The above image is of “Sambo,” an early curly-coated retriever that belonged to Henry Coleman Folkard,
This image appears in Folkard’s The Wild-Fowler: A Treatise on Ancient and Modern Wild-Fowling, Historical and Practical (1864).
For those of you unfamiliar with the term “wild-fowling” is an English term for what Americans call “duck hunting.”
Folkard claimed that the curly-coated retriever was much more suited for retrieving shot ducks than the large Newfoundland, which was too large for the duck blind and had a tendency to collect too much dirt and mud.
The curly-coated retriever was just a cross between some kind of Newfoundland, especially the St. John’s type, and some sort of water spaniel.
There were plenty of curlies of this sort throughout the British Isles, but it eventually became a rather clearly defined breed really early on.
“Sambo” is a politically incorrect name for people of mixed African ancestry. Because this retriever was black and white- and was more black than white– the name would have made sense.
But it’s out of this variable roughly bred retriever stock that all our refined breeds of retriever breeds were developed.
Including Chessies? I thought they were bred earlier from Newfoundland stock.
They were derived from St. John’s water dogs, but they didn’t get considered a breed until about the 1860’s. Even into the twentieth century, they were called Newfoundlands from Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Bay dogs, Chesapeake duck dogs. The curly was a breed as soon as there were dog shows.
And the breed as we know it today is pretty recent. There were actually at least three strains of retriever from Chesapeake Bay. Only one type wound up surviving into the twentieth century. One type of Chesapeake that was common for a while was the red Winchester retriever, which was feathered out like a golden retriever and was usually red in color. It got absorbed into the other Chesapeakes.
America has had only one retriever derived from St. John’s water dog types, and it was a waterfowl only dog. But we could have done what the Brits did and kept them in three or four different breeds all arbitrarily defined. We were also unique in that we selected for dogs that were camouflaged rather than black. Virtually all retrievers in England were black dogs. That was the fashion.
But I wouldn’t say that Chesapeakes are an older breed. They were sort of what remains from the initial retrievers of the St. John’s type that were found in Maryland.
And the Marylanders crossed their dogs with everything. I have an account of retriever that was a mix of St. John’s water dog and Irish water spaniel that was sent to America because the author, who was British, wanted to find a brown retriever to send to “America” where they use brown rather than black retrievers. The only part of America that used any retrievers of this type was in Maryland. Americans preferred to use retrieving setters or water spaniels instead of retrievers, except around Chesapeake Bay.
The dog pictured looks more like the depictions of English Water Spaniels circa 1900 than it does to modern Curlies, which have been much refined since that era. There are photos of named English Water Spaniels in Leighton’s “Book of the Dog”, c 1906, if I remember correctly.
“Retrievers” were not listed separately until after 1903 when Labradors gained recognition; Goldens around 1911. (before then, Goldens were shown in classes for flat- or wavy-coated retrievers “of any other color”) And all were considered “varieties” of retriever by the Kennel Club until around 1949. Hence the presence of Interbred Retrievers in the KC registrations (and pedigrees).
I must note you that I have an original engravning, made by the famous A. Cooper, published in London 1846.
There, the dog (bitch?) is named “Ready”, and it’s oweer being marked Sir James Flower Bart.
It does look like a Springer Spaniel, with its dots on the nose and legs, but the shorter coat indicates a cross.
My engravning doesn’t say any breed at all.
Can you name the book, publishing date and publisher so we can check the source for ourselves? There is only so much we can go on with an author’s name.
Retrieverman, your source of the “Sambo” is secondary, and not to be trusted. The original picture was publisher already in 1846.
People have always used old pictures to be added in and decorate articles and other texts they want to publish, and media criticism is needed when going thru historical prints or paintings.
The dog in the picture is not “Sambo”, I can tell.
Wrong. It’s a primary source.
And if you read it carefully, it clearly is Sambo, as is indicated by the caption under the picture.
There is also another depiction of Sambo in the book where he grabs a duck by the feathers and it flies off.
Please read the text before making claims that I’m wrong.
I don’t know what your point is, but it’s just trolling to be a troll.
Please refrain from doing so.
Discussion is over.
Seems odd to me for a book about waterfowling to mislabel the breed of dog AND get the name wrong too. Especially since the author of the book says the dog is his.
Let us assume both Scottie and Bridget are right. They are both primary sources. However, what Bridget is claiming is that the author committed fraud by stealing the original engraving from 1846. However, she should provide citation to the source so people can double-check.
Instead of saying “you are wrong, I am right”, someone should come up with a third source written by another person which confirm either the first or second source to be truth and not as fraud.
Actually, both sources would be considered as primary since they are written from the observation of the writers. However, frauds do happen from time to time in history. What is needed is another source which either confirm one of the testimony to be true.
All you have to do is go through this book. There is another depiction of Sambo. It’s the same dog, and he lists it as a curly-coated retriever in the first depiction. My guess is this text can’t be read in Finland, but if you read it here, it’s pretty obvious that it’s the primary source. This is a classic treatise on duck-hunting in the British Isles. The image is by A. Cooper, RA. so it is possible that it was used in another source. But it has Sambo in the caption, so it would be bizarre for this to be anything else. If you read the text, it’s very clear.
Unless Bridget name the source, the dispute won’t be settled.
Back in that era, it was not uncommon for engravers to copy the work of a painter, to use as illustration in a book (Edwin Landseer’s brother Thomas engraved quite a few of Edwin’s paintings), or to use as reproductions for framing. I have seen depictions of Reinagle’s cream-colored setter in several variations., and numerous others as well. Remember that back in those days, the situation regarding copyright was quite different. And often artists gave permission for others to duplicate their work for various purposes; it was added income.
Bridget says hers in an original engraving. In the (original) book the illustration is also an engraving,(no photogravure back then!) same subject, probably different size. I’m guessing that the caption under her engraving says “Ready” — which could be a dog’s name, or it could refer to the dog being “ready to work”. Also possible that the same dog changed ownership, and the name was changed at the same time. That was quite common back then.
Is it a “curly-coated retriever”? Well it obviously is a dog that retrieves, and it does have a curly coat. So, in the broader sense, yes. Is it a dog of the lineage we today call a Curly-Coated Retriever? No way to know.
The Chesapeake was first recognised as a breed by the AKC in 1884. They were the first recognised retriever breed by the AKC predating labs, goldies, flats and curlies.
AKC is not the first breed registry. The KC (of Great Britain) recognized wavy (flat-coated) and curly-coated retrievers from the beginning, and those pedigrees exist in their system from 1859.
One of the problems with the early registrations with the Kennel Club (UK) was that up until the early 20th century, retrievers were so often not designated as to coat type or color. Golden historians, for instance, have had to search through lists and try to pick out the relevant individuals based on other factors ( owner, parentage — if known!– and pedigree connections). One might guess that “Smut” and “Sweep” were black dogs, and “Primrose” and “Sunlight” were yellows. ..but there are probably a dozen “Sailors”!