black shepherds that have tan on the toes. - Page 1

was just wondering if a lot black shepherds have tan between the toes and silver under the coat.? is this normal? any info would be great. my black shepherd has theses markings. she is very black. can hardly see the tan.

What you have is a very dark bicolor. A genetically black shepherd will have no lighter undercoat.

What about a solid black dog with no light undercoat but some tan between the toes? Is this a solid black dog or a bicolor?

Christopher yep thats still a bi colour! Some can have a lot of tan others only very little.

Never seen one of those. I would guess bicolor, but it's hard to say if there is no undercoat. Usually the undercoat is the giveaway- my little black female hasn't got a single non-black hair on her so far as I can tell. Did you raise the dog from birth? If so, did it have more tan markings early on? Usually a genetically bicolor dog, even if it looks black at birth, will have some tan markings around the anus and paws. For an adult dog, I guess the easiest way to tell would be to breed it to a definitely genetically black dog. If the dog was genetically black with just a few stray marks, then all the pups should be solid black. If the dog was genetically bicolor, then some of the pups would also be recognizably bicolor.

I got the dog when she was 9 weeks old no tan hair then. She is all black and has only a few tan hairs between her front toes.

I disagree - many black dogs, in fact most - will develop tan or grey between toes, and sometimes up the backs of their legs. They are still considered black, not bicolor. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a "solid black" and a bicolor, when the black has "fading" like that on the legs. But you can tell the difference - bicolors will always have tan on the vent (area under the tail) and usually markings, however "muddied" on the chest, face, inside the ears, and on the legs/feet. Blacks will not have any tan/lighter hairs on any of these areas, except sometimes on the feet/legs as they age. You can see examples of this if you visit my website, look at the "other" stud dog page - check out Xito v Maineiche, he is a black dog with red on his legs. He is not bicolor. Also Sid v Fasanerie - black dog with brown on his legs. These are still considered black dogs, not bicolor - they carry black/black color genes, no black/tan which bicolors must carry. If they are bred to another black, they will not produce bicolors, if they are bred to any dog not carrying black/tan gene, there will be no black/tans or bicolors - because they are not bicolor. molly

As MJ Memphis says,it is a bi-color dog,not a solid black one.It doesn¿t matter whether the marks are very,very small or big,it is still bi-color.

I have 3 all black dogs...1st male is from 2 sable parents, has some gray between toes and just starting on legs; 2nd male from black sire has always had a few tan hairs between toes and recently got some tan hair on legs, and female from Pike Schafbachmuhle is a "lacquer" and does not show any white hairs except where there was an injury/cut - none have tan face markings, chest markings or vent markings - all are black and registered black.

I would have to agree with Molly and Kougar. My female also has some tan only between her toes (few hairs). She is out of two solid black parents and I dont consider a bicolor.