This dog is listed as Noranby Curfew in 1926. The woman featured with him is Winifred Charlesworth. i.e., the person I credit most with establishing the golden retriever as a distinct breed.
This dog is very typical of the type she liked to produce: fairly dark and fairly moderate. Many of the earlier dogs were much more similar to the old heavy wavy-coated retriever type, but she and others worked to modify the dog so that it could be more useful. The dogs never became as fully racy as the flat-coated retriever eventually became, but they did move more towards moderation.
One of the early complaints about goldens is they were slow movers– no doubt the result of many of them having this heavier conformation. I doubt that many of the Guisachan or Melbury dogs were trialled much, so they retained the “1860’s model” type for the wavy-coated retriever. Trialling dogs almost always changes their type, which is why the wavy/flat-coated retriever evolved from a 70-80-pound St. John’s water dog-type in the 1860’s to 50-68-pound dog that was common by the 1890’s.
This dog also has a white “medallion” on the chest, a trait that still pops up int he breed today.
This dog looks very much like a modern working-type golden retriever. That keen expression, intelligent expression is very much typical of the breed.
The standard for the Golden Retriever is 55-65 lbs for females and 65-75 lbs for males. You should check out the weights on some of the fastest moving field Goldens. There are a number of males in the top of their weight class.
My 74 lb male can out run all of the dogs that hang out at our field which includes a flatcoat. He simply flies out there to retrieve. Never expected him to be the biggest male from the litter but there is nothing slow about this boy in any way.
I am one of these people who thinks most golden retrievers are too large. I agree with Rawdon Lee’s assessment of the retrievers– the 80 pound dogs were for bragging about how big a hare the dog could carry but the smaller sized dogs had more staying power.
And that’s the issue. Larger dogs, like all larger mammals, have a harder time getting rid of heat, which is a real problem if a dog is running hard on land and the temperature is above 65 degrees. Smaller dogs have more endurance. And for some reason, they also have more agility– probably because their limbs wind up being better proportioned. Large dogs with longer limbs are associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma.
A dog retrieving from water might benefit from being larger, but then no one really makes the dogs stay in the water for hour after hour.
Virtually all working-type goldens that are in competitive lines are much smaller than 75 pounds. 65-70 pounds is a good size for a dog, but bitches are frequently 50-55 pounds. Those are the ones in the strictly performance lines are typically a bit smaller than the conformation dogs.
Google through the different Holway dogs in google images– and the Tobrass dogs. They tend to be closer to the 50-68 pound range, rather than the 65-75 pound range.
I prefer a smaller dog not only because they are generally more agile, and tolerate heat better, but they also seem to get less injuries.
The Saluki standard has a wide height range, 23-28″, because of the different terrain and conditions the dogs are run under. Afghans are much more restrictive, bitches 24-26″, dogs 26-28″, but it’s quite obvious that no one is taking a wicket in the ring. My favorite Afghans and Salukis in regards to function are all on the smaller side. If we had wide open country here I might change my mind on that.
You cannot judge the weight by the image. You are making bold assumptions.
You can judge proportions.
And when it comes to heat retention in dogs, there are two well established scientific principles (not vain assumptions, as you are implying– I don’t do vain assumptions):
1. Bergmann’s rule- Larger warm-blooded animals are found in colder climates; smaller ones in warmer climates. Big dogs can’t lose heat as well as smaller ones. A smaller dog will have more endurance– provided it actually has normal proportions and muscle-mass, which is why toy dogs aren’t usually athletes– because it can get rid of heat more efficiently.
2. Allen’s rule– Shorter-limbed warmblooded animals are found in colder climates, whereas those in warmer climates tend to have longer limbs. The corollary that applies to proper working conformation in dogs is that you want a dog with some legs if it’s going to run in relatively warm climates.
The corollaries of both rules apply across all working dogs, which is why you don’t see too many malamutes doing sled dog races or too many Neapolitan mastiffs working as police dogs. Virtually all working type gun dogs that have this split have the working type being slightly or significantly smaller than the show type.
And that’s why the flat-coated retriever developed as it did. Its 1860’s wavy-coated retriever model was a big, heavily built dog, which may have had advantages in the cold Newfoundland water and climate. But in England, where the temperature was warmer (it does actually get hot in England in the summer) this type was deemed inefficient. The dogs that became goldens were worked mostly in Scotland, which is a cold place– and it never was widely trialled in the early days. It retained the efficient size and build, which because it was the type found at Guisachan, is the type that got promoted as the true conformation type. Mrs. Charlesworth and others in the breed tried to make it competitive with contemporary flat-coats, which is why the conformation changed. One of her dogs, Noranby Tweedlum, although not a very heavily built dog at all, was not bred from because she thought he was too close to the old inefficient type.
Size matters. A big size is a disadvantage– to a point, of course.
My answer to you is when was the last time you saw a Newfoundland working as a retriever? They were used as retrievers in the past, and they often have retrieving instinct. They are smart and biddable, but compared to the retriever they are much slower on both the land and the water. They retain heat very easily, which might be useful in a dog that has to swim a couple of miles at once, but no retriever has to do that.
The only Newfoundlands that I have know were much greater than 75 lbs!
AKC – Newfoundland
” Approximate weight of adult dogs ranges from 130 to 150 pounds, adult bitches from 100 to 120 pounds”
I don’t see the correlation.
The correlation is that Newfoundlands were retrievers when they were 80-120 pounds on average, but when they became giants, they lost their function. They still can do water rescue and hauling from the water, but they can’t work as retrievers as well as the smaller retrievers.
BTW, the size on these working retrievers has largely remained unchanged since Rawdon Lee wrote about them in the 1890’s: http://books.google.com/books?id=Tb4CAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA187&ots=tFfdG16i-L&dq=retriever%20rawdon%20lee&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false (Start at the bottom of the page).
As soon as the dogs were trialled, the slight advantage of having a smaller sized dog became apparent.
I would hardly say that a Golden male 65-75 lbs is a giant. That is the breed standard.
So? In every breed I’ve looked at in which there is a split in the show and working forms, the working form is almost always smaller than the conformation form.
My male Golden wasn’t bred to be a 74 lb Golden, he was an out-cross from 2 complimentary Goldens and his COI was less than 2%. There was variety in his litter and some hybrid vigor. There have been no complaints about his litter mates and they all report back to be smart, natural retrievers, with great temperaments. I am interested in doing field work with My boy who is 74lbs. and I could not ask for any better in terms of speed, endurance, personality, “biddability”, and he is a very handsome darker Golden with a coat that shines and has a real wave (and great butt curls too) I am very happy with him and the fact that you would classify him as a giant doesn’t change his great abilities. In my neck of the woods a large Golden is 90-115 lbs. that would be too much for me and I think is really out of standard to the extreme. I am not large and I always opted for a smaller dog but fate has shown me this handsome retriever who is truly awesome and I am proud to have him on board.
But that doesn’t change the science between body size and heat issues.
And that’s something I wish would be considered more in selective breeding programs.
I’m sure you’ve seen Labs that are way too big to be of any use– pretty much smooth-haired Newfoundlands. The majority of Labradors in the US are at least 85 or 90 pounds. It goldens go that way, it won’t be an advantage.
http://books.google.com/books?id=D3YKOSc_JzEC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=sled+dogs+heat+size+coppinger&source=bl&ots=Qh6r2mwCqG&sig=O0tRLUBDs3niFAbdsi2z41xSj3A&hl=en&ei=ZGTaTZeBNNP3gAfU4LxY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Discussion of heat, size, and dog performance. One of the good parts of this book.
You aren’t going to change the success that I will have. There are plenty of field dogs ranging 70-80 lbs.
They are successful in spite of their large size.
The science is clear.
There is no mention about the weight – just size – in the UK breed standard.
Rather curious to know how come the weights seem to be that important in the US.
I have no idea.
Americans are also obsessed with breeding dogs that are much larger than they need to be. It doesn’t matter the breed. They always want a 100 pound Lab. Never mind that such a dog is going to have real issues getting rid of heat– and it’s hot for a dog when it’s about 65 degrees outside.
A range of weights was in the UK standard until the last major revision, circa 1986. The weights had been substantially increased since the earliest written standard– then were omitted. Probably because the “show dogs” were becoming increasingly more substantial/heavier. In the UK, the Kennel Club “owns” the standards, not the Parent Club as in the USA.
Weight is mentioned in the AKC/GRCA standard primarily in order to give the reader an idea of the desired range of substance or “mass” of dogs within the breed. After all, a 20″ inch Clumber and a 20″ Whippet may be the same height, but….
I got these two from a French book– which also called Noranby Jeptha ” Noranby Septia”
Methinks the French needed a better proofreader….