reversed mask - Page 6

Why do you al now talk about color patterns?

I thought we were only discussing the mask, reversed mask and lacking mask and connection to pigmentation strength.  I did not mention patterns myself. 

Let me say this one more time, you call it reversed mask due to its shape, well ok no problem, but it is actually lack of mask, why? Because dark area is less than should.

Lack of mask as per standard is lack of pigmentation

so as per standart, which dog has lack of pigmentation

I am not questioning Duke's intentions or decision to breed to a reversed mask or keep a reversed mask puppy out of the litter.I am not thinking show or beauty wise.

He asked for opinion I said I don't like it, and I made it clear it is his decision based on his needs and reasons even if I wouldn't agree to those reasons, I trust he knows what is best for his breeding program. What I don't agree to is the name (reversed mask), to me it looks lack of mask or same as lack of mask. 

Lack of mask is indication of lack of pigment. If you do not see it as lack of mask please explain why. Jenni explained what is lack of mask and it applies to the subject dog as area of dark color on its myzzle is less than should, irregardless of mask pattern (shape).

Mask is the color darkness on muzzle till eyes, it does not include the fore head. Is my English clear?

The upper one

That is looking at colors shade. But for pigmentation strength you look at gums, eyes, nails and under belly/thighs and tip of nose plus tail

I don't see "mask" as having to be black.I see "mask" as a pattern of color around eyes and on muzzle, a separate gene from all I can gather.  A distinctive change in color from muzzle to top of head or wherever is a mask, regardless of color. Lacking mask would be lacking definition, lacking change of color from muzzle to top of head to cheeks, etc. I don't know if it's language or lack of understanding between pigment and color that's causing this hitch, Ibrahim. 

There is no washing out of color on Duke's sire. There is rich, golden color. The color is that way on the face because it's a mask pattern, not because it's faded from some other color it was supposed to be. Faded dogs are entirely different. Fading is a fault. Rich, vibrant, distinctive color is not. 

Jenni,

mask : is a covering of face

face means upto eyes, not including the forehead. When you look at a mask, what you see is a color that varies in shade from nose til eyes. It is usually black at nose then as you go up in most dogs it lightens up, but in some it does not. The darker the better. In some dogs as you go up the face it mingles with another color, browmish or greyish.

When you say reversed mask you are talking about a pattern that is reversed, brown on muzzle and black on forehead. But what is the result? Lack of covering on the muzzle which is = lack of mask.

In standard they say lack of mask is indication of lack of pigment.

How I understand lack of Pigmentation

1. Indicators : gums, nails, eyes etc

2. End result (usually at later age) : fading of saddle, fading of mask, fading of base hair coat and so on

I forgot, Mask should be BLACK and lesser shades of it, if it is same as base coat color (brown in black/brown) then there is no mask

Maybe if BlackThorn joins in, she can contribute to this topic, I think few years ago there was a similar topic on the forum, language fails me

Ibrahim, much respect to you as always, but on this I must agree with Jenni--a reverse mask is NOT 'lacking a mask', and it does not equate with poor pigmentation. Just look at the two dogs in duke's photos--can you really tell me that those dogs have poor pigmentation, when they display black coat coloration over the majority of their bodies, from the cap on their heads to the tips of their tails?

This is what a dog which is 'lacking a mask' looks like, my friend:

Interesting factoid: The grandsire of Rin Tin Tin II was purportedly Odin v Busecker Schloß...

Anyway, the photos of RTT II and RTT IV are dogs that are 'lacking a mask'. Most definitely NOT the same thing as the two dogs in duke's photos.

No Hexe, I wouldn't describe them as lacking pigmentation, not at all. On the contrary their saddle area plus sadlle darkness is more than fine.

I insist that what you guys call reversed mask is actually lack of mask. I can not get cross my thoughts on this, I failed.

Now if lack of mask is not an indicator of lack of pigmentation, then that is not my mistake, it is the mistake of standard itself which says so.