Article written/researched by Vivienne Peterson BA - First published July 2007 - Copyright Protected
Mrs Wearing’s Mismarked Pomeranians and how this affected the Breed Standard
The photograph of Mrs Wearing shows her proudly posing with her three Poms, two of which are black with white markings. Both Poms were perfectly acceptable for the original 1892 Breed Standard. I believe one of the two was Herr Hans who is recorded as being born ‘about 1892’ of unknown parentage and his breeder was also unknown. Described as having a sable tail, with white chest. He was 2 nd at the Toy Dog Show in 1893.
The earliest mismark I know of is Gluck of Rozelle bred by Miss Hamilton the first President of the The Pomeranian Club and usually known for her white Poms. Gluck born in 1891 was black, white spot on chest, white tips to three feet. Poor Miss Hamilton she had used the most popular stud of the time Ch Black Boy with her prized white Garda-Booh-Wooh who had gained a first at Crufts earlier that year and instead of the anticipated parti- pom a mismark was born. It seems there was originally a prevailing thought that this colour liaison may produce parti’s but that often was not the case. Gluck disappears out of history after receiving an equal 2 nd place at Birmingham in 1892.
An important mismark was Laurel Fluffie as she was the dam of the famous Ch The Sable Mite born in 1902. Mrs Parker describes her as black marked with white producing good wolf sable pups but her black pups were mismarked with white. However nobody could underestimate her role in breed history due to the impact of her son Sable Mite.It is just as well that Mr Hirst had faith in his Laurel Fluffie!
In 1898 The Pomeranian Club revised the Breed Standard (of 1892) to clarify the difference between a mismark and a parti-colour. The sentence ‘a few white hairs in any self-colours shall not disqualify, but should be discouraged ‘was strengthened to ’a few white hairs in any self-coloured dog shall not absolutely disqualify, but should carry great weight against a dog.’ The definition of a parti-coloured dog was added ‘in parti-coloured dogs, the colours should be evenly distributed on the body’. Leaving no stone unturned (until the next clarification) this was added ‘whole coloured dogs with a white foot or feet, leg or legs, are decidedly objectionable and should be discouraged, and cannot compete as whole coloured specimens’. In the 1892 and 1898 Standard admissible colours and black and tan were expected to be free from white. Preference was also to be given to whole coloured specimens.
In 1901 there was another revision – the list of admissible colours was amended. Grey, shaded sable (including red, orange, or fawn) now appeared and black and tan was removed. Obviously there had been continuing confusion about what was a parti-colour and what was a mismark as the definition of a parti-colour was extended to include ‘ a dog with a white foot or a white chest would not be a parti-coloured.’
The removal of black and tan from the list of admissible colours did not mean it was discouraged (at this point) as the standard concerning nose pigment was unchanged ‘In black, black and tan, or white dogs the nose should be black etc’. It is possible they had come to think of it as a pattern, like the parti-colour, and this is why no base colour was mentioned for the parti- coloured dogs. Unlike the FCI, to this day the standard does not stipulate a white background colour (although it is currently felt that the background colour must be white). In Miss Ives book, revised by Miss Wilson (1929) black and tan is accounted for in the section on parti-colours.
By 1906 the Standard was tweaked again, with no further revision to the mismark clauses.
In 1906 Mr Hicks wrote that if mismarked dogs were entered in a parti colour class they should immediately be disqualified and so should a white dog with just a streak or two of dark markings. His opinion was that ‘dogs with false markings make very good pets and should be sold by breeders for this purpose’.
December 1909’s revision added the colour ‘tan’ to the mismark clauses – ‘ dogs other than white with white or tan markings, are decidedly objectionable and should be discouraged’ and also ‘ dogs with white or tan feet or chest would not be parti-coloured dog’. The nose requirement for black and tan was removed so it is reasonable to assume black and tan was now considered objectionable. The clause ‘decidedly objectionable and should be discouraged’ was later modified to just ‘…white or tan markings highly undesirable’. In the absence of any explanation for the stance on black and tan the fact this ‘colour’ was included in the mismark clause may indicate a problem with irregular markings or mismarks. Although the exact requirements of black and tan were never defined, it is the opinion of some top breeders that a good black and tan should have full ‘terrier’ markings including pencil lines & thumb marks. A debatable issue in the new clause concerns a white dog with tan markings as the rule applied to dogs ‘other than white’.
left - photo of a black and tan illustrating the correct pencil markings on the paws
It would appear that the original sentiment of this regulation was aimed at the permissible whole coloured Poms with a white chest and/or one or more white feet and the need to clarify just what constituted a parti-colour.
Another clause added in 1898 (perhaps due to inconsistency in parti-coloured Poms and the problem of mismarks) that continues to this day is the following:
“ In mixed classes, where whole coloured and parti-coloured Pomeranians compete together, the preference should, if in all other points they are equal, be given to the whole coloured specimens’.
Albert Wight a highly respected UK judge recently wondered if it is ‘politically correct’ to have such a statement in a standard - quote Dog World July 13 '09