problem. Lack of water resistence and insulation. Plus, the long outer coat is more prone to matting, picking up burrs, etc... if the dog is out running around in fields or woods all day. 

The long stock coat (long coat with an undercoat) used to be accepted under the standard, and in 2009 it will be accepted again, though was still never considered desireable, only permissable. The presence of undercoat ensures proper insulation and water reistence, but that longer outer coat still means more chance of matting, burrs, etc... compared to a standard stock coat. So while a dog with a long stock coat working outside in all sorts of weather wouldn't be as handicapped as a mole coat or long coat, it is still not as low maintenance as a standard stock coat.

The bias against coats is not some elitest nitpicky attitude. It is respect for the breed standard. And the coat requirements of the breed standard are not there for some arbitrary reason or because someone just didn't like them. They are there for a very GOOD reason when we consider the origin, heritage and purpose of this breed. The fact that 99% of GSDs are now pets and no longer all weather working dogs is not a valid reason to throw out the standard because the standard is what defines the breed and makes a GSD a GSD.


----------



## DogBuddy (May 2, 2008)

Very well said


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Chris, where was the 'respect for the standard' when the long stock coat & white GSDs were arbitrarily disqualified after being permitted, though faulted, for many, many years? How did the standard stay true to its origens when the founder once stated something to the effect that there's no such thing as a Good Dog of a 'bad color'?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Well see, that's the thing about breeds and standards. When you create the blueprint, or are the official keeper of the blueprint, you get to say what is and isn't allowed. Doesn't matter what other people think or if they agree with you or not. 

At least the biases in terms of appearance in GSDs serve a utilitarian purpose. Unlike many other breeds, the GSD standard is rather void of requirements that are completely arbitrary or just based on ideals of physical attractiveness. Everything from size to coat type to ears being erect to favoring certain colors and faulting whites and dilutes is geared toward maximizing the dogs ability to do their jobs, and nothing else. 

If you read the founder's book, you'll also find he didn't like "pale" colors at all. As for "no good dog is a bad color" this not only came with stipulations, but also must be taken in the context of which it was stated..... that when selecting dogs to create a breed or bring about significant changes, one must look for the specific traits needed and ignore other, less significant ones, for the time being and worry about fixing those little things later when the main issues are addressed. But fast forward a few generations, the breed is already created, and now you're refining things and selecting the best representatives to carry on the breed.... Totally different situation and you not only get to be a lot more picky, you *should* be a lot more picky.

This is a big part of why later changes were made as well. Long stock coats and whites were never "arbitrarily" disqualified. It's not like someone woke up one day and said "hey, I don't like whites or coats, let's get rid of them." They had never been desirable, merely tolerated for a while (long stock coats much longer than whites). But when the gene pool gets to the point where those things that were previously just faulted could be eliminated without the overall gene pool suffering for it, if those dogs bring nothing to the table that is needed that can't be found in plenty of non-faulty specimens, it's time to consider eliminating those faults from the breeding stock as well. If things swing the other way in the future, being willing to loosen things up again in order to infuse new blood and traits into the gene pool may be beneficial for the breed as a whole. A somewhat flexible standard isn't a bad thing. It's something a LOT of breeds could benefit from. Provided those decisions are made for valid reasons that focus on the good of the breed and it's ability to serve it's intended purpose.


----------

