With all the discussion about standards, sizes etc, and although I do have an understanding of what I am looking at...
Could someone explain exactly what coarseness is?
Is it just balance? Or is it more than that?

Cheers

Its another subjective topic. what is coarseness to me will be different to others and thats fine and only natural. and is positive for a good debate and I for one never think I am right far from it I still have sooo much to learn.

I think its much to do with head and expression and a very light eye on a dark coated hound can make it look coarse. oddly it does not look as coarse with a silver grey coated hound along with a " hard head" eyes wider apart, lack of occiput etc and possibly snipey in the muzzle.

Also some people prefer a very elegant hound with not as much substance as say a stronger built hound and may call this stronger built hound coarse, both types have there place because if you have a very elegant bitch maybe lacking in some spring of rib, back end etc, by putting her to a more substantial hound and viza ve more( "coarse to some hound") hopefully may produce some puppies with both qualities and ping bang whallop you may have a star in the making.

Hope this makes some sense

B

If you have to stop and ask yourself 'Is that a Deerhound or a Wolfhound?' then the chances are that if it's a Deerhound, it's coarse (and conversely, if it's a Wolfhound, it's weedy.) If I remember right, it was Andrew Brace (one of the UK's all-rounder judges, for non-show people) who defined quality as the difference between earthenware and finest porcelain. Big dogs can have just as much quality about them as smaller dogs, make no mistake.

I like the comparison to earthenware and porcelaine - you could also think of more stocky/straighter backed track Greyhounds compared to superelegant show Greys . One breeder here sais a Deerhound should be made up of " gentle curves flowing into each other "( amongst other things of course ) - the lack of those ( or even only the flow ) result in coarseness , too - really does not necessarily have to do with seize .

Thanks for the replies. I can see how it can be subjective but I am interested to hear all views.
To me it is a term that is bandied around (I have used it myself ) but hard to quantify or explain easily.

I find the word / meaning of " type " equally difficult and yet , I know whom I find " typie " or not so much ....

Coarse is a term I've most heard by deerhound owners when they're pointing out the competition in the show ring!! And as such I've never been certain what the term truly means. Thanks Ardneish, your answer makes sense.

Now would anyone care to explain the term type/typiness because like Verena I hear it used yet I'm never sure what the heck they're referring to. As far as I can tell it's something you really really want in your deerhound.

Could be barking up the wrong dog but "type" to my mind has more than one meaning.
1.Dogs from certain Kennels have an instantly recognizable look.This may or may not be down to "line-breeding". This is known as a kennels "type".
2. Before Kennel Club introduced "breeds and breed standards" dogs were interbred for various reasons.Norfolk lurchers (put that into Google) were one such old fashioned "type" not recognized by the Kennel Club but instantly recognizable.
3.In crossbreed dogs if parentage is not easily seen;a beast may be sold as a "$£^^??" "type".
4.In order to sell puppies some people will lie and try to make breeding more upmarket by claiming pups are (enter famous kennel name here) "type".

Hope this helps and doesnt get me kicked off the forum...

I understand it when one points out a certain " type " ( look ) a specific line/kennel carries - and I think , what is meant , when one speaks of a " typie " deerhound - not necessarily definig a specific look , but rather the all over look of a " true sighthound/deerhound" , still , it is a slippery slope and rather vague ( as is the word "true" in this context ).
So , what makes a " typie "deerhound , or better even , a " very typie " one ????
I am sure glad I am not really interested in showing and even less in competition !

If, for example, it is hard to tell whether it is a deerhound you are looking at or a wolfhound then the deerhound has 'poor type'. Type is to an extent subjective but it is fairly easy to see if a deerhound has 'type' or not. For example, a deerhound with a very light eye and a short tail would be 'untypical'.

Mmmm...so maybe coaeseness and type cross over depending on our own interpretations of what "type" is?

As with all things beauty is in the eye of the beholder,but there must be some standards if you represent the "creme de la creme" I feel.
I would say that to my mind coarseness and type are not the same thing.
From what I understand coarseness is unwanted no matter what the breed, or even animal ,as it can be found in horses,people,etc and could be described as a lack of "quality".
This could be demonstrated in conformation,head,proportion etc.
"Type" I feel gives no indication of the "quality" of an animal just that it is easily recognisable for whatever reason.

This is kind of what they " mean " to me , too - lack of quality ( can also be e.g. just the head being coarse ) and something , that makes you look tiwce/extra - a nice , typie hound could be placed over an average one , just because of this little extra .

verenav wrote:


Question is though: surely a "typie" dog can still be "coarse" ?

Although maybe as "type" and "typical of the breed" mean different things we should not mix up two seperate issues.
I was at a horse show today and saw the overall champion. He was very good example of "type" but was not "typical of the breed" as he had really bad feet,that were so narrow that he was almost "Unfit for purpose".
Breeders strive for small heads and feet, but this was an over exgarated example of this trend.
Could this "over refinement" also be classed as "courseness" ?.

hairybeasty wrote:


An Arab, was it?

No British Riding Pony which for those who dont know is a mix of arab and welsh.Beautiful apart from the feet but a bit "spirited" for my liking.

Close, but no cigar, then. In the days when I still coveted a horse of my own, I'd have settled for an Arab x Welsh Section D. Nowadays it would take a Clydesdale to carry me!

So do you think that "over-exgeration" can be coarse or is that a bit too close to the wind?

hairybeasty wrote:


No, over-exaggeration's a different thing altogether and leads to loss of type, rather than coarseness per se. For example, too much hind angulation would lead to a Deerhound looking like a big hairy Whippet - it might be pretty, but it wouldn't be a Deerhound - but a Deerhound with too much, possibly round, bone and a heavy head could be described as coarse; you don't want the canine equivalent of a Shire horse. A Deerhound for me should combine strength with elegance; not an easy combination to achieve, but breathtaking when you see it.

May I suggest that serious students of the breed invest a few hard earned pounds in a copy of A Century of Champion Deerhounds, a two volume set still available from the Deerhound Club, and study the photographs of a selection of the breed that did well in the ring? Or come along to a championship show, or even better, the Breed Show, and sit by the ringside and really look at the dogs. Have a good look, see what you like, then try to work out why you like it. You may not agree with the judge's decisions, but you will learn a lot about construction and type.