long hairs - Page 2

Thank you. I wrote to them asking for clarification. I have repeatedly heard and read that they were not banned until the 80's or 90's, so I am really perplexed. Maybe the LC could not be exhibited as of 1915, but were not truly banned until the 80'sor 90's. I have actually written to some other organizations requesting facts about the LC as well, so maybe we can get to the bottom of this! I'll let you know.
Thanks again,
Char

Yes it would help a great deal. Well actually in the KC standard it doesn't say anything about longer hair being banned it just says what ever coat length they have they must have a correct undercoat. But in 1915 the long hair was removed from the FCI standard and a few other canine bodies aswell.

thanks for your help

Patamoke

Is there something different in the GSD longcoat that makes it a bad trait for a working class dog where as for some of the other breeds it isn't?  I can't imagine an Alaskan Malamute for instance, with a short coat.  I don't know my breeds all that well. Do most working breeds have short coats?

Freda- There are 3 coat types they are: Stock Hair (Short with an undercoat), Long Hair (Long coat but with hardly no undercoat) and Long Stockhair (Long coat with a correct undercoat). Most Long Coated GSD's are Long Hair and hardly possess no undercoat which makes them incorrect to the breed standard but as from 2010 the Long Stockhairs are allowed to be shown at the same shows are Stockhairs.

Hope this helps

Patamoke

   longhair with no undercoat prevents the hund from drying quickly.. when soaked..which is a problem with herding dogs ..war dogs..etc..working dogs .......not for show dogs or pets...it also can hide structural faults... they do look good ..it makes them appear much larger and bigger boned....

Ah, that makes sense to me, then.  I can understand the need for an undercoat, which probably other working breeds with long fur have as part of their standard.

There are two coat types, period. Stock coat and long stock coat. That's it!  All this "long hair" "plush", etc., is nonsense terminology. Yes a long stock coated dog can be lacking undercoat, some may not realize that in stock coats you see a "mole coat" a very very short top coat with very little undercoat. This is an incorrect coat also.

The SV, to my knowledge is awaiting the FCI to change the standard to reinstate long coats (with undercoat) and I have read they will have their own classes in 2010. Correct me if I am mistaken.

At this time, long stock coats are still a fault. When the SV reinstates them, they will have their own classes. I assume it will continue to be a fault in other countries (the US for example) until that parent club reinstates them as well. I wonder how that will work when registries such as the AKC fall under the FCI...

While I support the reinstatement of coats, I would not deliberately breed them until a KKL system is in place for them in the US. It is my personal choice to adhere to SV standards.

I have trained many coated dogs and have seen no predisposition whatsoever for them to carry other faults, indeed, I have seen some very correct coated dogs with exceptional working abilit, so I don't know where that idea comes from.

I beg to differ on the " Plush, etc. is nonsense terminology"

I have a stock coat dog, a plush coat dog and a long plush coat dog.  
My plush coat dog is not longhair but her undercoat is considerably thicker than any stock coat I've ever had or seen.  
My longcoat dog also has an incredibly thick undercoat. 
I have seen long stock coats with normal amount of undercoat and I've seen "longhair" dogs with very little undercoat-I have a friend who owns a longhair whose coat does a perfect split down the middle of the back. 
I've also seen "mole" or "sand" coat GSDs...dogs who have VERY short hair and very little to no undercoat at all.