10/09/2026
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1FLF4Qrsw2/
βCouch Potatoβ of the Terrier World
We take the word of the experts β the owners and breeders β that the Sealyham Terrier is the "Couch Potato" of the Terrier World. The phrase appears on the parent club website, which also dips back into history to note the Sealyham Estate, and the man who lived there after his mother's death on November 30, 1876, John Owen Tucker-Edwardes, creator of the breed.
While a lack of complete official documentation of the Sealyham's origin has frustrated more than one person writing about the breed, it has been the difficulty in finding the original AKC breed standard from 1911 (the year that both the AKC and the Kennel Club (U.K.) officially recognized the breed) that has frustrated this one. In fact, finding the original AKC standard of most breeds would be helpful to us, and if you have access to yours, please do contact us!
Why do we care? We often wonder how much wording has changed from the original standard to the present one, and the earliest standard we could find for the Sealyham Terrier is from 1929. We thought it would be interesting to compare the old with the present, and since 1929 is what we have, that's what we're going with.
Right off the bat, the general description hasn't changed one iota from 1929 to the present standard which was revised in 1974. The wording is identical: The Sealyham should be the embodiment of power and determination, ever keen and alert, of extraordinary substance, yet free from clumsiness.
Color changed more than it might first appear. In 1929, the standard read: "Coat to be all white with lemon, tan, brindle or badger-pied markings on head and ears. Heavy markings on body undesirable." The current standard reads: "All white, or with lemon, tan or badger markings on head and ears. Heavy body markings and excessive ticking should be discouraged." So brindle was dropped from the list of acceptable markings entirely, "badger-pied" was simplified to "badger," and a new concern β excessive ticking β was added to the markings to be discouraged.
From there, things get interesting (to us, anyway). Rather than get bogged down in too much detail, we've chosen to touch upon what we think are significant differences.
In 1929, the head was described as unusually wide between the ears. In 1974, more detail was provided: "Breadth between ears a little less than one-half length of head." In fact, the 1929 standard spent less than 50 words describing the head and teeth, but forty-five years later, nearly two hundred words describe the same thing. This has to be helpful to breeders and judges.
The '29 standard describes the Sealy's coat as having dense undercoat with the top coat being hard and wiry. The '74 standard expands upon this by adding that while there is a dense undercoat, it is soft, that a silky or curly coat is a bad fault, and that the entire coat is weather-resisting.
Curiously, the present day standard devotes only two lines to the body: "Strong, short-coupled and substantial, so as to permit great flexibility. Brisket deep and well let down between forelegs. Ribs well sprung." The standard from nearly fifty years before is far wordier, and it's speculation on our part that perhaps wording in the current standard tacitly assumes a more knowledgable reader? Compare that wording on the body to the language written in 1929: Body: Comparatively short between back of neck and set-on of tail, but of good length from the junction of the humerus and shoulder-blades to the back of the hindquarters, thus giving great flexibility. Very deep, well ribbed up with comparatively side front, the chest let well down between the forelegs, giving large heart and lung room (the latter being very important for a dog that has to stay long underground).
Wording was also changed from the past to the present with regards to the hindquarters: Then: Wide and massive, with strong second thighs, stifles well bend, and hocks well let down. The present standard: Hindquarters β Very powerful, and protruding well behind the set-on of tail. Strong second thighs, stifles well bent, and hocks well let down. Cowhocks bad fault.
Size changed. In 1929, a Sealyham could be between 8 and 12 inches at the shoulder. In 1974, that height was narrowed down to about 10 1β2 inches at the withers. Weight also changed. In 1929, a dog could weigh from 18 to 22 pounds, while a bitch could be from 16 to 20 pounds. The current standard "beefed up" the Sealyham by indicating that a dog could weigh 23 to 24 pounds, and bi***es, slightly less.
Wording on the tail also changed. In 1929, the tail was docked and "carried gaily," whereas the present standard is in agreement with the tail being docked, but now it is "carried upright," and "set on far enough forward so that spine does not slope down to it." One has to wonder if the writers of the standard in 1974 were seeing something about tail set in dogs of the time to warrant the additional description.
The neck was also updated to specificity. Today, the standard calls for a neck length that is "slightly less than two-thirds of height of dog at withers. Muscular without coarseness, with good reach, refinement at throat, and set firmly on shoulders." Back in '29, writers of the standard wrote only that the neck should be "of good length, but extremely strong and muscular."
Feet size changed. Forty-five years ago, a Sealyham Terrier's feet were to be "of medium size." Today, they are to be "large." What remained the same was that the feet were (and are) round with thick pads, strong nails, and that the forefeet are larger, though not quite so long as hind feet.
Our curiosity about present day standards and how they compare to original standards always generates questions in us. What changed in the dogs, we wonder, to warrant more or less specificity. Were drafters seeing something in the dogs of their day that concerned them enough to address it in the standard, or did they feel that dogs of their time were getting away from the original breed as intended by its creator. If the standard changed significantly, was it to accommodate dogs being bred at the time, or was it an effort to corral breeders into breeding more to the standard.
In the end, we can't discount changes in vernacular, the trajectory of a breed's conformation, and plain old human nature, but considering it makes for an interesting mental exercise.
Photo of Bertie by Aaron Lemos from 2023
