The breed standard does allow white on the chin but the white on face must be a narrow blaze and no white feet, just toes!! I do think Henk's bitch and some pups have too much white as far as breed standard is concerned.(The bitch's neck and a pup with white feet are incorrect) But I still like to see white chests even if it is a big splash!! The standard does not mention how much white on chin, throat or chest, only the nose, face and forehead are given a limit to the amount of white (small star on forehead and narrow blaze on nose or face)
I must concurr with Carmel. We have to respect the standard. I love white on the dogs, big white chests get covered with red coat, so that looks much smaller when they are adoult. And white on feet and toes usually dissapears by 7 or 8 months old. I don't mind a white blaze or star on the head, bit of white on the face or muzzle, but not too much. Also white at the end of the tail is OK. White on the back of the neck I find is not OK, also white feet (not only fingers) on dogs over 1 year old. But that is in the show ring, I would not necessarily dismiss such a dog from breeding. Would just be careful to try and minimise it in next generation.
I watched Henks video the first day and wanted to ask if they were a mix because the puppies coats were so light in color and so many had huge white chest, the whole chest was white. That would not do in the show ring here I'm afraid, no matter how much the rest of the dog met the standard.
I had a friend who out of two litters got bitches with huge white chest two. She tried to show one of them ,but gave up as the judges said they couldn't buy that much white. Both bitches were beautiful, just not the standard.
I don't mind if a dog has a little white (on chest, mostly) - I don't like or dislike it, I just don't mind and it's not something I would choose or not choose a dog for. But I don't like too much of it - Abott's white is the maximum of white I wouldn't mind on a setter.
Hey I really enjoyed reading your feelings & facts on red on white.
As for facts: theres a slight difference between standards AKC and UK (last old FCI-so Irish). UK: "white on chest, throat, chin or toes, or a small star on forehead, or a narrow streak or blaze on the nose or face". AKC: "a SMALL amount of white on chest, throat, or toes, or a narrow centred streak on skull" (capitals mine). Nowhere the tail - although seen lots: some white at the end....
This may explain the difference between Europeans and Americans on the amount of white they feel is ok. Still many Americans only mention white on chest, so not according to their own standard. Why is that? Your culture once had the proud Ch Palmerston exposed after death in the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York and thats where the blazes and chin (Palmerston) were named after. Is this not trendy anymore?
Carmel is right saying the standard says nothing about the amount of white for UK (and FCI), but AKC does. Nice to see both Irish rooted members are in for white (hey Frances put that blaze back!!!!) and often a blaze is not mentioned anymore by many UK-influenced members.
Intresting to read Ursula writing "as far as I can understand it, the breedstandard will not allow that amount of white". But Ursula, white is fading rapidly in pups. Most are up to the standard when entering competition. If the judge still knows its allowed and THAT is a problem.
Carmel was very right on the neck fleck of the mother. Like it - she was working under the peregrine falcon and from high in the air its good to see some white! Theres a painting of exactly the same fleck in Gilbert Leighton-Boyces Early Setters. Alas none of the pups had it, theres a few white hairs in the neck also in red setters from Irish lineage.
Both Loma and Katariina mention crossbreeding. Loma also "light colored". This is what I learned from oldtime breeders: the better color is the one with what they call "the lighter pale of hue". But trend changed they say somewhere in the fifties. Wel this litter no crossbreeding. But yes where-ever you go back in time theres crossbreeding in all lines, the English setter used for resurrection of red setters in the USA came from a long line of...partwise red and white Irish setters.
What made me laugh is reading members objecting most to more white than on the chest, own themselves Irish setters linebred umpteen times to a real shower of hail Irish setter with a possiblity of diving up again....
So next question is: what amount of white would in your eyes means "no" for breeding. And why? Plus: why do you think the Palmerston blaze and chin once praised as a "sign for nobleness" vanished in most cultures? Why not back that blazes when quite a few like it that much? What would you do when a shower of hail (small white dots all over the coat) dives up in your breeding?
I´m first answering again and thanks Henk AGAIN for clearing up a few things(thoug I knew some of the facts already)
I´m not against white in any terms, I´m even thinking of doing a crossbreeding someday with the permission of Finnish KennelClub. Yes that is possible in Finland. When our crossbred litter was born, the people among fieldtype breeders had their interest raised up because this dog we left for us, turned out to be superior with hunting instict, its way of keeping contact with the owner, and retriewing. None were taught to this dog. It was,still is, like the mind of a man. The only thing I taught him was obedience. Some oldtime breeders and fieldtrial judges where so amazed of this particular dog that they had nerver seen quite like one. And we have to say this ourselves, we probably will never have the honor of owing a dog like this male is ever.
I haven´t seen one in purebreds, yet. And I have gone trough quite a few trials, have seen winnerclass dogs and so on, you get the point.
Now someone asked why would not take a red and white setter then. Clearly all the ones in Finland are not what is said of them with hunting instincs. Those red and whites are not seen in trials or even heard of used in hunting. And this is in Finland. I know quite well that the native country(Ireland+Scotland) has an excellent stock of red and whites but it is hard to get one. And actually I´m not even interested in that breed except for the fact of propably using one excellent dog to bring new blood into the finnish fieldsetter population. But finding one excellent is hard.
Using english setters is risky, there might come up black colour, which naturally is not wanted. The idea for this kind of crossbreeding is purely to clear the bloodline.
Our fieldtype setters in Finland and Scandiavia are quite inbred.
Many years ago there was a swedish Kennelclub approved crossmating done between an english and irish setter (this was before the red/white had become as established as it is now). The breeder was very disapointed with the results. The solid red was dominant so she ended up with a litter of red irish with too much white (her words not mine). In fact I presume they probably looked like Henks litter.
As for how good they were in the field I have no idea either. Its years back, but since there has been no more mention of them, I suppose they were like all others=individuals. Some good, some not so good.
My old lady Shannon has a white star on her forehead and I just love it! As to judging or choosing dogs for breeding, I do not worry too much about white being present or not - up to a degree. Henk will tell us who it was that said 'a good dog can ot be a bad colour' and I feel construction comes first, colour second, but from first glance the dog must be an Irish Red Setter! The standard asks for rich chestnut - sandy colour as seen on some dogs in France does not fit the standard.
I am not sure what I would consider too much white, but if the dog starts to look like a red and white then it is too much! I could then just buy a red and white setter!!
The rich chestnut is also important to me! I see a lot of orange dogs and also too many dark mahogony dogs(too dark is not correct either!) I ofter hear judges commenting on lovely dark coats but we dont want to end up with chocolate setters either! The richness is lost on pale or very dark coats!
You are very right about too dark coats Carmel. Lots of browns dogs around, not red. I don't mind slightly lighter (none of my bitches was very dark), but I don't want orange either.
As for amount of white that I would consider OK for breeding - like several said it should look like a red setter, not red&white. But apart from that if the dog was what I wanted in type and character and helthy I would use him/her.
Difference in standard again: AKC: "mahogany or richt chestnut red". UK: "rich chestnut". Who's right? Carmel - Whats your definition of rich chestnut, I've got one now in my hands shows some difference.... Exactly when is it too dark and too light?