Dutch Shepherd Forum

Oh you guys! Just criticize already! lol






We're big girls, we can take it!

GSDNanny wrote:Oh and Falon, I just get chill bumps with every picture I see of Madix that shows that distinct brindling so well in the photos. My Zip is very dark and her brindle coloring is golden-red so it isnt very visible.

Really? LOL that's neat I hardly notice his brindling except in photos because usually I am paying attention to his face and ear set and they're all black

turnnburn52984 wrote:Oh you guys! Just criticize already! lol






We're big girls, we can take it!

Yeah!! It's not going to change my opinion of Monster-face! He's already neutered anyway so even if he's hideously ugly he wasn't meant as a breeding prospect!

I wish I could 'like' the last half of your post Falon!!! Koe is cut also, so I'm with ya!

while we wait for a reply of a "real" judge, here's a nice one too keep you guys busy

How about the eyes of my dogs, what do you think of them, considering the standard, is one better than the other, and if so, why?


Ivil


Dingo

Let me run to the kitchen to get some almonds, Marjolein.....
Since the eyes are supposed to be almost shaped, I assume that I can just stick an almond on the screen and where it fits best, that's the best eye shape??

vneerland wrote: Let me run to the kitchen to get some almonds, Marjolein.....
Since the eyes are supposed to be almost shaped, I assume that I can just stick an almond on the screen and where it fits best, that's the best eye shape??

LOL. That's what I was thinking....well almost I didn't consider the use of tools.

But I was thinking that Ivil's eyes draw up more in the front making the shape more asymmetrical.

I need to look up the standard again, but the other big difference that I notice is the position and direction of the eyes in the skull. Ivil's eyes are pointed much more frontally, which I assume would give her more overlap of vision in the front and therefore better depth perception, but less periphery vision. I'm not sure which is more correct though.

Go get some Almonds Juut

Christie M wrote: But I was thinking that Ivil's eyes draw up more in the front making the shape more asymmetrical.

yup, Ivil's eyes are not as well shaped as Dingo's.

Christie M wrote:I need to look up the standard again, but the other big difference that I notice is the position and direction of the eyes in the skull. Ivil's eyes are pointed much more frontally, which I assume would give her more overlap of vision in the front and therefore better depth perception, but less periphery vision. I'm not sure which is more correct though.

[/quote]

ofcourse we also have male-female here, so logically Dingo's head has a different shape, and the eyes are placed accordingly. But, Ivil's eyes are set a bit "too deep".

Than there is the color...
Dingo's eyes are lighter than Ivil's, but he has a brighter colour in general, so it fit's. Really bright eyes are not wanted, they change the look of the whole dog. Ivil has a very nice colour eyes, dark.

Christie M wrote:I need to look up the standard again, but the other big difference that I notice is the position and direction of the eyes in the skull. Ivil's eyes are pointed much more frontally, which I assume would give her more overlap of vision in the front and therefore better depth perception, but less periphery vision. I'm not sure which is more correct though.

I am trying to see that, Christie (your remark about the eye being pointed more frontally) To me, the width does appear proportionally, but I am truly trying to see what it is that you see. (as far as position) I do see the shape, of course, but fail to detect the positioning fault. Marjolein says 'deeper'? You will have to elaborate on that, Marjo.

vneerland wrote:

Christie M wrote:I need to look up the standard again, but the other big difference that I notice is the position and direction of the eyes in the skull. Ivil's eyes are pointed much more frontally, which I assume would give her more overlap of vision in the front and therefore better depth perception, but less periphery vision. I'm not sure which is more correct though.

I am trying to see that, Christie (your remark about the eye being pointed more frontally) To me, the width does appear proportionally, but I am truly trying to see what it is that you see. (as far as position) I do see the shape, of course, but fail to detect the positioning fault. Marjolein says 'deeper'? You will have to elaborate on that, Marjo.

Deeper, as in set more into the skull, further away from the nose, so to speak Does that make sense? It's hard to see on these pictures though, you would need some pics taken sideways..

Marjolein wrote:Deeper, as in set more into the skull, further away from the nose, so to speak Does that make sense? It's hard to see on these pictures though, you would need some pics taken sideways..

Wider? Eyes further apart from each other?

vneerland wrote:

Marjolein wrote:Deeper, as in set more into the skull, further away from the nose, so to speak Does that make sense? It's hard to see on these pictures though, you would need some pics taken sideways..

Wider? Eyes further apart from each other?

nope, that too but that's because Dingo's skull is bigger They are set DEEPER, don't know how to explain

Marjolein sent some invitations to Dutch breed judges and it was accepted!
Bear with us. Time for the judge to join, and then I suggest we make a new 'online show' thread for those who want to give it a try.
Maybe start digging out a good side shot (standing) a frontal shot that shows enough of the eyes and ear set, and a face close up from the side.

vneerland wrote:Marjolein sent some invitations to Dutch breed judges and it was accepted!
Bear with us. Time for the judge to join, and then I suggest we make a new 'online show' thread for those who want to give it a try.
Maybe start digging out a good side shot (standing) a frontal shot that shows enough of the eyes and ear set, and a face close up from the side.

That is downright AWESOME!!

Marjolein wrote:

vneerland wrote:

Marjolein wrote:Deeper, as in set more into the skull, further away from the nose, so to speak Does that make sense? It's hard to see on these pictures though, you would need some pics taken sideways..

Wider? Eyes further apart from each other?

nope, that too but that's because Dingo's skull is bigger They are set DEEPER, don't know how to explain

I don't know if I can explain it better, but maybe that's what I'm seeing and saying it wrong.

If you look at the outside edges of Ivil's eyes, there is an external crest of the eye socket - pushing it out from the skull. To me, that makes them look like the are also more pointed forward. But with Dingo, the entire orbit is flush with the rest of the skull, showing so delineation of bone moving into the eye.

Does that make any sense?

Christie M wrote:
nope, that too but that's because Dingo's skull is bigger They are set DEEPER, don't know how to explain

I don't know if I can explain it better, but maybe that's what I'm seeing and saying it wrong.

If you look at the outside edges of Ivil's eyes, there is an external crest of the eye socket - pushing it out from the skull. To me, that makes them look like the are also more pointed forward. But with Dingo, the entire orbit is flush with the rest of the skull, showing so delineation of bone moving into the eye.

Does that make any sense?[/quote]

to me it does :dswink"

This is great--I'll need to talk Judith into helping me get some pictures of my two girls--my old camera is not working and the cheap little replacement I have is a disgrace. Both of my dogs are athletic and smart but far from the standard if you were to critique for conformation. At the same time, I like both girls a lot--very different in type. One heavy and chunky, the other almost looks like a lurcher. The racy one can outrun sighthounds on a lure coursing field. Unfortunately that is not part of her job description as a Dutch Shepherd . I find that the standard is loose enough to be open to some interpretation though--which is actually a good thing for the health of a breed. When I have shown my fat girl and a very nice dog of Judith's together, the fat one actually went over the good one a few times. It can all be a matter of taste sometimes. And the fact that judges in the USA have no experience with a DS. They often try to compare them to a GSD. Personally I am more into movement and soundness than anything else in the conformation ring, but I can't ignore dashing good looks!

Ellisa

here is a front shot of Gwen... when she was younger my husband said she looked like a fruit bat...

My Thor has a classic Roman nose. Bet that isn't in any standards!

Kristie...that shot of Gwen "sitting pretty" looks as if it were taken of Thor in my house. Marble and wrought iron coffee table, champagne-colored carpet (which is always wonderful during a loose bowel day when you're at work) and that intent, eager expression of the fruit bat.

You may have had a fruit bat in Gwen, but when Thor's previous owner sent my his baby photos...he was nothing short of an African wild dog (markings, coloring, ears and all). His markings aren't as pronounced now....

I have some very cute "baby" shots of Gwen from her first owner. I also get the distinct impression that my every move is being watched and scrutinized. The word RAPTOR pops into my head. (as in the Jurasic Park- we are so smart and we eat people for snacks type raptor) Gwen has a slight GSD bump on her nose and I would get a better picture if I could get her to freeze for longer than one second. As for your reference to the "nice champagne carpet" I agree, just #$%$#^ wonderful :dswink" for those "I ate a whole lot of something in the field I shouldn't have days."