# Did I miss something?



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Lately, I've been seeing a large gap in the prices of yellow lab pups within the SAME litter. It seems "fox red" is the latest craze and some people are charging a few hundred more than littermates because of the "fox red" color.

Now, this isn't about the yellow vs fox red "debate", but I'm just curious to see if anyone else seen this? I thought prices should be pretty much the same for same sex littermates. In this particular litter, they want $450 for yellow males, but $1000 for a fox red female. Is the market there to charge that for the female because someone else will breed her?

I've also noticed much the same with chocolates in litters with blacks. People are asking $100-$250 more for a chocolate than black. It must be due to color because they're in the same litter and possess the same genetics.

Maybe just another factor contributing to the demise of the breed (as highlighted in other threads). :-?

What do you guys think of breeders that sell for color like this rather than the ability, genetics, etc?

Mike


----------



## BROWNDOG (Nov 2, 2004)

Mike,

Iv'e seen the same thing going on, fox red is the craze, they are pretty but I'll be darned if I'm going to pay extra for it. Females for the most part have always gone for more than males. I think the reason for a chocolate out of an all black litter costing more is because most hard core lab people (trial people) won't waste there time or money on a brown dog out of a all brown litter just because of the odds of getting a truely great one , but if that little brown dog came out of a black breeding then maybe, just maybe it has a chance. And this is comming from a guy who has a brown dog, but most likely never have another because of the odds.


----------



## Ac_EsS (Jul 3, 2007)

Hey guys,

This similar but not in the same breed. With English springers some people will do the same but with tri-colors. No difference they just try and say they are worth more. Because they are more exotic. Well they are not. AKC even states this about English springers and I am sure if you look up yellow labs with akc they will say the same and if not it may even disqualify them from being a pure breed because of their color!

Aaron


----------



## gonehuntin' (Jul 27, 2006)

For 30 years that I'm aware of, Fox Red's and Choc's have gone for more money. It is not a new thing. Personally, I love the fox red's.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

I understand females just about always go for more, but I was suprised to see a difference of $550 in this particular litter. I've been following labs close for about 5 years and most professional/experienced gundog breeders I know usually don't charge more for same-sexed littermates. I've seen about a $100-$200 higher average for female than male littermates.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

There are only three recognized lab colors, Black, Yellow, and Chocolate.

"Fox Red's" are catagorized as a color phase of yellow, and are no more a separate color than my YLF, who is for all intents & purposes, White.

What I find curious is that most gundog folks know this, and will still pay an inflated price for a Red. As long as folks will pay, the price for a Red will remain inflated.

If I'm paying $1,000 for a lab pup, I'm paying for a top end pedigree, not the color...


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

> What I find curious is that most gundog folks know this, and will still pay an inflated price for a Red. As long as folks will pay, the price for a Red will remain inflated.
> 
> If I'm paying $1,000 for a lab pup, I'm paying for a top end pedigree, not the color...


Exactly what I think. But, as you stated...as long as people pay that price it will be charged.


----------



## stonebroke (Dec 16, 2004)

You bring up an interesting topic (pricing pups differently in the same litter). You'll not only see this with some breeders in regards to color, but also some breeders price males and females differently. You'll also see people price the "Pick of the Litter" higher (In my opinion there is no such thing as "Pick of the Litter"....no one, and I mean no one, can tell which pup is going to be the best dog when mature when a pup is 7 or 8 weeks of age). You'll see people trying to charge more for pups that are of "Show Quality" or "Field Trial Potential" also.

This is all a bunch of bunk. In my opinion (ok, so my opinion and a buck might get you a cup of coffee , all pups in a litter should be priced the same regardless of color, sex, or anything else. Males are not worth more than females or vice versa. Ditto for color and everything else. The price of a pup should be based on the quality of the breeding along with the going rate for pups of similar quality.

Another thing I've seen is that people will start off advertising a litter for say $600 and when they have trouble selling them, they'll drop the price until they can unload them. To my way of thinking, this is unethical.... What about the people who bought a pup at $600? How are they going to feel when they found out you sold other pups for $200 or $300 (or less)? It's not a very good business practice, to say the least. When I have a litter of pups I set the price and it's the same for all of the pups in the litter. It's been a long time since I've had a pup that didn't sell, but in years past if I did I just kept the pup, worked with it, and sold it as a started dog after I had it hunting, retrieving, etc.


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

I could see a knowledgeable show breeder selling pups differently. They are just going on looks and with enough experience I am sure they can get a good idea of which pups will get put up in the show ring and which are only "pet quality".

As far as judging performance based on an 8 week old pup, I really can't buy into that.

I truly believe litter choice should be in the first come basis. I don't like selling the pick of the litter for more. I've passed on breeders who have done that. It is a money grab plain and simple.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Stonebroke...

Great post. My exact sentiments. You found a good way to express the way I feel too!

Mike


----------



## stonebroke (Dec 16, 2004)

Brian,
I agree....it should be on "first come, first served" basis but it doesn't always work that way. You've probably found that there are breeders out there who have a lot of different ideas on placing pups. There are breeders who will give preference to field trialers.....they get to pick before others regardless where they are on the list. Other breeders feel they can match a pup to a particular person or family and will not let people pick their own pup.
I don't believe knowledgeable show people can pick out a show prospect at 7 or 8 weeks of age either. I know they think they can, but pups develop differently....the "ugly duckling" as a pup can be the most handsome dog you've ever seen when mature. I'm not into showing at all, but many years ago I had a litter of Springers and was going to keep a female for myself, but couldn't decide which one I wanted. So, as people came to get their pup I let everyone else pick before me, and ended up with the "leftover" female. She was a little smaller as a pup, which is I guess why people passed on her. To make a long story short, she ended up being the 6th top producing bit*h in the nation. I bred her to one of the finest stud dogs in the history of the breed 3 times....a dog by the name of FC/AFC Pondview's Windy Acres Yankee. "Yankee" was probably bred more than any Springer in the history of the breed. His owner, Don Cande, told me that of all the dogs Yankee was bred to, my dog "Wings", was the finest he'd seen....pretty much perfect conformation, wonderful temperament, great in the field, etc. So, go figure.

While we're on the topic of selling pups, another thing that really irks me is the breeders who will charge more for a pup with unlimited registration. I wish AKC had never come up with their limited registration policy. I can see why they did it, but for the mostpart it's not being used for the purpose it is intended for, which is to prevent dogs with problems from being bred. Some breeders are using it to charge more for their pups, and that is wrong.


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

> There are breeders who will give preference to field trialers.....they get to pick before others regardless where they are on the list. Other breeders feel they can match a pup to a particular person or family and will not let people pick their own pup.


Now, I can understand both of those scenarios. The breeder is trying to do the best by the pups that they can. OK with the field trialer they are trying to build their kennel name. But it isn't just a pure money grab. I can respect that.

Now the limited registrations. I can see if they want "x" title or health clearance done before you breed because their kennel name is attached to the pup. But, selling a pup with a full registration for more money is pure BS and just a money grab.

I will never buy a pup w/o full registration. I've had two training partners get into battles with the breeder to get the registration changed to full. They met the original requirements but the breeder changed their mind. Tough spot. You can't trust people.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

I dont care as long as the dogs are bred not based on color and with all the eye/hip certs by a promising ***** and sire. If someone is looking for a certain breeding and they decide out of that breeding they really like the way a fox red or choc looks, let them pay extra for it. If they have money to blow good for them.

As long as the dogs are not being bred based on color over more important factors. I highly doubt my next dog will be a choc, although I love the choc I have right now.


----------



## stonebroke (Dec 16, 2004)

USAlx50 said:


> I dont care as long as the dogs are bred not based on color and with all the eye/hip certs by a promising b#tch and sire. If someone is looking for a certain breeding and they decide out of that breeding they really like the way a fox red or choc looks, let them pay extra for it. If they have money to blow good for them.
> 
> As long as the dogs are not being bred based on color over more important factors. I highly doubt my next dog will be a choc, although I love the choc I have right now.


I don't really follow what you are trying to say here (especially the Stinky Kitty part....what's that have to do with the topic?).

Given the scenario you describe, are you saying that if a person really likes the way a fox red or chocolate pup looks the breeder is justified in charging more for that pup? OK....so what if in that same litter a person really likes the way a black pup looks rather than the fox red or the chocolate colored pup? Is the breeder justified in charging more for the black pup because that particular person really likes the way the black pup looks?

The bottom line here is that breeders can do pretty much whatever they want to. It's up to the buyer to say "yes" or "no" to the breeder's stipulations. If a breeder has a litter of pups and charges $500 for the blacks, $1,000 for the Chocolates, and $1,500 for "Fox Reds" (if there were, in fact, all three colors in the same litter), then that's his right. Same goes for charging more for females than males, doing the limited registration deal, etc. When buying a pup if you don't like what the breeder stipulates, don't buy the pup. It's important to find a breeder you feel comfortable with and trust.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

> (especially the Stinky Kitty part....what's that have to do with the topic?).


SB,

That's his "signature" line...appears on all posts.


----------



## gonehuntin' (Jul 27, 2006)

Fact is guys, it's the breeder's litter and they can charge what they want whether you like it or not. Just don't buy from the breeder, no sense complaining about it. You're not going to stop it anyhow. The fox red phase has and always will be a very desireable phase of the yellow. Most feel they blend into the marshes better than anyother lab color.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

stonebroke said:


> USAlx50 said:
> 
> 
> > I dont care as long as the dogs are bred not based on color and with all the eye/hip certs by a promising b#tch and sire. If someone is looking for a certain breeding and they decide out of that breeding they really like the way a fox red or choc looks, let them pay extra for it. If they have money to blow good for them.
> ...


I'm saying a puppy is worth what someone is willing to pay and I dont care how much it is as long as the dogs are selling. I just hope that higher prices for a certain color doesn't make them breed dogs that have no business being bred.


----------



## stonebroke (Dec 16, 2004)

OK....gotcha. What your saying makes sense and I agree (especially the part about not breeding for color as your primary goal). Like they say, 
"A good horse can't be a bad color"....same applies to dogs.


----------



## kgpcr (Sep 2, 2006)

I wanted a chocolate and my wife just had to have a chocolate. I got her from a great litter and could not be happier. She is one great dog. shot pheasnats over her at 4.5 months old. had her in ND at 5months for a hunt and she did great!


----------

