Bicolor? - Page 1

Let me just go ahead and apologize now for beating a dead horse with this topic, BUT...I need help!!! I have always been told that my girl was bicolor even though her papers say blk/red. I thought that she was bicolor, but these past few weeks, she has started showing a lot of tan/red behind her ears!!! I knew that a sable would change color until maturity, but I didn't know that my girl would. She is 9 months old, red/tan feet, belly tan/red, now she is getting color on face and behind ears where she was once black...I would really appreciate any information. I have read all of the articles posted previously. She is my first GSD and I don't want to sound like an idiot calling her bicolor if she isn't!!!!  Is she melanistic black/tan, or faded bicolor? I'm so confused!!!! You can see her feet/back of ears in the pic where she is drinking!

Thanks!!!!!   
 
ps. Mom is "bicolor" and dad is black

Nope, if she has tan behind her ears she is not bicolor.  In the picture she is drinking water you can also see she has lost her black toe penciling and tarheels.  She will remain a very dark black/tan but not bicolor.

molly

Thanks Molly....I appreciate your infor. I don't care what she is...I LOVE my girl!!!! I just want to know what to call her!!!!! She is beautiful either way!!!

I agree with Molly.  Blk/tan, not bi-color!

 Eichenluft,

If this puppy is B/tan then her mom is B/tan too not Bicolor. Black sire + Bicolor mom won't produce a B/tan, right?

Ibrahim

My girl is a bi color.

when she gets her winter undercoat, I see drey show in some spots (color from undercoat).  Could this be the case with your dog)?

Ibraham is correct - the mother must also be dark black/tan and not true bicolor - when bred to a black, she would not produce black/tan if she were a true bicolor.

molly

I don't know.... She looks bicolor to me. Her cheeks appear darker than the baby puppy picture.

One more time (this topic has been on here so many times I can't even count anymore) - bicolors ALWAYS have black toe marks (black penciling on the top of every toe), black tarheels (distinct unfaded black on the backs of the legs behind the wrists and between hock and paw on the rear), and NO tan shadings or markings behind or around the ears, on the underbody except for distinct markings (with no shadings) eyebrows, chest, cheek patches, lower legs, and light white/tan on the under-groin area, vent and dusting on the tail frings.  PERIOD.  If the dog does not have toe marks/tar heels, and does have markings around ears/other parts of the body other than the distinct markings - it is not a bicolor.  I've seen dogs so dark as to appear bicolor, but they are not bicolor without toemarks and tarheels.

this particular dog did appear to be bicolor as a puppy, but obviously her black markings on feet and legs faded out, and she developed other shadings, so she is now not bicolor, and neither would her mother be bicolor.

molly

 Eichenluft and some very well informed members discussed bicolor in depth with examples and pictures of many dogs in previous rich threads. just search bicolor and you will find these interesting threads. Bicolor always has more debate as it is somewhat confusing, Now I understand color genetics to a very good extent and the most benefitial to me were Eichenluft's posts on this subject on this very Forum and also on The GSD forum. I take this chance to thank Eichenluft and all members who shared their knowledge and expertise on this subject. P.S: in one of the threads there was a very deep discussion between one member (very well informed, I don't remember the name) and Eichenluft that was just like a thrill movie in episodes, very very interesting

Ibrahim