I've forgotten who said, "If you live in a world run by a
committee, be on the committee." Keeping in mind that I was a member
of the committee that wrote the AKC breed standard for Cavaliers, I
am surprised to find myself lacking a succinct response when asked
about the proper size of the breed.
An "easy out" is to say, "Pick the one that most resembles a
Cavalier and falls within the 13-to-18-pound range." But when the
best one weighs 19 pounds or the judge is not very adept at
eyeballing the difference between a 17-pounder and a dog of 19
pounds, this adage is useless.
This is exactly why our standard, even with its 5-pound latitude,
still allows for "slight variations" in the size of quality
specimens rather than opting for mediocre specimens of a strictly
limited size.
In a recent seminar, a fellow breeder noted that if a Cavalier
approaches Clumber type, it is wrong, and if it approaches Papillon
type, it is equally wrong. I like that guideline; it encompasses
both type and size.
The original standard, written in 1928, was based upon a 13-pound
dog named Ann's Son. The weight range was set at 10 to 18 pounds. As
breeders faced the fact that they could not get the desired
characteristics into such a small package - that is, that they were
failing in their quest to recreate Ann's Son - the bottom limit was
raised to 12 pounds, and eventually to 13 pounds.
In order to instill and maintain type, substance and proportion,
most breeders found themselves working at the top of the weight
range. I would guess that even today, a large percentage of dogs in
the ring fall into the 16-to-20-pound range. That does not bother
me, assuming that they are elegant, sporting, typey Cavaliers.
However, if we were to rush to change our standard to reflect
what we have the most of, will it not be tempting to work again to
the upper limits, until the average Cavaliers in the ring are 18 to
22 pounds?
I return to an emphasis on judging for correct type, as that
alone should remove any nagging concerns over size. Consistency in
judging the breed does not mean finding four of the same size. A
well-judged class may well see the ribbons go to 16-pound, 19-pound,
14-pound and 18-pound Cavaliers.
There are enough quality dogs with heads that say "Cavalier" and
bodies that suggest an elegant, sporting toy spaniel that we need
not reward the thick and cloddy dog nor the tiny, fine-boned one.
There is room in the ring and in our breeding programs to
accommodate quality Cavaliers at both ends of the size range
mentioned in the standard. What is most desired is a dog with all
the essence of a Cavalier, no matter the size of the package. Does
this mean that 10-pounders and 30-pounders are okay? We do not have
to worry over this, for these dogs will never have the essentials
that make a really good Cavalier.
I have not mentioned height because the concern seems to be more
about the substance or "heft" of the dog. The first standard listed
weight alone as the size criterion and gave it 5 points of value out
of a possible 100. General appearance and soundness was worth 15
points, as was the head.
The true measure of a top Cavalier is by the degree to which it
possesses the look of a moderately boned, well-proportioned toy
spaniel of royal and elegant bearing, as well as by the scale and
the wicket.
