Does anyone know if £1200 is the going rate to purchase a blue SBT bitch KC reg puppy, I have been in touch with a reputable breeder who has a little due.
Thanks.

Reputable breeder ? :D I think not ;)

Anything over £500 and I'd say its being ripped off big time :)

bump

how much are will the rest of the litter be going for (the non blue, if there are any blue at all), cos to me a red, brindle, white if there all from the same litter there all worth the same, and to me £500 would be top

unless they're gold plated of course :)

the nerve of some people!!grr.:(

No wonder we get so may people on here who want to breed their pet staffies, they must think they have found the end of the rainbow :) Mind you if everyone is going to breed litters till they get the magic blue jackpot I hate to think what will happen to the rest of the litter :(

I would not pay that money for two blues never mind one. It's a rip off guest - don't pay it.
Karen

well for that price i would not want blue or gold plated but solid gold ;)

Could the guest tell us who the reputable breeder is in another link maybe so we can find out how reputable they really are! What a bloody joke to ask 1200 for a dog.

I have never seen a nice blue staff, the ones I have seen have all got very light eyes

and as they grow tened to go a wishy washy colour

That is a very good question luxnallsstaffs; a reputable breeder or anyone else cannot say they will have "blue pups" and a lot of blue pups these days are very pale with no depth of colour. And pale eyes and nails etc.

Karen

and uless the pups are born there is no way of know if your will even get a blue pup, as both parents need to carry the colour to get it,  if you have a blue dad and a red mam (that does not carry blue) you will not get blue

But surely 2 blues would throw blue pups.

Mitch

yes if both are blue you should get blue and brindle and may be black,  but if you have 1 that is blue and another that is a diffrent colour that is not from a blue and there for does not carry the colour gean you will not get it. 

a blue doesnt necessarily throw a blue either - it can stay back a few generations

Asking £1200 for a Staff is crackers, imo...

As to coats changing colour, that is strange...the older blue coloured staffs that i know are not "wishy washy" in colour....in fact their coats look remarkably similar to when they were young........maybe the dogs you refer to started out, "wishy washy" in colour....

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the problem with light coloured eyes.....Make them any less healthy? Affect their quality of life in any way....?

As for the "going rate" guest, you should be able to get 3 dogs for that figure....

Cheers.....

Hi Skyeye,

No a light eye does not make them less healthy etc BUT the standard says:

>>>>>Eyes. Dark Preferable, but may bear some realstion to coat colour. Round, of medium size, and set to look straight ahead.<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>Faults: To be penalised inaccordance with severity of the faults; Light eyes or pink eye-rims.<<<<<<<

And yes the wishy washy dogs more than likely did start out that way. But I am sure you will agree the "bandwagon" lots of people are jumping on for breeding/selling blues is stupid. Colour does not maketh the dog. :)
 
Karen

Hi Karen,

Yes i do agree that  "the "bandwagon" lots of people are jumping on for breeding/selling blues is stupid. " Totally agree...Fads come and go though, doesn't make it right, just the way it is...Only way to discourage it, is to not pay the exuberant prices...

What i was trying to say about the eye colour is that i know it is not to standard, but just as the blue coat will not justify a higher price,  as you say, (and i agree) "Colour does not maketh the dog" neither will light eye colouring make the dog any less of a dog, in any way that matters.....So he wouldn't do well in the kc show ring, could still make a fine pet/ be shown elsewhere with success...be a loyal companion and so on... So surely eye colour is in all reality just a preference...again imho.

Cheers
Skyeye

Poor eye pigmentation is a fault, along with all the other faults. Lack of pigmentation (including eye pigmentation) can be associated with health problems, so it is something that has to be treated with caution.

So Jeangenie, what do you suggest happening to those that have light eyes.......? Lol, plenty do, goes with the coat colour....
Regardless of eye colour, tests are advised prior to using the animal to breed from, so what is the problem....I still don't get it... I understand the kc standard, but in the real world i still dont see eye colouration as a concern...Health, temperament yes, eye colour...nope..
Seems to me health problems can be there regardless of eye colouration....is that not the case? Statistically do light eyed dogs have more health problems....?
Along with all what other faults...? We only mentioned light eye colour...

Btw, sorry for hijacking your thread guest...Guess i should have started a new thread if i wanted to discuss eye colour so much, lol....

The point is, Skyeye, that if people are willing to pay exorbitant, inflated prices for poor-quality dogs it encourages more people to do the same. Result? The overall quality of the breed is reduced, and that has got to be a bad thing.

Poorly pigmented dogs (or dogs with other breed faults) should be cost less than standard ones, not more!

Now a good, dark blue, with dark eyes - that's a different matter!
:)

I couldn't agree more JG...there a GSD over the road from me who is dog aggressive,has the palest of eyes and bad hips ...but despite this  the owner has hadnumerous request to use him at stud....because hes BIG!! More poor quality GSD to add the the 1000'S.
Archer

How is that agreeing with JG?
The GSD is dog aggressive and has bad hips.........Compared with this does not eye colour seem somewhat insignificant....? Would it be ok if it were dog aggressive, had bad hips, but dark eyes...obviously not...

Eye colour doesn't seem to be the problem with this GSD! Would be the last thing that i would notice...

same thing....poor example with faults but people will breed from it because it has one 'factor' they require...in this case size,in the staffies case colour.

LOL,

1st read my post... i actually said "Only way to discourage it, is to not pay the exuberant prices..." so wasn't that point actually my own? Although i never mentioned that the dogs were poor quality, you seem to assume that from eye colouration whereas it seems to me as nothing more than a minor kc standard fault...

So a dog with light eye colour should cost less should it...wow, that is not the other side of the coin to a breeder expecting more coin for a certain colour coat...? Why wouldnt the whole litter cost the same,,,

The price would be the same for all my pups if i were a breeder (which i am not) regardless of "rare"/ "fashionable" coat, or eye colouring....

If it were not to be shown in a kc show ring, wouldnt whether it were dark blue, with dark eyes or a strong blue with light eyes be a matter of preference as to which is "better"....both could be as healthy as each other...Is my point...

Is green/blue a light colour? i assume so....Would grey also be light, or dark...Would brown be the only acceptable colour....? <<<<<<not being funny, genuine question...

skyeye,  it is very common for pups in the same litter to cost differently.  in one litter you may get all "pet quality" dogs which cost a certain ammount.  then you might get 1 "show quality" pup and for that one, you can charge more.  if you were to have a litter, you would be foolish not to have each pup evaluted and find out which ones are more valuable as far as showing is concerned.

Shouldnt show dogs and pet dogs cost the same though ?
After all there are no guarantees to how  pup with show potential will turn out anyway ?

I disagree there, unless the dog has a serious fault then all pups in the litter should cost the saem.  at time of sale there is no way to know for sure which will be show quality.  What is show quality any7way?

Is it a dog that is showable and should win firsts at open shows and probably place at championship shows?  Is it one that can go all the way and become a Champions?  Is it one that can be in the first 3 in it's classes consistently?

Maybe it depends on the breed, but if both parnets are good then most of the puppies in a litter should be typical to very nice.

I agree 

^^^^Same here...

Also Thanks Jeangenie, for i will now spell "exorbitant" correctly, lol...

You don't feel that's a bit like saying all three-bedroomed semi-detached houses in a road should cost exactly the same? Some may be built better, and be better decorated, than others ...

Just a thought.
:)

but thats houses and this is dogs - sold at an age when anything can alter ?
The potential you thought was there may not develop over time
Plus shouldnt all breeders be breeding to show standard anyway

The comparison, imo, would only work if comparing to adult dogs..
The decor etc comes later,  like training,feeding and other hard work gone into making the dog...

A litter is more comparable to the pile of bricks...what is made of them is up to the builder...(Given that the bricks are "good" bricks to start with, and wont just crumble... which should be the case with both dogs and bricks, if you know what i mean...)

A healthy pup, from good parents is just that...Your pick of litter may not be someone elses...I just think it is this kind of thing that leads to outrageous prices for certain colours/size etc..

But in some breeds the decor is of importance too. A mismark makes a perfectly good pet (as long as the mismarking doesn't have health implications) but will never ever be showable, despite having similar (but not identical) genes to the rest of the litter. So, IMO, pups with visible faults such as a mismark, or poor pigmentation etc, should cost less than the average price, not be hyped as 'rare'.

Lel, yes, all breeders should be breeding to show standard (but sadly we know that hope is pie in the sky), but this is nature, and the quality of the individuals in any litter will be variable. A good breeder will try to ensure that the worst of her litter is better than the average. It's a foolish person who expects them all to be stars. Very occasionally it does happen, but it's very unusual.

Guess we have to agree to disagree then, but has been interesting.....

I respect your opinion, but....

IMO,saying pups with "visible faults such as a mismark, or poor pigmentation etc, should cost less than the average price, not be hyped as 'rare'."

is the reverse of the argument used to justify inflated price...As long as health isnt a problem, imo the price should remain the same...not be hyped as rare with a daft price, neither deemed unworthy and price lowered, as if the pups were inadequate...

<<as if the pups were inadequate>>

Leaving emotion out of the discussion, if all breeders were aiming to produce the perfect example of their breed (and why aren't they?) then those with the most faults could indeed be considered 'inadequate' - not at being a dog, and not at being a pet, but at being a XXXX, no matter what the breed.

We still love them though (bringing emotion back into it! ;) )
:)

I think the thing is in some breeds "Mismarked" are sold as pets.Where in Staffords apart from the NO-NO colours such as Black and Tan and Liver. Then there is no such thing as a "Pet coloured Pup"   So I look at it from a different standpoint to people whose breed has such.

Stafford pups from a "good" breeder should all be to standard and therefore showable. Not that everyone will show of course. And also not every breeder wants to sell their pups to show homes do they?
But I must say I would NOT buy a Stafford with light eyes nor a pup from parents/grandparents with light eyes. However it is not major fault, and to me is classed along side >>>>>> "pink eye rims,tails that are either too long or badly curled, along with dudley nose"<<<<<<<
All the above faults including light eyes can if you have the time and paitence be erradicated by selective breeding. But why try to breed this out when it is easier not to breed it in in the first place.

Plus the fact who at 7-8 weeks can pick a "winner" very few. Staffords are even today a very fluid breed as far as type and size are concerned. Often, odd-looking stock turns up in the issue of impeccably planned matings due to the fact that uniformity in the breed is established too near the surface of the breeds ancestry. Because of this as much as anything, it is not feasible to assess show potential with any degree of certainty, although it is reasonably eay to pick out the best from a litter.

Have a good evening Karen

Hi Karen,

From the standard.."Eyes. Dark Preferable, but may bear some realstion to coat colour."
So in a "Good" blue, what, in your opinion, would be the desired eye colour...

Really not trying to be funny with the dark blue/green, light blue/green thing.......Are we speaking about shade of colour, or actual colour...? Can understand washed out not being desirable...But if it is strong....
(prob have too much time on my hands today, but am interested...)

Hi Skyeye,
In a good blue then the eyes should in my opinion be "dark" ie look at a good Staford B/B or red and look at their eyes- what do you see? that is what a good blue should have the same eye colour in depth and colour as a good Red or B/B.
Now you have me looking at my bitch and trying to assess her eye colour ;) and that is brown dark brown. To look at almost black. If that makes sense.

Staffords should not have green eyes, yellow eyes, or blue eyes only brown then the darker the better. And to me a good blue should have "dark brown eyes, black nails (unless one foot is white then the nail on that part of the foot is allowed to be white) and dark rims to the eyes.

But as JG has already said poor pigmentation is a fault,not with the dog but with the breeding, it's sometimes overlooked but a fault all the same.

Karen
 

So they could be dark blue or green...

From the standard.."Eyes. Dark Preferable, but may bear some realstion to coat colour."
That would bear relation to the coat colour, brown...would not....brown bears a relation to a dark brindle dog, dark green would not....

Sorry Skyeye you have lost me.

Karen

The standard that you posted states there may be a relation to coat colour...This implies the eye colour could vary dependent on coat colour....

Brown could be said to "go ok" with a dark brindle dog, whereas dark green eyes would bear no relation to the dog...
Likewize dark green/blue eyes bear more of a relation to the blue coat than brown would...hence dark blue eyes would be to standard on a blue coat, no?

I explain it any better?

Wording appears to be open to interpretation and very subjective.....

Karen you said "Staffords should not have green eyes, yellow eyes, or blue eyes only brown then the darker the better."
If that is the case, would the standard not say.... Staffords should have dark brown eyes.....There is no mention of the colour brown, or indeed any specific colour....only that colouration be dark and  relative to its coat....so not only brown....

To me (and I'm not a Staffy specialist) the clause about relevance of eye-colour to coat colour means that in dilute colours such as blue, the eyes could be a paler brown or amber rather than the ideal dark brown. I wouldn't think blue or green would be acceptable. Have you contacted any of the Staffy breed clubs and asked for this point to be clarified?

Lol, my other half actually thinks his eyes are grey in colour..... So i guess one of us is colour blind...

I have just looked at my other 2 staffs.. They have very dark brown eyes, nothing like the blue dog.....So i guess compared to them, it would be a fault....

Do you see what i am saying about it being open to interpretation though...Especially as "brown" isnt specifically mentioned, just an observation, nothing more...i also appreciate this is not your breed..
The "prefered part" does that mean it isnt actually that big a deal?

i guess i should make some phone calls to clarify, just out of interest....

LOL, to be honest , in my case, this is all academic anyway....my blue Staff would not/is not recognized by the kc, without opening another can of worms.... (For the record i do also have kc staffs  though)

Again thanks for your time Jeangenie.....hope i didnt offend at all...just interested...

I would interpret the 'preferred' part as meaning that, all other things being equal (which of course in nature is impossible) the dogs with dark brown eyes would be placed higher than those with paler eyes. All faults (and no dog is perfect, not even the big winners) are judged in accordance with their severity.
:)

Emotion has nothing to do with that statement...

Within the same litter pricing them differently would indeed imply some were superior in the increase scenario, or inadequate, price decrease scenario....different sides of the same coin... If it is feasible to persuade someone a colour should carry less monatory value it is equally feasible and justfied to charge more... Not a good place to be at, imo..

Back to the original point light/dark eyes is surely subjective...Are there dark green and light green eyes, or just green, is green light or dark....Same with blue......? I have a blue staff,(I paid the same for him as was charged for his litter mates whom are black, and i would have been just as happy with a black one, it was the line/breeding/health that were prime concerns) so i am indeed curious...
Should this pup have the same monatory value as its litter mates... The breeder could indeed be breeding to better their chosen breed and still have dogs with light eyes in the litter, and an unhealthy pup could have  all the markings, colouration to standard.....
Health should be the prime concern when betering a breed, purely by definition.....

Colouration....can neither be good or bad, purely a preferance...Price decrease for this sends out the message that it is fine to breed/ charge a price going on something purely cosmetic....

You hypothetically drop the price a little for a slight marking fault, following that logic, one could understandably expect  a dog priced £1200 to be a super healthy faultless dog...."You get what you pay for"...mantra...

If the breeder is betering the breed, which we all agree should be the intent.....imo all litter mates should have the same price...

hope im not ranting....

We're on very much the same lines! As dogs are (whether rightly or wrongly) classified as 'goods', it stands to reason that they should all be of a standard. If you buy a pup of any given breed, it should fit the official standard for that breed. If it doesn't, then it is 'sub-standard' and therefore not saleable at the going rate. Broken biscuits and mis-shaped chocolates etc have always been sold as 'seconds', and in the eyes of the law, dogs are no different. I'm not arguing that's right, but that's the way the law stands.