Philipp Grünig – The History of the Dobermann

By | 12th July 2017

The History of the Dobermann and development of the breed

by Philipp Grünig

GRUENIG 1893 – 1900

The oldest animals to be entered in our stud books as parent stock are the dog Bosco and the bitch Caesi, whelped in the years 1893 and 1894 respectively. They were the parents of the Sieger Prinz Matzi v. Groenland, whelped August 15, 1895, DZ7.
Prinz Matzi v. Groenland was no paragon even for those early days. With his coarse, heavy body, very long hair and light eye almost anything other than a Sieger title was expected of him. Matzi failed to carry through as a sire and, except for some local success in and around Frankfurt, his zone of operation, his name as well as that of his progeny disappear from our records after three generations. The relatively best of the dogs sired by him was Siegwart v. Hochheim.
As previously stated, this year saw the rise of a new strain in another part of the land. The branch just bursting into bloom was destined to overshadow Matzi by far. Significantly enough it was located in Thueringia, the original home of the breed. Quite a number of good animals which subsequently proved to be the real foundation of our Dobermann had been produced here. Figuratively speaking, they were the germ cell of the breed of today but, judging from their pictures, it would have required a brave and hardy prophet, indeed, to foretell the heights to which their progeny might aspire. In all probability the individuals of this group were all whelped in 1896. The lore of Thueringia, that of Apolda, its metropolis, in particular spins a wreath of flattering legends about the life and being of these dogs. Out of all these legends there emerge two facts – solid and immutable: First, the dogs did exist; and second, they were possessed of the priceless gift of being able to transmit their hereditary traits. Of these founding ancestors only one was ever entered in any stud book.
The dogs were named Lux, Schnupp, Landgraf and Rambo. The names of the bitches were Tilly I (later v. Groenland), Helmtrude, Hertha and Elly. It has never been satisfactorily determined whether any of the above dogs were related to one another of, if so, to what extent. The black bitch, Tilly I v. Groenland (NZ17) was whelped May 16, 1896, out of Schnupine by Lord. She was destined to make Dobermann history two years later when with Lux as its sire, she became the mother of Goswin Tischler’s great five star litter.
Out of one of these combinations, that of Rambo and Elly, sprang the noted stud dog Junker Slenz v. Thueringen, NZ5, whelped December 14, 1897. Credit for breeding him belongs to Muenzenberg of Giebichstein. Slenz became the property of the Frankfurt Club and during the years of his prime dominated the territory. Considering the breed’s state of development at that time, an exceptionally large number of excellent dogs were sired by Slenz. Among the best of these were the bitches Thinda Veronika and Walpurgis v. Thueringen and the dogs Schill v. Deutz and Leporello v.d. Nidda. The paternity of Zingo v. Thueringen, credit for which was for a long time withheld because both Slenz and Belling v. Groenland were involved, was ultimately and justly ascribed to Slenz. His Leporello line of descendants are still valid and priced in Switzerland. His blood constitutes an invaluable contribution to the breed of today. His line pushed its way like a wedge between those of his litter brothers, Greif and Belling v. Groenland, well named the authors and architects of the breed.
Alarich v. Thueringen was another product of this year but bore no registration number. He was known for his incredible sharpness and correspondingly feared. He won a permanent place in the breeds history as the sire of Ines, the worthy mother of Landgraf Sighart v. Thueringen.
Adele v. Thueringen, a litter sister of Alarich, has more hereditary potency than any bitch of her time. Although she was small, crooked and physically unimpressive according to our standards she became the dam of Weddo v. Thueringen.
This year brought forth a goodly number of first class breeding dogs and the best litter – it consisted of five individuals – up to that time. It was by Lux and Tilly. Goswin Tischler, the most successful breeder of his time, gave us a combination of the best possible animals in Belling NZ1, Greif DZ184, Krone DZ2, Lottchen DZ8 and Tilly II, NZ 28, all of which bore the further appellation v. Groenland. This stellar quintet was whelped on June 13, 1898. The kennel name v. Groenland has no bearing on the name of the vast peninsula (Greenland) but it is a tribute Tischler pays to the street of Apolda on which he was born in 1859.
Troll v. Groenland, a black son of Tilly I became the sire of Flora v. Groenland and thereby the grandsire of Leporello v.d. Nidda.
Another breeder whose ambition reached to the stars was Otto Goeller, also of Apolda. In this year he acquired Freya v. Thueringen, NZ3, bred by Seifert of Weimar, out of Schnupp and Helmtrude and whelped August 16, 1898. This capital bitch became one of the pillars of the breed. Her powers of heredity, operating through Wedigo and Ullrich’s Glocke, culminated in Hellegraf and, of course, in his son, Lord v. Ried.
In Ines v. Thueringen, a daughter of Alarich we now find the mother of Landgraf Sighart.
Gerhilde v. Thueringen, NZ2, whelped October 16, 1898, becomes the mother of Belli, Kuno, Roby, and Hilda v. Hessen and thereby exercises a determining influence upon the line of Fedor v. Aprath.
To complete the story of 1898 we must record the name of one more bitch, Jungfer Grete.
Only one dog and one bitch can lay claim to our special attention in this year. Winfried v. Thueringen, NZ7, whelped March 3, 1899, fulfills his duty as sire with noteworthy success. A son of Landgraf and Hertha, he justified his splendid heredity and exalted position by transmitting both to his two grandsons, Hans and Hellegraf v. Thueringen, before he himself emigrated to his permanent home in Switzerland.
A bitch of doubtful origin, Lady v. Ilm-Athen appears as a harbinger of the extraordinary success this new kennel is to achieve in the Dobermann world. Through her son, Prinz v. Ilm-Athen she advanced the cause of the Dobermann with a mighty stride. While we would gladly do so on sentimental grounds we must not blind our selves to the fact that this great bitch carried the blood of the English Manchester Terrier. Reliable information in this regard comes from breeders who actually saw and knew her. Your author never saw the bitch personally but from a study of her progeny arrived at the conclusion that she was unquestionably of that blood. One need only recall her grandson, Sturmfied and great grandson Moritz to realize the truth of the assertion. Their short, hard hair, their rich, deep, dark markings and eyes and other physical traits, not a part of the Dobermann up to then but essentially of the Manchester Terrier, all these justify the claim that she was in part of foreign (to our breed) blood.
The breed is steadily going forward. Several plans designed to improve the general average of the breeding stock end in failure in spite of individual and isolated success. The year is marked by the stud book entry requirement of every breeding animal. A general type as well as the imminent levelling off process is unmistakably indicated, although most of the detail work and individual adjustment remained to be done.
Landgraf Sighart v. Thueringen, NZ63, whelped November 14, 1900, was a dog of a great deal of hereditary powers. His sire was Winfried, NZ7, and his dam was Ines the daughter of Alarich. Five distinct main blood lines radiated from him. He was the sire of Hans and Hellegraf v. Thueringen. One of these lines died out in 1906 with the blue Gunzelin v. Altenburg, although feeble remnants of it are occasionally discernible. Sighart is apparently the bearer of an off color (blended) heredity. His sons Hans and Hellegraf were brown, and his grandson Gunzelin was blue.
Erbgraf Zingo v. Thueringen, NZ33, whelped on September 22, 1900, was a dog about the paternity of which grave doubt existed for many years and which was finally established only by circumstantial evidence. His mother Freya v. Thueringen was accidentally mated to both Belling v. Groenland and Junker Slenz v. Thueringen while in rut. Zingo was a goodlooking, wellformed and substantial dog. Also of good hereditary power. Only the doubt as to his paternity remained to vex an otherwise happy combination. Subsequent developments led to the almost irresistible conclusion that he was sired by Slenz. That Thina was a double granddaughter of Slenz is well nigh beyond cavil because all of her filial descendants showed radically different physical traits, especially those of the body, from those distinctive of the filial generations of Belling.
Siegwart v. Hochheim, DZ9, whelped May 1, 1900, once more fanned to life the spark which remained of the torch kindled by Sieger Matzi. This last important descendant of Matzi left nothing of his heredity which survived to our dog. His mother, Lottchen v. Groenland gave him what value was attributed to him.
Among the bitches the most successful was Flora v. Groenland (later v.d. Nidda), DZ12, whelped May 3, 1900, bred by Goswin Tischler of Apolda. She is most distinguished as the mother of Leporello v.d. Nidda.
In Merigarda, NZ70, whelped April 9, 1900, as a daughter of Krone v. Groenland, there appeared a very fine, substantial bitch. She was the recipient of great adulation and justified this esteem by becoming the mother of the brown dog Hans v. Thueringen, DZ76.
The black Ortrud v. Thueringen, NZ47, whelped December 1, 1900 (Belling v. Groenland and Jungfer Grete) was to become famous as the grandmother of important Immo v. Isenburg.

GRUENIG 1901 – 1905
This year, like those immediately preceding it, stood in the sign of Goswin Tischler’s breeding star. His great ‘five-star-litter’ of 1898 had now come to full maturity and was being used to good effect by this master. Without this litter, particularly without the two dogs, the progress of our breed would have been much slower. Greif was by far the most potent and powerful in heredity but Belling after a short interval and after a somewhat longer Krone, Lottchen and Tilly II fell into line and kept pace with him. In our old pedigrees and stud books these great dogs move about like wraiths. We find them listed under the most bizarre names and connotations. For instance, Greif appears as Greif v. Weimar, Hohenstein, etc., Belling as Belling v. Thueringen and Krone as Korvin’s Krone, etc. It is only an act of simple justice that the unwarranted departures from the correct names of these dogs are called to the reader’s attention.
One of Greif v. Groenland’s sons out of Lady v. Ilm-Athen was Prinz v. Ilm-Athen, NZ303, whelped September 12, 1901. This black dog was not only the best dog of that year but he was pre-eminently one of the greatest breeding dogs of all time. Right up to this very day he stalks through five generations – over Belling v. Berlin and Troll v.d. Blankenburg to the greatest of our breeding and show dogs. Prinz’s outstanding dominance was in the field of colour heredity, a trait which carried on right through his descendants. Almost all of his progeny were black with the much sought after dark markings. This power he in turn had inherited from his mother, Lady. His whole line was distinguished and noted for its sharpness.
Prinz was a sire of utmost capacity. Five main lines descended from him but two of them, those over Sturmfried and Edel v. Ilm-Athen respectively became the most valuable for the breed.
Another dog of this year Graf Wedigo v. Thueringen, NZ74, whelped August 25, 1901, though great and useful is not to be regarded as the equal of Prinz. A son of Belling and Freya, he was a litter brother of Ullrich’s Glocke, described and considered later on.
The main lines of descent emanating from Graf Wedigo go over Weddo v. Thueringen to Lord v. Ried and, secondarily, over that culminating in Silvio v. Fernrode.
A Belling x Gerhilde son was Belli v. Hessen, DZ31, whelped April 29, 1901. He was a litter brother of the equally good Kuno v. Hessen (later v. Schwaben), DZ23, and Roby v. Hessen, DZ68, and made himself famous in the breed as the sire of Tell v. Kirchweyhe and, through the last named, as the grandsire of Fedor v. Aprath. The v. Hessen strain and were among the best of their day.
Wedigo’s litter sister Ullrich’s Glocke v. Thueringen, NZ66, whelped August 25, 1901, and in conjunction with her mate Sighart NZ63, created a truly great son and heir: the brown Hellegraf v. Thueringen. This dog’s traits and creative work will be specially considered farther on.
Veronika v. Thueringen, NZ65, whelped May 23, 1901, a Slenz, NZ5 daughter is best known for her good descendants. She projected her heredity, after a most auspicious beginning in 1906, right into the renowned Carlo Viktoria, NZ620. For no apparent or readily determined reason this last dog, together with his main line of descendants, seems to have vanished from our stud books.
Another bitch belonging to this year demands attention because of her undeniable importance. To an extent that is hardly appreciated she dominated and determined the prototype of the Dobermann in the years ahead. This is Lady v. Calenberg (not registered). A parallel between her and that other Lady (v. Ilm-Athen – see 1899) is of more than passing interest. Though the Lady part of their names was a strange coincidence and of no real importance it adds picturesqueness to the further but tremendously important coincidence of blood constituency. What were rumor, surmise and deduction as to one was absolute certainty with reference to the other. Although this Lady v. Calenberg cannot properly be classified as a full blooded Manchester Terrier it is a known fact that a preponderance of this blood coursed through her veins. As the mother of ‘Tell v. Kirchweyhe’ and through him, the grandmother of Fedor and Hans v. Aprath, she won and exercised immense influence over the whole breed, but in particular over the browns. Her entire progeny was as well known for their admirable, smooth, short hair, as they were for their sharpness toward everything predatorily inclined. Her progeny left much to be desired as to size but their coloring and markings were superbly dark.
A daughter of Greif v. Groenland, Dina v. Thueringen (not registered) later distinguished herself as the mother of Peter and Betti I v. Ilm-Athen.
Hilda v. Hessen, NZ57, whelped April 29, 1901, a litter sister of Belli v. Hessen is to become the mother of the excellent Siggo v. Hohenstein two years later.
A Slenz daughter, Thinda v. Thueringen, NZ51, whelped May 28, 1901, became famous for her good progeny among which, in the second filialgeneration, we find Fedor and Hans v. Aprath.
Still another bitch that must be mentioned in connection with this year is Walpurgis v. Thueringen, NZ67, whelped July 27, 1901, a daughter of Slenz, NZ5. In her maturity she became the grandmother of Gunzelin v. Altenburg, NZ645.
Another good dog was Hopsa Hinz v. Thueringen, NZ146 (black).
Compared to the years just past and again to those immediately to follow, this year is not very significant to the breed.
Only one black dog stands out over the others of this year but that one is Leporello v.d. Nidda (later v. Main), DZ35, whelped August 28, 1902. He was a descendant of Slenz, NZ5, out of Flora v. Groenland, DZ12. He was an exceptionally beautiful dog but lacked the power to transmit that quality, expect as to his head. Herein, however, he was very potent. His most famous descendant was Walhalla’s Favorit, DZ163. With a few others of little consequence this sums up his creative work in Germany. In Switzerland, however, his line is still in full flower, due to the force generated into it by Gertrud II v. Frauenlob, DZ229. What made this dog valuable to us was his arresting head type. Leporello had a full muzzle and decided stop. Its proportions in other respects were also good and for many years it served as objective model for the breeders. Today it has been completely overtaken and displaced by a more elegant but hardly aesthetically better type: that of Lux v.d. Blankenburg.
A bitch of highest class and later the mother of Gunzelin v. Altenburg was Suse v. Thueringen, NZ100, whelped September 26, 1902, a daughter of Sighart, NZ63, and Walpurgis, NZ67.
One more noteworthy black bitch is to be noted as coming in this year. She is Hulda v. Isenburg (not registered) a daughter of Slenz and Ortrud v. Thueringen was born to the high honor of becoming the mother of Immo v. Isenburg (later Max v. Kaiserring).
Another good dog was Arnim v. Hochheim, DZ558 (black).
This year made amends for the shortcomings of 1902. Not less than six outstanding stud dogs made their appearance herein and among them the first brown with hereditary powers of genuine and lasting value.
We will first take up our brown pioneer Hans v. Thueringen (later v. Ronneburg), DZ76, whelped March 4, 1903 and at first registered under the name of Junker Hans v. Rheinpfalz. According to the conceptions of today he was little more than of medium size with the undesired but recognized, dark brown (chocolate) color. Because of his rare color he was the object of much astonished attention but easily won in and over all competition in South Germany. ‘Hans’ had had one brown predecessor in these exhibitions, a Gunzo v. Thueringen, whelped July 22, 1900, and, incidentally, the first brown Dobermann to be exhibited in any show. Gunzo was a Belling – Freya son but was coarse and altogether without a trace of the quality known as ‘adel’. We can justly regard Hans as a herald to Hellegraf, especially in that he enjoyed the same paternity: that of Sighart v. Thueringen, NZ63; but with Merigarda, NZ70, as his mother instead of Ullrich’s Glocke, NZ66. ‘Hans’ sired the great Immo v. Isenburg (later Max v. Kaiserring), NZ446, and endowed him with his own great powers of heredity. His field of operation was Thueringia and South Germany.
In the meanwhile North Germany was enriched by the advent of the black Peter v. Ilm-Athen, NZ301, whelped September 18, 1903, a capital dog. He would unquestionably have produced more and better progeny if a good and suitable line of bitches had been available. Peter was a son of Prinz v. Ilm-Athen and as a grandfather of the great bitch Edle v. Ilm-Athen contributed generously to the progress of the breed.
Weddo v. Thueringen, NZ133, whelped August 22, 1903, was an intensely black dog. He dominated in color and markings throughout and transmitted this hereditary trait to his grandson, Lord v. Ried, NZ249.
In Northwestern Germany there come to light in this year Tell v. Kirchweyhe (not registered). His body would hardly serve as a model but he achieves fame as the son if his Manchester Terrier blooded mother, Lady v. Calenberg. Through his two sons, Fedor and Hans v. Aprath (both of them brown) he projected an excellent line of descendants.
A black dog, called and identified by a half dozen names throughout Germany, and therefore either well known or correspondingly unknown, was setting a high mark as a first class stud dog. It was Graf Siggo v. Hohenstein, DZ11, whelped December 31, 1903, and at various times and places known as Hagen v. Nibelungenhort, Peter v. Frauenlob, Peter v. Friesland, etc. This list does not exhaust his aliases by any means. He was authentically a son of Prinz v. Ilm-Athen, NZ303, out of Hilda v. Hessen. Siggo was an exceptionally powerful dog, with some coarse traits and of diabolical sharpness. Today his line enjoys continued esteem and power in Switzerland. His zone of operation and where his heredity was most widely distributed was Central and Southern Germany.
Another black dog, Normann (not registered) made his mark as the sire of Nora Frischauf, the granddam of Lord v. Ried.
In this year the breed was favored by the appearance of five excellent bitches. They were:
First, a daughter of Wedigo, NZ74, called Eleanore v. Thueringen, NZ162, whelped August 17, 1903. She was out of the previously described Veronika v. Thueringen, NZ65. Eleanore’s chief and quite sufficient claim to fame was a son, Benno v. Thueringen, NZ416.
Second, Hertha v. Groenland, DZ65, whelped May 17, 1903, was a daughter of Greif and Lotte II v. Groenland. She combined the two valuable capacities of begin and excellent show specimen and still better brood bitch. By way of her daughter, Gertrud I v. Frauenlob, her blood line extended into Switzerland where it is still active and productive.
Third, Thina v. Aprath, DZ89, whelped November 15, 1903, was another to qualify as a superb brood bitch and a breed determinant. She was sired by Zingo v. Thueringen, NZ33, and out of Thinda v. Thueringen, NZ51. When mated to Tell v. Kirchweyhe, Thina became the mother of that pair of outstandingly beautiful and significant browns: Fedor and Hans v. Aprath.
Fourth, Hulda v. Zavelstein (not registered). By Normann she became the mother of Nora Frischauf, NZ98.
Fifth, and last of this precious quintette was the singularly gifted and beautiful Vroni v. Thueringen, DZ559, whelped August 22, 1903. She was out of a mating of Wedigo v. Thueringen and Adele and first achieved fame through her son Walhalla’s Favorit. Years later, to be precise, in 1909, she gave us that marvel of beauty and show ring perfection, Isolde v. Nibelungenhort, NZ828. With the prestige of her other parent, Lord v. Ried behind her Isolde swept all opposition before her, but, like her brother Favorit, she proved to be more of a deterrent than a stimulant to the breed’s progress. The only exception to this was the line of Treuhort dogs emanating from her.
Other good dogs were Waldo v. Hohenstein (later v. Frohnberg), NZ149, (black), Ekkehard v. Thueringen, NZ168, (blue), Frundsberg v Thueringen, NZ169, (black), Eulalia v. Thueringen, NZ161, (black), Freude v. Thueringen, NZ170, (black), Esther v. Thueringen, NZ317, (black).
Because it brought forth one of the mightiest stud dogs of any age or breed this year stands out brilliant and significant. Let the name be written in letters of fire! – Hellegraf v. Thueringen, NZ219, was whelped on June 12, 1904. He was a sire ‘comme il fault’ and through him the entire breed took on a new face and stature. This brown dog was equipped with every possible advantage that blood and breeding could supply him to fulfill his exalted mission. His sire, Sighart, already the head of the best and most vigorous blood lines extant, gave us Hellegraf as his last card, – the Ace of Trumps. His mother, Ullrich’s Glocke v. Thueringen, NZ66, was a daughter of Belling and a sister of Wedigo. Here and in her we have a perfect concentration (line breeding) of Belling – Freya – Winfried.
Hellegraf was a paragon of beauty, perfection and power. His was a degree of genuine ‘adel’ that will be difficult to surpass or even equal. Ten main lines radiate from him and many more lateral minor lines. His ability and power to transmit his heredity is best demonstrated in comparison with that of his litter brothers, Belling, NZ237, and Balthasar, NZ228. Great as their power was, judged by ordinary standards, it was, as to Hellegraf, but slight indeed. Another factor of tremendous and exceptional moment is that Hellegraf was drawn upon at an early age for breeding in and around Thueringia. Later on he extended his zone of influence into the Rhineland and Wuerttemberg. Without too high a price on his services he was available to the main geographical divisions of the breed. The contemporary and subsequent inability of the North German Dobermanns to dominate and carry their heredity on is accounted for by that region’s failure to produce a dog corresponding to Hellegraf. In dealing with him it is difficult to speak of faults but sentiment must yield to honesty. His muzzle was a little too pointed and his shoulders might have been tighter.
The previously mentioned Immo v. Isenburg (later Max v. Kaiserring), NZ446, was whelped on August 15, 1904. He was out of Hulda v. Isenburg by Hans v. Thueringen, DZ276 (DZB 76??). He was a great and outstanding dog but the presence of Hellegraf overshadowed him. His medium size and height and his beautiful stature belied his unrelenting sharpness. His broad withers heightened his appearance and added to his impressiveness. Over Leuthold v. Hornegg and the Langerode strain his bloodline survives to this day. Attention is called to the fact that the picture on page 74, of Vol.1 of the DZ, purporting to be that of Immo, is not authentic. It was obtained by super-imposing that of Leporello v.d. Nidda (see page 40 of Vol.1 of the DZ). For this piece of trickery Immo’s owner was barred from membership in the Verein. In view of the fact that Immo was at least a full class better than Leporello is is difficult to see what the object of this chicanery was.
Silvio v. Fernrode, DZ93, whelped March 29, 1904, was compelled to stand aside because he was an outsider. This son of Wedigo was the recipient of underserved show ring honors and rewarded his benefactors by failing signally in the matter of transmitting his heredity. His line disappear altogether with his last important scion, Axel Hochwart, whelped in 1913.
Hellegraf’s two black litter brothers, Belling and Balthasar v. Thueringen, NZ237 and 228, respectively, were both excellent dogs. Their only misfortune was that they were in the same litter with a brown that succeeded in monopolizing everything that a dog might have, show, enjoy and transmit.
A son of Slenz, NZ5, called Schill v. Deutz was a dog of good and many parts and earned his place among the stars as the sire of the blue Jenny v. Deutz.
Some high class bitches came in this year and among them we count that good blue daughter of Greif v. Groenland. Betti I v. Ilm-Athen. She acquitted herself of the responsibility that went with such heredity by giving us Edel and Sturmfried v. Ilm-Athen.
Nora v Frischauf, NZ98, whelped January 27, 1904, and bred by Vollmer, of Pforzheim, was born to the high honor of becoming mother of Lord v. Ried.
The black Flora v. Haiterbach, DZ223, whelped on November 2, 1904, deserves a place in our list as the grandmother of the well known fawn (isabella) colored Assad v Roederberg.
Other good dogs were Guntram v. Thueringen, DZ380, (black), Lux v. Odenwald, DZ128, (black), Lux v. Rhein, DZ130, (black), Bodo v. Hohenstein, DZ185, (black), Lotte v. Warteberg, NZ944, (brown), Ingomar v. Holstein, DZ108, (black), Irma v. Giessen, DZ144, (black), Zilla v.d. Almenwiege, DZ181, (black), Grimgerte v. Thueringen, DZ221, (brown), Lutti v. Deutz, NZ272, (blue).
This year, naturally, could only offer less than the one which produced a Hellegraf. One distinction claimed for this year, however, is that all its leading dogs were black. Benno v. Thueringen, NZ416, was whelped on May 25, 1905. He had no particularly large amount of ‘adel’ but in build this medium sized dog was faultless. He was a product of Peter v. Ilm-Athen and Eleanore v. Thueringen. Much of his hereditary trait has survived to this day. His noblest line proceeded to Asta Voss over Jula v. Engelsburg and so, via Asta to the leading dogs of today. A later (side) line, running over the stellar bitch Senta and ultimately producing Fedor v. Buetersburg, bids fair to add to his fame. In the main, however, his line seems to pale after reaching its zenith in the beautiful Carlo Viktoria.
Muck II v. Ilm-Athen, NZ426, whelped April 15, 1905, a son of Prinz v. ilm-Athen and Nelly v. Ilm-Athen was himself an elegant dog but failed to transmit his hereditary qualities to any considerable extent. His best claim to success and nomination to fame rest on his Theophano v. Thueringen and Bojorix and Raspe v. Thueringen.
Almost without effect or influence on the breed was Walhalla’s Favorit, NZ253, whelped July 12, 1905. He was a son of Leporello but experts recognized him as and for his ‘flash’. He was also too long in back. He only produced blanks. In the hope of stimulating any powers latent in him he was transferred to a new field of breeding in Holland but here also he produced nothing of value or consequence.
Among the bitches we have the mother of Lord v. Ried, the black Beda Frischauf, DZ129, whelped February 17, 1905.
Cordula v. Thueringen, DZ269, was whelped December 15, 1905. She was the first daughter of Hellegraf, NZ219, and a fine black bitch of excellent character. She had good progeny and, among others, with Muck v. Ilm-Athen as mate, produced the superb bitch Theophano v. Thueringen.
As a bitch of quite exceptional beauty and the power to transmit her qualities in the true sense of the word was the blue Jenny v. Deutz, NZ295, whelped April 11, 1905, must be ranked high. Her son Carlo Viktoria is all the proof of this required.
Gertrud I v. Frauenlob, DZ158, whelped May 16, 1905, exercised great and beneficial influence upon the Swiss strains to which she was imported. This daughter of Siggo was a happy combination of the blood of Ilm-Athen, Hohenstein and Groenland. The results of her hereditary powers have been notably fortunate and widely spread through Switzerland.
Another good dog was:

Primus v. Thueringen, NZ313, (black)
GRUENIG 1906 – 1910
1906 was a good, even if not an exceptional year for the breed. It brought us six dogs chiefly valuable for their beauty but two of which had the power of transmitting their valuable traits.
In the first place, by virtue of his peculiar importance, stands Sturmfried v. Ilm-Athen, NZ381, whelped July 12, 1906. This black dog’s immediate ancestors were Prinz v. Ilm-Athen and Betti I v. Ilm-Athen. In his veins the blood of Greif v. Groenland predominated. To this was added a jet of his grandmother’s (Lady) allegedly Manchester Terrier blood. He leaned heavily to Greif, the grandsire on both sides, and experts readily agreed that latter in the amount of adel he displayed and in the richness of his markings, both of which traits he transmitted with great hereditary power and consistency. To their good fortune the blood of Sturmfried left its indelible stamp upon our best dogs. His son Moritz v. Burgwall and his grandson Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen made his name and fame imperishable.
The second really great dog of the year was the brown Fedor v. Aprath, DZ244, whelped May 6, 1906. As in the case of Sturmfried the blood of the Manchester Terrier asserted itself in him and again in the second filialgeneration. In this case it was another Lade we had to deal with as his grandmother. This year marks the beginning of a trend to more refinement of form, darker and richer markings and stabilized size. The fearsome sharpness of the breed lets down somewhat as its watchfulness increases. Fedor was somewhat small but beautifully proportioned. His parents were Tell v. Kirchweyhe and Thina v. Aprath. Through Theo v.d. Funkenburg and the dogs of the Luetzellinden and Hoernsheim strains Fedor’s blood is intimately related to the leading dogs of today. His power in transmitting his head type was the outstanding feature of his hereditary potency.
Fedor’s litter brother, Hans v. Aprath (later Hans v. Walde), NZ337, DHSt250, gave the German breed its Carlo v. Frauenlob, DZ358. Hans later went to Switzerland where he was largely instrumental in building up the Swiss breed through the v. Tale, Lentulus, Berneck and v.d. Baerenburg kennels. He was of the same good size as his brother Fedor but (if the expression is applicable to browns) he was heavily melanated.
From the beginning of the breed and right through our time it has been the tragedy of many famous dogs that, in spite of surpassing beauty and quality, they were hereditarily incapable of transmitting their traits. This was the case of the blue Gunzelin v. Altenburg, NZ645, whelped May 7, 1906, (Prinz v. Ilm-Athen and Suse v. Thueringen). He was an ideal dog in both build and character. His courage and aggressiveness were proverbial. Only his hereditary power seems to have been impaired for after transmitting his distinctive traits to Loni and Adelfried v.d. Wendenburg all bridges connecting him with the dogs of the future seem to have broken down.
Almost the identical fate seems to have overtaken Gunzelin’s contemporary, the black Carlo Viktoria, NZ620, whelped December 27, 1906 (Benno v. Thueringen and Jenny v. Deutz); himself a prodigy in size, build, coat and markings, traits in which he was hardly surpassable. His head was a little too heavy and became cheeky in time. As is so often done by Nature when foregoing her chains of heredity she may create the links years or even decades apart. In this case she brought forth the duplicate of Carlo with such fidelity and exactness in a distant descendant that the latter might have been former. This likeness not only lay in external appearance and trait but apparently extended to internal deficiency of hereditary power. This Carlo prototype and genotype was the precocious Fedor v. Buetersburg, a dog due to be considered at length in his time. Seventeen years separate forebear and heir. In justice to Carlo we must record that among his descendants was the universally admired talking bith, Senta v.d. Moorinsel, his granddaughter and Fedor’s grandmother.
Another dog that demands our attention at this time is Wedigo II v. Thueringen, NZ418, whelped August 20, 1906. He was a son of Hellegraf and, on his mother’s side a grandson of Slenz. This black dog is the real progenitor of the Roemerschanz strain and almost all of the dogs of Holland are descended from his blood.
The brown Annemarie v. Thueringen, NZ357, whelped April 6, 1906, (Hellegraf v. Thueringen and Bella v. Heringen) was the most lovable Dobermann of her time but left no outstanding progeny. When a stud dog fails to transmit any of his hereditary traits through good and suitable bitches we know that he is weak in his powers of transmission. A bitch possessing her known good and powerful hereditary qualities could be expected to transmit some outstanding trait to her progeny when mated twice to the brown Hans v. Aprath, the litter brother of Fedor. Instead there were dogs of good average quality but nowhere a star. The solution of the riddle might have been found by her owner if he had looked into her choice of a mate for her could not have been otherwise than a Greif or Belling son or grandson. In her we have another illustration of a good bitch being lost to the breed because of the ignorance of the owner or the desire to avoid the payment of a high stud fee. This is by no means a thing of the past.
Hertha v. Burgwall, NZ775, whelped June 18, 1906, the black mother of Moritz v. Burgwall is another example of a bitch that succeeds in establishing her real worth only after many generations.
The black Flora v. Hoernsheim (not registered) was destined to become the mother of Zilla v. Luetzellinden.
Another good bitch was Lona v. Giessen, DZ189, whelped February 14, 1906. This black daughter of Silvio was owned by the highly successful v. Giessen kennel and was to become the great grandmother of Axel Hochwart.
Gertrud II v. Frauenlob, DZ229, the black bitch to become so beneficial to the Swiss Dobermann breed, was whelped on September 20, 1906. This daughter of Leporello continued her father’s blood and heredity in Switzerland and through the v. Tale strain of dogs brought them to bear upon Emir Lentulus.
Other good dogs were Abs v. Thueringen, NZ293, (blue), Nikodemus v. Thueringen, NZ362, (blue), Stolz v. Ilm-Athen, NZ486, (black), Daisy Viktoria, NZ279, (brown), Vera I v. Giessen, NZ410, (black), Ruska v. Deutz, NZ581, (black), Mimmi v. Starkenburg, DZ712, (black)
This was another year which far exceeded every hope and expectation entertained for the Dobermann breed. A stud dog of first magnitude came into being with Lord v. Ried, DZ249, whelped May 2, 1907. This son of Hellegraf traced his ancestry on his mother’s side over Weddo to Wedigo v. Thueringen and finally to Belling v. Groenland. The author can well recall the sensation created at the time when this novice was first exhibited at Frankfurt A.M. Mere astonishment was heightened to dumb wonder when Helmuth v. Aprath and Annemarie v. Thueringen also appeared. Dobermanns like these had never been seen. At the time of Lord v. Ried the Dobermann breed had achieved an advanced degree of evolutionary development. This was marked by a wide geographical distribution. The result was that the main blood lines emanating from the leading specimens of the breeding stock multiplied rapidly. Where Sighart v. Thueringen, Lord’s grandfather could boast of five main blood lines, Hellegraf, the father of Lord, had nine. No less than a full dozen proceeded from Lord himself. The dog was distinguished by a good substantial build but was slightly French-fronted . His head, while not particularly handsome, was well defined and proportioned. The markings also were sharply delineated and dark. The hind quarters were not beyond reproach. His size was considerably above the average of the times. For years his pedigree and genealogy were wrongly alleged and in the Dobermann stud book, referred to throughout this work by the symbol DZ his genealogy is still found entered incorrectly in places. His blood line is that of Belling over Winfried. His maternal side must be credited for his fine coloring, markings and proportion. From his father’s, Hellegraf’s side he inherited the adel , elegance and imposing size and appearance. The bitches mated to him were, of course many in number but, in the majority not suited to him. Today we find this dog in almost every pedigree of merit and his hereditary power and value cannot be overestimated. Throughout his life this dog remained the property of his breeder in Lampertsheim, Ried (Hessia). It remains an open question how much more this Lord could and would have done for the breed had he been permitted to wander about as much as his distinguished sire, Hellegraf.
The second best dog of the year was Edel v. Ilm-Athen, DZ677, whelped June 28, 1907. This black dog had the same ancestry as his brother Sturmfried. While perhaps not as valuable as the latter he was the author of a great deal of good. His blood comes to us in our leading dogs over Belling v. Berlin. That he was used exclusively in and around Berlin is a cause of regret for the German breed as a whole, which thereby lost the beneficent result of his hereditary qualities.
Helmuth v. Aprath, DZ250, whelped July 7, 1907, deserves mention as of this year because of his extreme elegance. This beautiful son of Hellegraf was overly refined and hence failed to transmit his quality. Helmuth deserves this place because he produced the first recorded and widely known fawn (Isabella) colored dog. Assad v. Roederberg, after two filialgenerations of browns. Otherwise his heredity is a minus quantity.
The year produced quite a number of good bitches, eight of which were to become famous for their contributions to the breed.
The black Theophano v. Thueringen, DZ591, whelped July 8, 1907 (Muck II v. Thueringen and Cordula v. Thueringen). Her main line of descendant, except for some unimportant sidelines, was unfortunately extinguished after two filialgenerations over Loni v.d. Wendenburg and her son Adelfried v.d. Wendenburg. Theophano’s outstanding trait and chief claim to fame was her unmatched beauty.
Representing quite another type was Zilla I v. Luetzellinden (not registered) a daughter of Hellegraf and Flora v Hoernsheim. She became the mother of both Marko v. Luetzellinden and Zilla II v. Luetzellinden. Like their mother both were brown. A number of brown filialgenerations follow in the wake of this bitch of which her grandson, Bodo v. Hoernsheim is the center. After a decade we note a distinct loss of vitality which cannot be charged to Zilla I. Among other traits she bequeathed to her descendants a good, sound, handsome Dobermann type.
Still another brown daughter of Hellegraf to distinguish herself by her progeny was Wally v. Burgwall, NZ735, whelped July 23, 1907. She left a large number of immediate descendants among which Moritz v. Burgwall was decidedly the best. When mated to dogs of the Ilm-Athen strain she transmitted her hereditary best.
Among the Ilm-Athen dogs as a group Dina v. Ilm-Athen (not registered) requires special mention as the mother of Edle v. Ilm-Athen. Dina herself was the daughter of Peter v. Ilm-Athen.
A Sturmfried daughter, Lotte v. Ilm-Athen (not registered) stands out in this brilliant assemblage as the mother of the great sire Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen. In the rush of progress her maternal descent has never been satisfactorily determined.
Both of the bitches last named were black.
Another of the black bitches to be included in our enumeration is Schnuppe v.d. Saale, DZ1979, whelped October 10, 1907. Her pedigree is still somewhat confused but definitely known is the fact that Glocke v. Thueringen was her paternal grandmother and by which the presence of Belling blood is explained. Schnuppe became the grandmother of Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen.
Wanda v.d. Hardt, a black daughter of Fedor, is only given mention here because of her intimate connection with the appearance of the fawn (isabella) color. Aside from her brown son, Lord v.d. Hardt, her heredity never asserted itself positively.
An excellent representative of her natal year was the black Jula v.d. Engelsburg, DZ782, whelped on July 19, 1907. As a daughter of Benno v. Thueringen she was of almost pure Ilm-Athen blood. Her son, Theo v.d. Funkenburg, and her granddaughter, Senta v. Jaegerheim, used this hereditary trait to good effect in the subsequent constitution of the Blankenburg strain. From the vantage point of today we can visualize how a single blood line of Benno v. Thueringen was developed into a powerful strain in a period of little more than ten years.
Other good dogs were: Raspe v. Thueringen, NZ296, (black), Roland v.d. Saar, NZ664, (black), Hans v. Starkenburg, DZ236, (black), Goetz v. Doermen, DZ327, (black), Vera II v. Giessen, (later Klettenberg), NZ493, (black), Jolanda v. Friesland, NZ593, (black), Lucie Viktoria, DZ278, (black), Vera v Starkenburg, DZ281, (black), Sena (later v. Lauenburg), DZ463, (black).
This year is less rich in outstanding breeding animals than it is in interesting developments. It is the year during which one of the best and greatest brown Dobermann stud dogs came upon the scene. This anatomically and aesthetically well nigh perfect Marko v. Luetzellinden (later Marko v. Jaegerhof) DZ637, was whelped July 25, 1908. Marko was descended from Fedor v. Aprath and Zilla I v. Luetzellinden and was the embodiment of elegance. Sad to say, but the truth must be emphatically told, this dog did have a bad character. As so often happened in our breed, Marko transmitted his worst (in this case an incomprehensible cowardice) along with the best of his hereditary traits to his best descendants: the two bitches, Tatjana and Cosima v. Jaegerhof. Many generations were – and still are – doomed to suffer from that influence. We will content ourselves by singling out just three of the blood lines from those constituting his progeny. First, that over Tatjana v. Jaegerhof to Edelblut v. Jaegerhof which would be sufficient for our purpose of demonstrating the best of his heredity, beauty and physical perfection. Two other bitches sprang from him, however, and they were destines to carry their sire’s best traits to future generations. These were Medea v. Jaegerhof later so invaluable to the Koningstad strain, and Isolde v. Coeln. This last bitch, with but three intervening generations, carries through to the Lobenstein dogs.
Lux Edelblut v. Ilm-Athen (not registered) the sire of Prinz Modern was born in this year. At first little hope was held out for this black dog as a stud dog. Only when his son Modern, was at the height of his glory, was attention drawn to him. It was unfortunately too late by then to make practical use of his breeding powers. Lux has given rise to many legends about himself. As with all the old dogs of our breed the legend-spawning city of Apolda has clothed him, along with them, in a mantle of mystical fabric. No denial is made that breeding experiments with various dogs were constantly being made but no one seems to know where the exact truth lies. The opinion generally held, and it is probably the correct one, is that Lux ended his days on a chain in a brewery where he served as watch dog.
A black dog that was to exercise great influence on the breed in our neighboring Holland was Sepp v. Kraichgau DZ1452, whelped September 27, 1908. One of Holland’s best and most successful breeders, H. Kloeppel, built a good part of his Grammont strain of dogs upon Sepp’s progeny. Sepp was a son of Lord v. Ried and was bred in Southern Germany.
Max v. Burgwall, (later v.d. Klosterburg) NZ1041, whelped October 1, 1908, (Hellegraf and Hertha v. Burgwall) was a beautiful brown dog with an excellent character. The chief bearers of this well disposed dog’s hereditary virtues were Adelfried v.d. Wendenburg, Tasso v.d. Weissen Elster and even more so a bitch, Erika v. Parthengrund, which inclined heavily to the strains of Czechoslovakia. But the main and most important line of descent from Max is over Marathon v.d. Klosterburg, in the filialgenerations of which we find the Goldgrund dogs and Fedor v. Buetersburg.
After a good beginning the lines emanating from Carlo v. Frauenlob, DZ858, whelped March 29, 1908. (Hans v. Aprath and Gertrud II v. Frauenlob) came to a quick and unexpected end. With this beautiful, agreeable and very sharp dog the last line of his sire came to its end in Germany, although it is still in full vigor in Switzerland.
The most interesting event of the year was the appearance of the somewhat legendary black bitch, Stella. Her origin and pedigree appeared unfathomable and all that is positively known about her is that she was whelped in Ried, Hessia (Germany). All stud book entries vary on the important point of origin. Our personal investigation, undertaken and finished in her lifetime, would bear out the conclusion that she was the product of a black English Greyhound dog and a black Dobermann bitch. Dog breeding had reached a high stage of development in the Hessian districts of Ried. Since the inhabitants of irs villages were employed in the industrial plants of Mannheim and Ludwigshafen at high wages a great deal of money was available for dog breeding and all sorts of breeding experiments were resorted to. Stella was sumply the product of one of them. The most typical of her progeny, and one which carried the obviously visible hallmark of the Greyhound, was her daughter Sybille (later v. Langen). This bitch Sybille became the maternal head of the Silberberg dogs and through them to a large extent an abiding influence upon the Blankenburg strain. The injection of this Greyhound blood into our Dobermann breed can be approved to the extent that it reconstituted the breed’s sharpness which suffered a severe set-back from the admixture with the blood of the gentle Manchester Terrier. Had the burden of proceeding with the development of the breed fallen entirely upon the lines of Modern and the Jaegerhof dogs the breed’s characteristic temperament would have suffered severely. Stella gave the breed a Trojan Horse in the form of her son Roland (later v.d. Haide). Concerning this dog’s devastating influence upon the breed more will be said later on.
The beautiful blue Loni v.d. Wendenburg, DZ1387, whelped October 12, 1908, (Gunzelin v. Altenburg and Theophano v. Thueringen) was of almost pure Ilm-Athen blood. It is a matter of regret that her blood line was extinguished. Adelfried v.d. Wendenburg was a fine example of her capacity.
Lina v.d. Pfalz (not registered) the black daughter of Immo v. Isenburg contributed some more Leporello blood to her better daughter Helga v.d. Pfalz.
Lona v.d. Lahn (not registered) (Lord v. Ried and Lona v. Giessen). Her claim to fame rested in her son Hans v.d. Lahn and through him in her grandsons Axel Hochwart and Assad v. Roederberg.
Hella v.d. Roemerschanz, DZ1468, whelped March 2, 1908 (Wedigo v. Thueringen and Dora II v. Schwaben). The progeny of this stately brown bitch was instrumental in building up the breed in Holland.
Feodora v. Warteberg, DZ2852, whelped October 10, 1908 (Fedor v. Aprath and Toska v. Warteberg) was a product of closest (incestuous) inbreeding to Tell v. Kirchweyhe. This black bitch’s heredity and power of transmitting same were excellent, as is borne out by her son, Lord v. Warteberg.
Other good dogs were: Dagmar v. Wied, NZ1019, (brown), Folkhardt v. Haiterbach, DZ309, (brown), Siegfried v. Reuss, NZ678, (black), Helma II v. Warteberg, NZ737, (black), Nora v.d. Waldeshoeh, NZ947, (brown), Nuscha v. Giessen, NZ275, (black), Jenny (later v.d. Alten Vehmlinde, DZ368, (black), Isolde v. Deutz, DZ661, (black).
Proved to be a fruitful year for the Dobermann, since its beginning the breed had known none to surpass it.
In its course there came to us an exceedingly powerful sire with vast powers of transmitting his hereditary traits to distant generations. This was Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen, NZ885, whelped May 25, 1909. On his mother’s side he brought us pure Ilm-Athen blood and on his father’s side we had it in part through Lux Edelblut v Ilm-Athen, a son of Hellegraf. At least a dozen main blood lines radiate from this potent dog and more than half of them survive to this day. Prinz Modern was of medium size, elegant, with a good but distinctively individual head type, the physical traits – but unfortunately also his lack of courage – which he transmitted in their entirety. As indicated above, he was not a brave dog and his spirit left much to be desired. The fortuitous circumstance that he was owned and kept in the kennels of Councillor Harry Peek, in Duesseldorf, led to the dog’s complete success. This meant that he stood in the very center of the breed’s growth and activity. The lower Rhine at that time was the seat of an interested and devoted Dobermann fancy. We were living in the breed’s golden age. Large exhibitions, an enthused following, lively public interest, great breeders and outstanding breeding animals all put the stamp of irresistible progress upon this period. The unity of the breeders was a constructive force, a community of interest made itself manifest everywhere and each took a sporting interest in the welfare and success of the other. Nothing seemed more assured than the future of the Dobermann. This spirit found expression in the breed as each one concerned with it bent every effort to raise its level higher. It was no occasion for surprise, therefore, that bitches were sent to Modern from Belgium, Holland, Silesia, Berlin, South Germany and other outlying regions. He not only raised the mean level of his own home district but became a significant force for the breed in all parts of the world. His pet name was Slenz. During the years of the World War he passed into other ownership and in the course of this difficult time was kept from continuing the work he had begun so well. His great fault, cowardice and its consequences to the breed, must not be overlooked or passed by in silence. The damage it did to the breed has not been entirely repaired or eliminated to date.
The black Moritz v. Burgwall, NZ741, whelped July 11, 1909, (Sturmfried and Wally v. Burgwall) must be ranked as a dog of the highest class. He projected five main blood lines into the future and his dominance in them is all the proof required of his hereditary power. Almost everywhere his progeny testifies to his worth. His descendants over Bodo v. Elfenfeld, Fernando v. Merseburg (Holland) and Gudrun v. Hornegg have retained their vigor and influence to this day. Moritz was a little long in back but excellent in coat, markings and head. His sharpness did not ring true but was surely on of the best dogs sired by Sturmfried.
Teja Herzynia, DZ1843, whelped July 1, 1909, (Sturmfried and Freya Herzynia). This blue dog displayed a great deal of Adel but not enough spirit. On the whole, though, he was a most attractive dog. His best descendants proceed from Lea v. Weissenfels to Lotte v. Roeneckenstein as well as from Fee v.d. Boerde to Burschell v. Simmenau. Himself or some immediate descendant is probably in every pedigree of importance today.
The brown Theo v.d. Funkenburg, DZ779, whelped May 25, 1909, (Fedor v. Aprath and Jula v.d. Engelsburg) was a strapping big dog and thoroughly sound but he lacked the capacity to transmit his hereditary power. His most important descendant is the black bitch Senta v. Jaegerheim, the mother of Asta Voss. This makes him one of the direct ancestors of the Blankenburg strain.
Another very handsome dog of this year was the brown Lord v.d. Hardt (later Lord v. Rheintor) DZ1232, whelped August 18, 1909, (Lord v. Ried and Wanda v.d. Hardt). With the exception of the fawn (Isabella) colored Assad v. Roederberg, Lord was a blank as to progeny.
This group of good dogs was supplemented by an equally large group of excellent bitches.
The Most valuable of these, with reference to their hereditary power, was the black Edle v. Ilm-Athen, DZ873, whelped July 22, 1909, (Sturmfried and Dina v. Ilm-Athen). She combined beauty and hereditary worth. It suffices to enshrine her in our history that she brought us Belling v. Berlin, the sire of Troll v.d. Blankenburg.
Another of this select group is the black Kitty, DZ897, whelped January 9, 1909, (Urian v. Eckardstein and Kitty v.d. Ruhr). She became the mother of Tatjana and Cosima v. Jaegerhof.
Sybille, (later v. Langen) DZ705, whelped May 28, 1909, (Lord v. Ried and Stella) was a black bitch with typical Greyhound look and expression, flat chest and with little, if any temperament. She acquitted herself of her duty as a brood bitch splendidly and transmitted her head type with great hereditary power and persistence. This was especially true of the three individuals of one litter: Heidi, Hispa and Bayard v. Silberberg.
The black Helga v.d. Pfalz, DZ713, whelped March 9, 1909, (Lord v. Ried and Luna v.d. Pfalz) was a fine, sharp and elegant bitch. Her most famous and outstanding son was Leuthold v. Hornegg.
Zilla II v. Luetzellinden, DZ774, whelped February 2, 1909, (Fedor v. Aprath and Zilla I v. Luetzellinden) was a brown bitch as generously supplied with beauty as she was generous in transmitting it to her progeny. Her hereditary powers and character were as good as her appearance. Her best descendant was Bodo v. Hoernsheim.
Last but nevertheless one of the best of the year was the black Wally v.d. Strengbach, DZ3428, whelped June 25, 1909, (Sturmfried and Freya v.d. Strengbach). She carried almost pure Ilm-Athen blood and is the product of the closest (incestuous) inbreeding to Prinz v. Ilm-Athen. Her pedigree shows Greif v. Groenland twice as her grandfather. No wonder, therefore, that her great son, Waldo v.d. Strengbach, was the extraordinary potent transmitter of his own hereditary traits which he ultimately proved himself to be.
Other good dogs were: Lord v. Eichendorf, NZ831, (brown), Bredo v. Ilm-Athen, NZ867, (black), Falstaff v.d. Klosterburg, NZ917, (blue), Benno II v. Nibelungenhort, DZ824, (black), Sydow v. Deutz, DZ913, (black), Sigfried v. Brumstadt, DZ1447, (black), Kunibert v. Limburg, DZ2379, (brown), Kuno v. Umstadt, DZ963, (black), Nora v. Pfaelzerland, DZ831, (black).
This year brought us no outstanding dogs but many of good average quality.
The black Hans v.d. Lahn, DZ1574, whelped October 17, 1910, (Hellegraf v. Thueringen and Lona v.d. Lahn) was of less importance than his imposing pedigree would indicate. His greatest service to the breed was to sire Axel Hochwart.
A very good dog, however, was the brown Bodo v. Elfenfeld, DZ1133, whelped December 26, 1910, (Moritz v. Burgwall and Eddie v. Elfenfeld). His litter brother Bob v. Elfenfeld, DZ1132, was his equal in every respect. Bodo left two excellent bitches, Borste and Bruenhild v. Falkenhain, as his legacy to the breed. Borste v. Falkenhain was to become invaluable for the Simmenau strain of dogs.
Rino v.d. Roemerschanz, DZ1908, whelped October 28, 1910, (Sepp v. Kraichgau and Hella v.d. Roemerschanz). This brown dog became the sire of Troll v. Albtal. The latter was of inestimable value in the development of the Dobermann breed in Holland.
An outstanding brown stud dog was the sharp and equally handsome Tasso v.d. Weissen Elster, DZ3000, whelped May 22, 1910, (Max v. Burgwall and Brenda v.d. Weissen Elster). His hereditary transmissions were good even if not outstanding.
An equally handsome half brother was the black Adelfried v.d. Wendenburg, DZ1377, whelped February 10, 1910, (Max v. Burgwall and Loni v.d. Wendenburg). He was unfortunate in that the bitches mated to him were in the main unsuited, with the result that only one blood line, that of the Sachsenburg dogs, remain to do him honor.
Roland (later v.d. Haide) DZ1291, whelped June 28, 1910, (Lord v. Ried and Stella) was a brown dog pre-eminently qualified to ruin the entire breed and forthwith proceeded to exercise his talents. Lack of taste, ignorance and other unfathomed motives of our judges permitted this grotesque caricature of a Dobermann to win officially recorded high honors. His devastating hereditary influence was soon forcibly active and observable in many of the Ostersee, Rottal, Siegestor and Isarstrand dogs. To a minor extent this Roland pest infected the Tirol dogs. His progeny were mostly narrow but deep-chested monstrosities, unbelievably coarse with wide open, round eyes,. For the real Dobermann fancier and expert they required a decade and a half to repair the damage he had done. Most of his life he passed in Bavaria. Salto v. Rottal was one of his sons but of no discoverable value to the breed.
Switzerland at this time had a good black stud dog in Roland v. Tale, SHSB5803, whelped November 1, 1910, (Lord v. Ried and Gertrud II v. Frauenlob). The best of his numerous progeny was Leporello v. Tale.
The year also brought us some very good bitches. The best of these was Liesel v. Dambachtal, DZ2120, whelped January 18, 1910, (Lord v. Ried and Leska v.d. Wartburg). This blue bitch was a most lovable and beautiful creature with a great deal of Adel . In three filial generations she leads to Lotte v. Roeneckenstein and can therefore be included among the builders and progenitors of the modern Simmenau and Sigalsburg strains.
Medea v. Jaegerhof, (not registered), (Marko v. Luetzellinden and Juliane v. Jaegerhof) she became the mother of Selma v. Jaegerhof and the grandmother of Waltraute v. Grammont. Carlo and his son Favorit v.d. Koningstad are descendent from her in direct line. To her, therefore, much of the credit for the high state of the breed in Holland and in America is due.
The black Anne-Liese v. Luetzellinden, DZ1202, whelped May 10, 1910, (Lord v. Ried and Elsa v. Luetzellinden) in conjunction with Hans v.d. Lahn also of this year, brought us the stalwart and solid Axel Hochwart.
Another brown bitch demanding our attention at this time is Lotte v. Haiterbach, DZ1083, whelped March 3, 1910, (Helmut v. Aprath and Flora II v. Haiterbach). She is the third in an unbroken line of brown descent, through two brown parental generations over Helmuth to Hellegraf. A continuation of this pure brown succession led to her production of the fawn (Isabella) colored Assad v. Roederberg.
Other good dogs were:

Trick v. Deutz, DZ590, (black)
Hans v. Dambachtal, DZ1091, (blue)
Wodan v.d. Hohen Burg, DZ1122, (black)
Bluecher v Hoernsheim, DZ1138, (black)
Max v.d. Weissen Elster, DZ4145, (brown)
Sorma v. Eckardtstein, DZ1296, (black)
Cleo v.d. Boerde, DZ1312, (black)
Lotte Buronia, DZ1312, (black)
Ursula v. Hornegg, DZ1442, (black)
Luthi v. Frohse, DZ3261, (blue)

GRUENIG 1911 – 1915
The year 1911, with the exception of one brown bitch yielded only black Dobermanns. This is another way of saying that the Ilm-Athen blood had won its battle and absorbed the Hellegraf and Fedor blood completely. All efforts to restore the brown color to its equivalent and rightful place in the breed will be in vain as long as the artificial influence of such dogs as Greif v. Groenland, Prinz v. Ilm-Athen, Prinz-Modern, Edelblut, Burschel v. Simmenau, Troll and Lux v.d. Blankenburg, and, of course, their immediate descendants is not combated. These dominant transmitters of black have not succeeded in annihilating the brown of the Winfried and the Sigharts but have made it latent. The browns that do break through this color cordon are of such exceptional beauty, power and value that no further proof is needed that the brown color, though latent, has lost none of its pristine power and quality. Only a breeder of great stature and determination can bring this biological process to a halt by systematic and conscious objectivity. He would incidentally stabilize the production of colors other than black and restore them to the popular acclaim and place which is their due.
Leuthold v. Hornegg, DZ1982, whelped May 30, 1911, (Lord v. Ried – Helga v.d. Pfalz) was a large mighty and attractive dog with a great deal of Adel . His angulation was insufficient and too steep. His head type, when considered separately from that of Sybille (late v. Langen) was in need of much improvement. His eyes were narrow slit and slanting, a feature not improved by an almost total absence of stop. The amateur and self-appointed judges of the time almost apotheosized the dog with the result that his head type, which he transmitted with great individual power and persistence was introduced into the breed, to be sure, in a somewhat modified form.
This came to its natural fruition in his great-grandson, Claus v.d. Spree, its best known bearer. Unless we attribute the derivation of this objectionably domed head type to Leuthold’s great-grandmother we would be at a loss for an explanation of its origin. Certainly neither his sire Lord v. Ried nor any of the Immo v. Isenburg line can be found guilty on that charge. His two sons, Achim and Artus v. Langerode were both high grade dogs and powerful transmitters of their own qualities. They present another instance of the individual hereditary potency of their mother, Asta v. Starkenberg. Not only did she transmit her own dominant and almost perfect type and traits to them but obviously and also the power of transmitting them.
A dog that was almost as significant and important as Leuthold was Belling v. Berlin, DZ1945, whelped September 19, 1911, (Edel v. Ilm-Athen and Edle v. Ilm-Athen). The blood line of both his sire and dam go back to Greif v. Groenland over Prinz v. Ilm-Athen in two and three parental generations respectively. Belling was a real and typical representative of the Ilm-Athen blood which proved so beneficial to the Blankenburg, Sigalsburg and Simmenau dogs. In spite of, or more correctly, because of his inbreeding Belling carried through so gratifyingly to Troll v.d. Blankenburg. In a previous chapten we devoted considerable space to the influence and effect of a dog’s age on the quality of his progeny. Both Leuthold and Belling were six years of age when they sired their best descendants.
In the third place we have Bayard v. Silberberg, DZ1598, whelped May 23, 1911, (Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen and Sybille (later v. Langen). Mated to his sister Heidi v. Silberberg, he produced the incestuously inbred Sybille v. Silberberg and, through her, in three direct filial generations, Claus v.d. Spree and Claus v. Cothenius.
A dog with the very best hereditary possibilities but which unfortunately could never be sufficiently employed was Waldo v.d. Strengbach, DZ2642, whelped May 6, 1911, (Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen and Wally v.d. Strengbach). This dog had the best of Ilm-Athen blood on both parental sides and his individual potency in transmitting his good build and head was the object of much justified wonder. Like all dogs born from 1911 on, he was beset by the curse which consisted of the outbreak of the World War in 1914, just at the time when they would reach the peak of their productive power. The rapid sinking of the breed upon that occurrence practically precluded the natural continuation of their heredity. Waldo was one of the victims of this War Curse. Several excellent specimens sired by him were at hand but in the stress and turmoil indicental to the war no attention could be paid to them. One line emanating from him is of particular interest, that which leads to Hertha II v. Golzheim over Jack v. Stuebbenhaus. In its more distant ramifications we find such good dogs as Achill v.d. Rheinperle, etc. His greatest service to the breed and the world in general was his contributory assistance to the elimination of that pestilential Roland blood in Bavaria.
In Lord v. Warteberg, DZ2005, whelped February 24, 1911, (Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen and Feodora v. Warteberg), we had a good dog, used less for his eminent breeding qualities than for advertising the police dog movement at that time in the public eye. He became almost valueless for the breed and its progress but left one good heir in Horst Soeberdt.
Marathon v.d. Klosterburg, DZ3208, whelped April 8, 1911, (Max v. Burgwall and Netty v.d. Klosterburg). This black dog became valuable to the breed as the sire of Gerhard v. Parthengrund and thereby as the grandsire of Hela v. Goetterfelsen. This last bitch is of special significance to and for the breed in America.
For the Swiss breed the coming of Max (Sommer), SHSB6725, whelped November 21, 1911, an Immo v. Isenburg son, is of fortunate consequence. This black dog was to become the sire of Max Heidenstein.
The year 1911 was rich in good bitches which helped the breed to higher levels. Among them were:
Tatjana v. Jaegerhof, DZ7787, whelped December 18, 1911, (Marko v. Luetzellinden and Kitty) was a bitch of the nobles stature but she brought the cowardice and shyness of her sire into the breed. She transmitted these traits through her handsome son., Edelblut and it is still an open question whether the benefits of her hereditary ardice. Her sister Cosima was almost her equal in form and neither could be excelled therein during their time.
Two litter sisters of Bayard v. Silberberg were:
Hispa v. Silberberg, DZ1605. Together with Bodo v. Alfenfeld she produced, among others, the litter sisters Borste and Brunhild v. Falkenhain. The former produced the mother of Alex v. Simmenau and the latter Salto v. Rottal.
Heidi v. Silberberg, DZ1606, has already been discussed in connection with her litter brother Bayard.
The black bitch Blanca v. Parthengrund, DZ1588, whelped May 18, 1911, (Lord v. Ried and Gerhilde v. Parthengrund) was a grand-daughter of Carlo Viktoria on her mother’s side and was fated to become the mother of the brown Arnfried v. Brandis.
Another product of the Parthengrund kennels, which now takes an active and very successful part in the development of the breed, requires mention at this point. This was Erika v. Parthengrund, DZ2350, whelped December 2, 1911, (Max v. Burgwall and Lore v. Parthengrund). This brown bitch produced one of the bitches from which the Dobermann breed in Czechoslovakia is derived.
Switzerland in enriched by one of her most successful and valuable brood bitches when Glocke II v. Tale SHSB6735, whelped May 14, 1911, (Hans v. Aprath and Gertrud II Frauenlob) first sees the light of her Alpine days. She became the chief ancestor of both the Lentulus and the Baerenburg dogs.
Other good dogs were: Rino v. Greifenstein, DZ1681, (brown), Hans Schwarz, DZ2496, (black), Mylon v.d. Alten Vehmlinde, DZ3080, (black), Marko v. Warteberg, DZ5575, (black), Ilse v.d. Weissen Elster, DZ2606, (brown), Toska II v. Warteberg, DZ2853, (black).
During this year the bitches were better than the dogs. Only one really outstanding dog was produced and we will begin our recital with him.
Bodo v. Hoernsheim, DZ3106, whelped January 8, 1912, (Lord v. Ried and Zilla II v. Luetzellinden). This unusually good and handsome dog carried in his veins a preponderance of blood of brown ancestry but most of it was lost to the breed because he was unaccountably disinclines to mating. The Jaegerhof kennels disposed of him because of this. He refused to serve the majority of the bitches brought to him and for no apparent reason. Only a few blood lines went out from him the most important of which is that over Alex v. Simmenau. His ancestry goes back to Hellegraf in part and also to Fedor. Had he developed and exercised his full breeding potentialities h would have become one of the Great of the breed. His sharpness was proverbial.
In Lord v. Mainz, DZ2669, whelped April 5, 1912, (Moritz v. Burgwall and Flora Roemertal) Southwest Germany had a fine black dog, although the fact was almost entirely unknown. He was a correct and handsome dog and in conjunction with Betty Weber became the basic ancestor of the Zinsgut dogs.
Gerhard v. Parthengrund, DZ5453, whelped September 17, 1912, (Marathon v. Klosterburg and Sorma v. Parthengrund) was a black dog that over his daughter, Hela v. Goetterfelsen gave an excellent account of himself in connection with the breed in America.
Troll v. Albtal, DZ2411, Holl, reg. No. 19806, whelped February 28, 1912, (Rino v.d. Roemerschanz and Hella v. Pfinzgan). This excellent compact dog was largely of Hellegraf blood. His progeny only became of benefit to Holland and America. His ultra successful lines over Waltraute, Bubine, Benno v.d. Roemerhof or Waltraute, Carlo and Favorit v.d. Koningstad both are in their ascendancy in America.
The most interesting dog of the year decidedly the oftmentioned fawn (Isabella) colored dog Assad v. Roederberg, DZ2881, whelped May 23, 1912, (Lord v. Hardt and Lotte v. Haiterbach). In the stud book he is modestly described as a blue . His ancestry goes back to Hellegraf in three parental generations of which the only individual not brown is Lord v. Ried. Science has seized upon this result as proof of the previously asserted deduction that an unbroken line of browns mated to browns would ultimately result in a color deterioration known as Flavism . To be sure, coloring matter (pigmentation) is still present in the skin. It can be brought to life and stimulated to biological activity by mating to the dominant black but if the mating to brown is still persisted in it will become progressively weaker. Whether Albinism can be achieved at all can only be determined by an intensive extension of this process or even of mating a fawn to fawn again. Under no circumstances must we confuse the fawn color which is derived from brown with that which is derived from a deteriorated blue and has a faded, washed-out appearance. It is indeed a matter of regret that the various breed organizations will not tolerate this beautiful fawn color. In ignorance of the cause of its appearance the belief is held that it will cause damage to the breed. The spectre of degeneration is raised and made to walk about. How effective and attractive this color, with its resulting contrasts, can be is best seen in other breeds which have long ago brought about its fixation, constancy and stabilization. Our Dobermann could only profit by permitting this color to assume its rightful place in the spectrum of the breed. Not the least remarkable feature of this color is that during the first few days of the pups’ life the fawn cannot be distinguished from the browns and the breeders usually report and enter them as browns. We have the well known case of Carmen v. Kraichgau over Undine v. Grammont. If we trace the line faithfully over every filial generation we come to Angela v. Grammont and Favorit v.d. Koningstad, etc, etc. There are many of such unbroken lines of brown. How easy it would be, in America for instance, where these animals are now located, to breed outstanding fawns. It would be a profitable venture for the breed. There are, as a matter of recorded fact, several generations of fawns in Esthonia and Czechoslovakia.
Switzerland produced a good breeding dog in this year in Leporello v. Tale, SHSB6723, whelped March 4, 1912, and a son of Roland v. Tale.
The bitches which we enumerate here were, without exception, black.
Fee v.d. Boerde, DZ3042, whelped May 14, 1912, (Teja Herzynia and Helma II. Warteberg). She was of pure Sturmfried blood on both sides and demonstrated her hereditary capacity by producing the invaluable Arno v.d. Gluecksburg.
Betty v. Jaegerhof, DZ3659, whelped May 1, 1912, (Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen and Alma v. Jaegerhof). On her mother’s side she carried Lord v. Ried blood. She was overly fine but correct in every feature. She produced one of the great dogs of the days to come, the bitch Asta v. Starkenburg the maternal ancestor of all the Langerode dogs.
Senta v. Jaegerheim, (not registered), (Theo v.d. Funkenburg and Liesel v. Seeberg), as the mother of Asta Voss exercised a dominating influence upon the Blankenburg dogs. This bitch was almost totally unknown. According to my findings, corroborated by documentary evidence and all other obtainable information, the real name of this bitch was Senta v. Jaegerhaus, whelped June 17, 1911. She was owned by K. Seipp of Barmen, and was several times given high rating against strong competition. Her pedigree is the same as above.
Carola v. Elfenfeld, DZ2370, whelped February 26, 1912, (Moritz v. Burgwall and Eddie v. Elfenfeld). This bitch has a very interesting blood synthesis. The Ilm-Athen dogs, Hellegraf and Slenz, all contributing some to her by way of good ancestors, form a rarely found combination. As the mother of Senta v. Nesselrode she is a dominating influence over the Stresow dogs.
Selma v. Jaegerhof, DZ4284, Holl. reg. no. 19722, whelped August 20, 1912, (Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen and Medea v. Jaegerhof) was much better known under her later name Thea v. Jaegerhof under which she was registered in the Dutch stud books. Her influence on the breed both in Holland and America is noticeable, especially as the grandmother of Carlo and great-grandmother of Favorit v.d. Koningstad.
Isolde v. Coeln, DZ4780, whelped May 22, 1912, (Marko v. Luetzellinden and Ruska v. Coeln). In the course of her filial generations she became of utmost importance to the Lobenstein strain of dogs.
Other good dogs were: Montwitz v. Eckardstein, DZ2890, (black), Stopp v. Parthengrund, DZ2901, (black), Siegfried v. Friedewald, DZ2987, (black), Bella v. Dambachtal, DZ3665, (blue), Wanda Knoll, DZ3895, (black), Alice v.d. Sachsenburg, DZ4302, (brown), Tea v. Sickingen, DZ4378, (brown).
In spite of the unlucky number 13 this was a good year for the Dobermann breed. Dogs and bitches pressed forward in equal numbers but all, with the exception of two brown bitches, were black.
They were all overshadowed by Edelblut v. Jaegerhof, DZ4691, whelped January 25, 1913, (Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen and Tatjana v. Jaegerhof). His pedigree is well worth close study. We find that Ilm-Athen blood preponderates in it, to be sure, but also that it is well diluted by that of Fedor. That from this combination we had no right to expect a dog of real and unusual sharpness goes without saying, for both of the parents and each of the grandparents were anything but belligerent. He did not deserve the reproach of shyness or cowardice, however. This excellent show and breeding dog faithfully reflected the high status of the breed of his day, and, as a worthy successor of Lord v. Ried and his own sire, Prinz Modern v. Ilm-Athen, dominated and conditioned it. His breeding career came at a most unfortunate time, during the World War people’s thoughts could not be directed to dog breeding. This difficulty was to some extent offset by the fortunate circumstance that he was located in the Rhineland. Because of its proximity to Holland, this was the best place for a stud dog. What breeding was done in this difficult time rook place in this general neighborhood. Envy inspired a campaign of calumny against the dog, the breeder and the owner. It was rumored that the dog was being used by the owner to serve seventy to eighty bitches a year. Aside from the obvious fact that so many bitches could not have been found for breeding at that particular time and place, the lie was completely refuted by the carefully kept stud records which we have personally inspected and verified. Up to 1924 Edelblut had served exactly 104 bitches or a negligible fraction more than ten a year. Today his blood is found in every Dobermann pedigree on earth. Like every other dog, he had some faults but we will call attention only to the most serious and fateful one, loose shoulders. His progeny were being preferred to that of every other dog of his time. Although otherwise sound, he spread this primary fault until the entire breed of Western Germany has succumbed to its evil. This pandemic fault left no alternative but to yield the highly prized breed leadership to the Berlin group, which then assumed the coveted role with its sound and correct dogs. But the same trouble, in another form, was developing there, too. By resorting too largely to a breed leader of any time or place a district will spread this leader’s faults in aggravated form all through its home strains. Jealously monopolizing its leading dog’s services serve to confine and also to intensify the spread of these faults to its own area. There was a complete repetition of this historical process in the case of Lux v.d. Blankeburg . Extensive damage resulting from a spread of Lux’s many and grievous faults was averted only by a timely recognition of the danger and removal of the dog, by way of a sale, to another field so thoroughly insulated by distance that he was rendered harmless to Germany. Warnings against oversaturation by any one blood, with its attendant faults, are always in order. Of course Nature will call a halt in time but no breeder need wait upon that call and lose precious time in doing so.
But let us return to Edelblut. As grandsire of the best of the Blankenburg dogs his hereditary value to that strain was beyond compute. It would be a hopeless task to follow out all the blood lines emanating from him, so we will consider only a few. Asta v. Starkenburg was by far his best and loveliest daughter, and we have had and will have frequent occasion to comment upon her. She was the product of an incestuous mating and quite unique in her hereditary influence. The Swiss bitch Dely v. Baerenburg was no less beautiful. Another high class show and breeding dog was his son, Achill v.d. Rheinperle, but another of his get, Lord v.d. Horstburg, was more prized for his beautiful show qualities than his capacity for reproducing. This held good both in Germany and America whither he was sent. The equally nonproductive Motte v. Friedewald does not materially alter this picture. Edelblut’s brown descendants Urian and Undine v. Grammont were most important for the breed in Holland. Every one of his litter sisters proved to be high class breeding dogs but only a few ever attracted wide notice. Edelblut lived to become more than thirteen years. He was living corroboration of the disputed truth a properly used and cared for stud dog will outlive an indolent brother wallowing in luxury, food and care but without sexual activity by years.
Arno v.d. Gluecksburg, DZ4216, whelped June 13, 1913, (Bayard v. Silberberg and Fee v.d. Boerde). This dog is to share the honor of being the other grandsire of Lux v.d. Blankeburg with Edelblut. It is most regrettable that Arno’s field of activity was so largely confined to Eastern Germany. His best descendant was the powerful transmitter and hereditarily potent Burschel v. Simmenau.
Fernando v. Merseburg, DZ3662, Holl. Reg. No. 22329, whelped January 6, 1913, (Moritz v. Burgwall and Adelgunde v. Treuhort). This dog’s greatest success was achieved in Holland and his best descendant was Rival’s Adonis.
Axel Hochwart, DZ3999, whelped May 4, 1913, (Hans v.d. Lahn and Anne-Liese v. Luetzellinden). This was a faultless, robust yet pleasing dog. Unfortunately only unimportant sidelines from him reach our time.
Jack v. Stuebbenhaus, DZ3966, whelped February 26, 1913, (Waldo v.d. Strengbach and Grete v. Duessetal). Jack was a good son of a better father and became famous because of his daughter Hertha II v. Golzheim.
Horst Soeberdt, DZ5113, whelped March 17, 1913, (Lord v. Warteberg and Sieglinde v. Schloss Foersterheim). This dog vindicated his descent by giving us a famous son, Wuotan v. Thueringen.
The black Flock v. Traunfeld, DZ9490, whelped March 29, 1913, (Max v.d. Weissen Elster and Asta v. Eggenberg) proved to be one of the pillars of the Czechoslovakian House of Dobermann. His blood is derived to some extent from Fedor v. Aprath but to a greater from Hellegraf. His sire Max was of a closely and incestuously bred Hellegraf line.
The bitches of this year, taken as a group, became a vast reservoir of hereditary value upon which the breeds of Germany, Switzerland, Holland and the United States of America drew to their great and lasting benefit.
Borste v. Falkenhain, DZ3615, whelped January 16, 1913, (Bodo v Elfenfeld and Hispa v. Silberberg). This black bitch transmitted hereditary traits of such value and power that over Alex. Simmenau and Lotte I v. Simmenau her descendants as distant as Claus and Figaro v. Sigalsburg are still drawing sustenance from her.
Her brown litter sister Brunhild v. Falkenhain, DZ3621, is also registered under the name of Brunhild v. Silberberg. The first time in volume V and the second in volume VI of the DZ, as No. 6143. This was not the result of an error but a deliberate attempt to deceive. It must be remembered that the breeder and the kennel name are also falsified and hence wrong in every official pedigree. A Mrs. Tornier is the real breeder and not the alleged Mrs. Stahr. As said before we are dealing with a fraud. However, Brunhild later became the mother of Salto v. Rottal.
Werry v.d. Rolandsburg, black, DZ6384, whelped October 10, 1913, (Prinz Modern v Ilm-Athen and Freya v. Lafferde). On her dam’s side she had some blood of Theo v.d. Funkenburg and produced Lord v.d. Horstburg.
The black Helmtrude v. Kranichstein, DZ3992, whelped March 10, 1913, (Leuthold v. Hornegg and Verra v. Henneburg) was a good transmitter and among other worthy descendants gave us Orest v. Kranichstein.
Edelblut’s very stately sister, Helga v. Jaegerhof, DZ5573, was now in Holland. She lent refinement to the entire line of Rival’s descendants and among them we find, but a few filial generations away, Angola and Ajax v. Grammont, Carlo and Favorit v. Koningstad and also Benno v. Roemerhof.
The brown Carmen v. Kraichgau, DZ3814, Holl. Reg. No. 21225, whelped January 31, 1913, (Sepp v. Kraichgau and Stella v. Rosenhain) was a mixture of Ilm-Athen and Hellegraf blood. She planted herself deeply in Holland where the Grammont strain owes much of its excellence to her. Her descendants Urian and Undine v. Grammont speak more for her than we could.
Waltraute v. Grammont, Holl. Reg. No. 24939, (Troll v. Albtal and Selma v. Jaegerhof) was the black bitch that completed the structure of the Grammont strain. Her two chief descendants, Carlo and Bubine v.d. Koningstad were universally recognized breed pillars, especially the former in America.
In Switzerland the black Helda Lentulus, SHSB7503, whelped June 26, 1913, (Leporello v. Tale and Glocke II v. Tale), raised herself above the welter of excellent dogs. Her claim to recognition was more than justified when she gave us Miss Berneck, Budy Hambuehl and Bosco Hambuehl.
A blue bitch, Freya v. Ostersee, DZ5155, whelped October 18, 1913, (Waldo v.d. Strengbach and Wanda Knoll) carried outstanding blood in her veins. She seems to have endowed her daughter, Thessa v. Ostersee, with much of her own hereditary worth. Her blood line, vitalized and accentuated by suitable dogs, carries over into the present through Ikos v. Siegestor.
Other good dogs were: Northon v. Johaimistal, DZ4826, (brown), Edelblut v.d. Sachsenburg, DZ5078, (brown), Max v. Isenburg, DZ5203, (brown), Remo v.d. Bergstrasse, DZ5488, (black), Fedor v. Giessen, DZ4812, (black).
This is a year the very thought of which awakens unpleasant memories in the mind of every decent and civilized being. It brought evil consequences in its wake not only for the Dobermann but for all breeds.
Wotan v. Thueringen, DZ6371, whelped August 14, 1914, (Horst Soeberdt and Woglinde v. Thueringen). This black dog was only used for breeding to a very limited extent but he left us some valuable progeny, A son, Fels v.d. Krenzhorst achieved tremendous fame in Czechoslovakia and a daughter, Fredegunde v. Fernsicht the grandmother of Mars and Modern v. Simenenau.
Alex v. Simmenau, DZS626, whelped April 6, 1914, (Bodo v. Hornsheim and Borste v. Falkenhain). As the grandfather of Asta v. Stolzenburg this black dog transmits a great deal of his hereditary traits to Claus and Figaro v. Sigalsburg.
Rival’s Adonis, Holl. Reg. No. 23500, (Fernando v. Merseburg and Helga v. Jaegerhof). In his time this black dog was the best in Holland. Through Angola and Ajax v. Grammont and later Bubine v.d. Koningstud he exerted extensive and most beneficial influence upon the Dutch, and their intimately related American dogs.
The brown Amfried v. Bmndis, DZ6394, whelped May 12, 1914, (Stopp v. Parthengrund and Blanca v. Parthvn grund) is pure Parthengrund blood through two parental generations. Among other beneficiaries of his hereditary capacity was the grandiose Zeus v. Parthengrund.
The Swiss breed brings us another good and useful addition in Max Heidenstein, SHSB7931, welped August 6, 1914. Through his sire, Max (Sommer), his place in the Swiss breed was assured and as the sire of Miss Berneck wins a place on his own account.
Five of this year’s bitches will be given special consideration. They are:
Elfriede v. Elsass, DZ6203, whelped August 15, 1914, (Modern v. Ilm-Athen and Nora v. Elsass). This black bitch had exquisite blood lines. Through her brown daughter, Lotte II v. Stresow, she became the grandmother of Horst v. Stresow. After the war this dog became the basis of an active and extensive Dobermann strain in Russia.
Lea v. Weissenfels, DZS599, whelped March 27, 1914, (Teja Herzynia and Liesel v. Dambachtal) was a black bitch from which the prominent and valuable Wiesengrund dogs were descended and through them became the grandmother of Lotte v. Roeneckenstein.
Gudrun v. Hornegg, DZ8130, whelped July 20, 1914, (Moritz v. Burgwall and Helga v.d. Pfalz). When mated to Alex v. Simmenau this black bitch became the dam of Lotte I v. Simmenau.
In Betty Weber, DZ6268, whelped July 15, 1914, (Lord v. Mainz and Helma v. Kranichstein) we have the mother of Cajetan v. Nibelungenhort, the sire and mainspring upon which the Zinsgut strain so heavily relied and drew. In last place, and by way of calling special attention to this outstanding black bitch, we name Asta v. Starkenburg, DZ6073, whelped September 21, 1914, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Betty v. Jaegerhof). She was the product of incestuous inbreeding to Modern v. Ilm-Athen. Her beauty and show ring qualities were almost as valuable as her hereditary and breeding capacity. Several main blood lines sprang from her. The Hindendorff” kennul built upon her but vastly more important to future generations were her sons, Artus and Achim v. Langerode. Her descendants are today numbered and included among the most select and aristocratic members of the breed.
This year was marked by an intensification of the war and the ensuing misery became more noticeable. This deepening misery made dog breeding more and more difficult. If the armies in the field had not been compelled to rely upon dogs to some extent for patrol service in both the medical and combat units at the front the authorities of all the countries at war would not have hesitated for a moment in suppressing all breeding operations. Most of the German breeders were at the front and inescapable necessity compelled their remaining dependants to have their highly prized and dearly loved household pets put to a merciful death as the only alternative to starvation and suffering along with their owners. How deeply this cut into the heart of a true dog lover can be testified to by me. On the second day of mobilization, the day on which I was ordered to the front, no less than eighteen half grown pups from my kennel fell victims to strychnine. It had to be; to safeguard them from the more horrible fate of death from slow starvation. In a moment of weakness, induced by the hope of saving them, I retained two of my best dogs: Walhall v. Jaegerhof (a litter sister of Edelblut) and Ebbo v. Adalheim (a son of Marko v. Luetzellinden). They died miserably of malnutrition in 1916. Untold thousands suffered the same pain I did, for wives and children barely escaped the same fate of starvation. How wonderfully far had our much-touted civilization brought us! It is not to be wondered at that the neutral foreigner took advantage of and profited by this state of affairs, especially when a dog was pressed upon him by the German breeder and fancier as a means of saving its life and as the natural expression of his deep love for it. At least the dog would be safe from the ever more menacing spectre of starvation at home. The high tide of the Dobermann in Holland dates from about this period and continues until the more or less consolidation of the breed in Germany is effected in 1922. That in the years during and immediately following the war much of our best breeding stock was sold or traded at prices that be better left unmentioned is a bald fact. To be quite honest about it, only the rising flood of inflation put an end to this ignoble barter.
A special peculiarity of the years during and those immediately following the war was that the good bitches always outnumbered the dogs. This was in part due to the fact that the armies preferred dogs for their purpose but more than that to the constantly denied but frequently proved fact that the dogs, being less guarded than the bitches, were trapped, killed and devoured by the starving people. In desperation a starving man will resort to any means of satisfying his hunger. That dog meat is now frequently sold and used, especially in the larger cities must be accepted as one of the more regrettable aftermaths of the war. The need of war time has become the habit of today.
I write all this because it is an integral part of the history of the Dobermann, although our descendants may not believe it. The older breeders know it and the younger ones can derive great profit from it as an illustration of the difficulties which a breed must encounter and overcome on the road to progress and success.
After all the depressing stories above it must be clear and comprehensible why only a few good and effective breeding dogs were being shown and used in Germany.
Aside from the older ones and of other years the only great dog of this year was the black Burschel v. Simmemzu, DZ6238, whelped November 14, 1915, (Arno v.d. Gluecksburg and Gudrun v. Hornegg). His blood constituency, which was preponderantly that of Ilm-Athen assured him of the qualities which are required for great hereditary powers of transmission. His descendants, through almost all of his tirial generations, prove that an individual of Burschel’s stature can be the redeemer of an entire breed. Were we to exclude all of the later products of his breeder, Carl Winkler, from serious consideration, Burschel alone would suffice to write Winkler’s name indelibly upon the pages of Dobermann history. The dog’s greatness was proved by Lux v.d. Blankenburg but he went farther and higher with his daughter, Leddy v.d. Blankenburg and his grandson Alex v.d. Finohoehe. Then came Lotte v. Stresow, the mother of Horst v. Stresow, and finally, his crown of fame, Claus- and Cilly v.d. Spree. All these dogs were fruitful beyond previously known Dobermann standards. Burschel’s share of the credit for the status of the breed today is far-reaching and deeply rooted. He wandered much and far through Germany. He was whelped in Silesia but as a year old pup was sold off to Berlin because of his incurable viciousness. Here he was used at stud and gave his best. His later years found him back in his native land. The lure of speculative profit caused him to be sent to the Rhineland where he died before he could achieve anything more worthy of note.
At this time Holland had the brown Urian v. Grammont, DZ8899, whelped October 23, 1915, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Carmen v. Kraichgan). This splendid sire was a comical freak. Had he been exhibited he would never have achieved even the lowest rating, “Good,” more likely he would have been chased from the ring. Under his mighty Dobermann body were legs which in comparison with normal Dobermann legs, were fully 12 cm. too short. Color, head, expression, in fact, everything else was beyond reproach. Apparently this was a case of shortleggedness due to some acquired injury while still being carried in his mother’s womb. The scientific term for this cause and condition is “Chondrodystrophia foetalis.” This has been deliberately bred into Beagles, Scotch and Sealyham Terriers as a desirable trait. In the Dachshund we have it with the additional bend of the joints which gives the name to this condition in other breeds: Dachshund-legged.” The most remarkable feature, however, was that in the fourth filialgeneration after Urian there was a recurrence of this condition. His great-granddaughter, when mated to Alto v. Sigalsburg, produced several of these short legged dogs, all of them still alive today. Withal Urian was a good sire. With a very indifferent bitch he generated quite a respectable progeny, but his best son was Benno v. Roemerhof.
With reference to the bitches it was again Holland which marched at the head of the procession. Urian’s brown litter sister, Undine w. Gmmmont, DZ8901, proved herself as good and useful as her brother. In conjunction with the tried and true Rival’s Adonis she brought forth that marvel of beauty and power, Angola v. Grammont and, in the same litter, Ajax v. Grammont. To the latter went the high honor of becoming the sire of Carlo v.d. Koningstad and, through him, the grandsire of Favorit v.d. Koningstad. Carlo and Angola together accounted for Favorit.
The black Bubine v.d. Kaningstad, Holl. Reg. No 26492, (Rival’s Adonis and Waltrante v. Grammont) was the half-sister of Carlo and became the mother of the famous and physically perfect Benno v.d. Roemerhol.
In Germany there was only one bitch that can be given mention in this year’s group but in heredity and power she was so important that she was the whole class by herself. Asta Voss DZ6237, whelped March 5, 1915, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Senta v. Jaegerheim), was a Rhineland product and on her mother’s side harked back to Fedor v. Aprath over Theo v.d. Funkenburg. A long line of fine dogs descended from her. Her two most outstanding sons were Troll v.d. Blankenburg and his half-brother Lux and during the interval between their appearance she gave us Rappo v. Blankenburg. A daughter by her, Leddy v.d. Blankenburg performed prodigies of hereditary transmission as Anita v.d. Blankenburg also did. Asta was owned in Berlin and that she was extensively used is proved by the fact that Troll, Rappo and Lux came in three successive litters within a year and a half.
The brown bitch Diana v. Freihof, DZ651Z, whelped May 15, 1915, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Diana v. Burgholz) was as valuable for her hereditary powers as she was for her beauty. She transmitted most of these values to Benno v. Burgholz, her son by Salto v. Rottal.
Other good dogs were:

Benno v. Friedewald, DZ6089, (Brown)
Theo. v. Kaiserring, DZ9538, (Brown)
GRUENIG 1916 – 1920
The famine year of 1916 could not bring much in Germany. The horrible winter, the boundless misery of the war and their attendant malnutrition worked equal havoc with man and animal. Only one dog made himself known in this year and his value to the breed is still the subject of bitter controversy. This was the brown Salto v. Rottal, DZ6186, whelped February 1, 1916, (Roland (later v.d. Haide) and Bruenhild v. Falkenhain). He was a small dog, handsome and not altogether without Adel,” although he could not hide or overcome the deep and flat sided chest of his notorious sire. He accomplished pathetically little in Germany and in the second filialgeneration after him we find his blood happily suppressed. In Czechoslovakia, however, his descendants seemed to possess much greater power of hereditary survival and capacity to achieve a reasonably decent breed standard. The Funkenburg bitches, which carried his blood in Germany, produced progeny with a great deal of flash” but little of lasting success.
The black bitch Thula (Carlsson), DZ6378, was of unknown pedigree and derivation. She must have carried good blood in her veins in view of the fact that she and her descendants exerted a dominant influence upon Lux v, Treidelschloss.
In Czechoslovakia the breed took a step upward with its Sidi Meierhnefer, DZ666Z, whelped July 21, 1916, (Rudi v. Bayern and Hexe v. Muehlbergwarte). This black bitch became a welcome addition to the already active Falkenstein strain.
The brown Miss Berneck, SHSB8671, whelped December 18, 1916 (Max Heidenstein and Helda Lentulus) made her appearance in Switzerland to become one of its leading bitches.
Other good dogs were:

Juwel v. Johannistal, DZ6377, (Blue)
Lotte Gersbach, DZ6542, (Black)

The year 1917 began to show some improvements and made up in quality what it lacked in quantity. It would be difficult to place the dogs in the exact order of their usefulness and hereditary worth but, everything considered, the following order does them justice.
Troll v.d. Blankenburg, DZ6334, whelped August 25, 1917, (Belling v. Berlin and Asta Voss). Like practically all the Blankenburg dogs he was black. Descended from a six year old sire and a two year old dam he was physically sound and outstanding, somewhat more robust than elegant. His character, as a whole, was excellent and his sharpness especially merited praise. Almost a half dozen main blood lines branch out from him the most important of which is probably that over his son Horst v. Stresow. The Russian branch of our breed is founded upon it and owes it much of its own strength. The same is true of the Alsatian group which was immeasurably improved by his son Dolf v. Wiesengrund. At an advanced age he was sent to California, U.S.A., as a stud dog. Whether it was the climate of this land of snowcapped mountains and roses or the lack of suitable bitches we do not know but the fact remains that his proved powers of transmission were completely lost. His best daughter was Asta v. Stolzenberg the mother of both Claus- and Figaro v. Sigalsburg. He died in 1929.
The black Achim v. Langemde, DZ6l27, whelped October 2, 1917, (Leuthold v. Hornegg and Asta v, Sterkenburg) had an illustrious ancestry and, like his subsequently named brother, was accordingly powerful in hereditary transmission. The headtype of both was not of the best because its resemblance to that of their sire was too close. Both were afflicted with a gangling, rolling gait. It seems remarkable that a third and smaller litter brother, Assily was usually adjudged the best of the litter and once even defeated Troll v.d. Blankenburg. Another well known peculiarity of the Langerode dogs was that they constantly changed ownership and that, in spite of being offered at very low prices, found a fancier with difficulty. Assily was a total loss as a breeder because of impotence but Achim gave us his masterpiece of transmission in Alex v.d. Finohoehe and, by way of good measure, the very valuable Arno v.d. Weichselburg.
What we have said here of Achim holds in almost every detail for his litter brother, Anus v. Langerode, DZ6131. In conjunction with Sybille v. Silberberg he sired his best descendant, the black bitch Adele v. Oststern, through which he became the grandsire of Claus and Cilly v.d. Spree.
One more brown dog pressed forward for mention in this year and that is Zeus v. Parthengrund, DZ6277, whelped July 22, 1917 (Arnfried v. Brandis and Ursula v. Parthengrund), a product of the new but immensely important Parthengrund kennel. For his day he was a most mighty dog and aroused tremendous interest wherever exhibited. He was unfortunately a little coarse but transmitted only his best traits among which was fortunately his excellent character. In Germany his two sons Burschell v. Coln and Faust v.d. Pleissenburg fell heir to his virtues. The bulk of his descendants are to be found in Czechoslovakia to which his two daughters, Goldelse and Gilka v.d. Sternalles were exported. Both of these bitches proved their worth in their new home and carried on successfully.
In this year Holland produced a good sire in the brown Ajax v, Grammont, DZ9311, whelped July 15, 1917, ( Rival’s Adonis and Undine v. Grammont) while his influence upon the German breed was relatively small it was exceptionally large and good upon the American. His outstanding Dutch descendant was Carlo v.d. Koningstad but several others made themselves felt in Belgium. Carlo’s emigration to America conditioned the entire breed there.
Angola v. Grammont, DZ31731, the brown litter sister of Ajax was by far the most beautiful bitch of her time. Her appearance so bewitched the beholder that it was seriously said of her that one could never tire of looking at her. Just as Lord v. Ried and Annemarie v. Thueringen did in their day this bitch fascinated and charmed every observer. She was not only a marvel of beauty from a genetic point of view but in addition and infinitely more important she was a brood bitch of the highest order. It was her good fortune to pass into understanding and appreciative hands when she left Holland to go to America. Her new owner (White Gate Kennels of Philadelphia) used her capacity and possibilities to her and their best advantage. Her Dutch born descendants, Elfrieda, Favorit and Ilisa v.d. Koningstad bore the most eloquent testimony to her individual and hereditary value to the breed in Europe.
A quite extraordinary and unique specimen of the breed in this year was the black bitch Sybille v. Silberberg, DZ6120, whelped August 24, 1917, (Bayard v. Silberberg and Heide v. Silberberg). She was the result of the closest inbreeding, in fact, of the incestuously closest conceivable: that of litter brother and sister. In the history of the Dobermann we have frequent instances of matings of this kind, some intentional and some accidental. When the parents were sound and good the breed could only benefit by matings of this kind but when they were otherwise it would have been better to have destroyed the litter at once. In this case of Sybille the results were very good indeed; the best of her runs down through her filialgenerations to the American stud dog, Big Boy of White Gate.
The year 1918 marked the end of actual battle operations on the various fronts in Europe but not, alas, of the doleful effects of the war. The preponderance of bitches became more noticeable and burdensome than ever before. This was to some extent offset by a revival of self-confidence in the breeding world and a desire to show and compete in the ring.
The standard bearer of the Dobermann breed for almost a decade to come emerged in this year. This was the black Lux v.d. Blankenburg, DZ6560, whelped August 25, 1918, (Burschel v. Simmenan and Asta Voss). If it is to be our good fortune to be in a position to do so at a future day we will record this phenomenal dog’s origin, career and tribulations in a special pamphlet. He is the most interesting example of a dog’s rise and fall in the estimation of real experts. It is almost beyond belief in how many changes of ownership he was involved and to what an extent he became a speculative commodity. The failures of the first four years of his life, his rapid rise as a breeding and show dog, his great and individual power to hereditary transmission and finally his emigration in old age to America form an epic that must not be left untold. There in also the story of his numerous prodigy and its range from “miserable” to “excellent.” Again that of his adventures and fights. They are all of absorbing interest. Through his parental generations he received a fine mixture of Ilm Athen and Edelblut hereditary traits with a preponderance of the former. He was half brother to the two Belling v. Berlin sons, Troll and Rappo v.d. Blankenburg. Rappo was whelped in the same year with Lux. The blood lines which emanate from Lux are numerous and in charity we must forebear to follow all of them out for many failed to bring creditable results. We are not well acquainted with his progeny in America but assume that he did his work as well as his advanced age and the abuse he suffered from overbreeding in Germany permitted. In all probability his best mate was Lotte v. Roeneckenstein for in conjunction with her he produced his best and the almost unbeatable Alto and Ari v. Sigalsburg as well as Lux II and Lotte II v. Simmenau, all of them equally good in hereditary worth and show qualities. Other first class descendants of Lux in Germany were, among many others, Claus v. Sigalsburg, Lux v. Treidelschloss and Mia v. Stresow. For a long time his blood was too preponderant in the German breed which led to many serious faults. Of the great press of bitches that were brought to him some nine tenths were of lower than mediocre quality. This gave his progeny a rather dubious value. His emigration to America brought about a subsidence in the flood of the hereditary faults he left behind him. With good will and earnest application they can still be overcome. The heredity of his more distant descendants, some of which we will consider at the proper time and place, was generally good. The picture of Lux shows him at the height of his glory. He had a wiry, sinewy body of good proportions. The lower frontal bone was domed and his shoulders were not tight enough. His muzzle was too light. His brisket should have been deeper. His character was not especially good: he was a rowdy and a vicious one. It was indeed fortunate that he transmitted his faults so little and his virtues proportionately more. He was a dominant black dog and it must ever remain an open question whether he would have served the breed to the extent he did if only a limited number of bitches had been bred to him. In our breeding history we have instances of better dogs than Lux which performed even greater and individual hereditary service to the breed although they were I bred to only a few bitches. Lux died in Detroit (U.S.A.) in 1931. He was a late developer and only achieved fame and position after he became four years old.
His half brother, Rappo v.d. Blankenburg, DZ63S5, whelped March 8, 1918, (Belling v. Berlin and Asta Voss) was five and a half months older than Lux. In spite of his ultra correct body Rappo was never permitted to play a decisive role in Germany. He was entirely black without visible markings (a case of complete Melanism). He went to America at an early age and the reader can supply his own comment on the American conception of Dobermann perfection when we learn that he became an American champion. His best descendant in Germany was Asta v.d. Finohoehe. A product of a mating with his half sister Leddy, Asta transmitted her hereditary worth to her descendants among which we find the modern Hamlet v. Herthasee.
The black Orest v. Kranichstein, DZ6155, whelped May 5, 1918, (Cyrano v. Kranichstein and Helmtrude v. Kranichstein) was the product of good inbreeding to Fedor v. Aprath. He was also a grandson of Roland (later v.d. Haide) but the latter’s genotype was fortunately suppressed and not in evidence. He was the best of the Kranichstein dogs which were well known to me. Orest and the earlier Lord v. Mainz were two dogs which satisfied every requirement that we like to imagine as belonging to good, beautiful and well-reared Dobermanns. Orest received little publicity and therefore his great hereditary possibilities were lost to the breed. His daughter, Agathe v. Roemerwall was a good example of the hereditary type he transmitted for retransmission by his descendants. In Switzerland Max Hambuehl, SHSB8925, whelped June 3, 1918, is born to become famous as a good and reliable stud dog and the sire of Bosco and Budy Hambuehl.
The year was very generous in producing good bitches for enriching the future, so much so, that it would be difficult to rank them in the exact order of their hereditary importance.
We will proceed by picking out one of the best because of her hereditary successes on two continents, Lotte I v. Simmenau, DZ6735, whelped August 23, 1918, (Alex v. Simmenau and Gudrun v. Hornegg). With Troll v.d. Blankenburg as mate she produced the potent and beautiful Asta v. Stolzenberg which made her grandmother of Claus v. Sigalsburg. Again with Troll she brought forth Dilly v. Stolzenberg. After her removal to America Asta lived up to every reasonable expectation based on her past successes.
Leddy v.d. Blankenburg, DZ6489, whelped August 25, 1918, (Burschel v. Simmenan and Asta Voss) was a litter sister of Lux v.d. Blankenburg and more than equaled him in ability to transmit her hereditary worth. If proof of this statement were required Alex v.d. Finohoehe would supply it.
Thessa v. Ostersee, DZ625O, whelped November S, 1918, (Edelblut v. Iaegerhof and Freya v. Ostersee) was a small bitch and considerably under the required measure but her outstanding ancestry – Edelblut and more particularly Waldo v.d. Strengbach – gave her exceptionally valuable hereditary traits. Her daughter Ella v. Siegestor was a passably fair transmitter of them.
Santa v. Nesselrode, DZ6713, whelped June 30, 1918, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Carola v. Elfenfeld) became the mother of Anni v. Margarethenhof and the grand-mother of Mia v. Stresow.
Melitta v. Parthengrund, DZ8381, whelped September 18, 1918, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Ursula v. Parthengrund). This black bitch became very important for the American breed as the mother of Hela v. Goetterfelsen.
Asta Sckirbach, DZ7618, whelped November 15, 1918, (Lord and Hexe v. Gerresheim) was blue. Her blue daughter Hertha II v. Golzheim became the mother of Achill v.d. Rheinperle.
Another blue bitch closes the list for this year. Meta ‘v. Ostersee, DZ6159, whelped April 12, 1918, (Waldo Glueckauf and Blanka v. Ostersee). This bitch really became valuable and important as the head of a long line of Czechoslovakian dogs.
The dogs of other colors were not ranked on even terms with the blacks because of a style or vogue for the latter. This held true even when they were as good or better in other respects than the blacks. Due to the universally felt adverse effects of the war the breed had not regained the numerical status it had enjoyed in the years immediately preceding its outbreak. Allied troops were occupying the largest breed territories of Germany, which, while it provided an inexhaustible market for young stock on the one hand, opened wide the door to irresponsible and merely commercial breeders on the other. The skilled and thoughtful breeder was forced into the background. The Rhineland, which formerly led the Dobermann breed was steadily losing ground before these forces. In Holland, however, because of its earlier policy of importing the best from Germany, breeding operations proceeded systematically and extensively. Other lands were rising in importance and many of the best dogs from both Germany and Holland were finding their way to America.
The best of this year was indisputably the black Carlo v.d. Koningstad, DZ9853, whelped April 2, 1919, (Ajax v. Grammont and Waltrante v. Grammont). This black dog of Dutch breeding was an entirely new appearance of aesthetic Dobermann form. The head type also differed from any known hitherto. The cheek bones were a little overdeveloped but this was hardly noticeable because of the exquisite harmony of the rest of the body. All proportions were correct and harmonious. He was a dog of good medium size with easy flowing lines. He might have been a little more wiry but his musculature was clearly defined and developed. The blood-lines on both parental sides were the best. All the great sires and progenitors of the breed were found in his parental generations: Hellegraf, Lord v. Ried, Moritz v. Burgwall, Modern v. Ilm-Athen and Edelblut v. Jaegerhof; along with the best and noblest bitches. In him we had a rare and highly stabilized mixture. His effect upon the German breed was that of a great equalizer: not in anything extreme but an effective barrier to the surge of Blankenburg blood which had threatened to infest and overwhelm the whole breed. Unfortunately for the breed in Germany Carlo did not remain to complete his work. He went to America while he was still a young dog. He had not been in Germany long enough and left but one descendant of beauty and worth. This was Apollo v. Schuetzeneck. He gave our breed very little of value before he, too, went abroad. In Holland, however, things were different. Before Carlo was fully two years old he had sired Elfrieda, Favorit and Ilisa v.d. Koningstad, three pillars of the Dutch breed, all of them destined to bring the American Dobermann to his high estate. In 1923 he left for America where he died on the last day of the year 1931.
Lord v.d. Horstburg, DZ6389, whelped July 11, 1919, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Werry v.d. Rolandsburg) was inbred to Modern v. Ilm-Athen. With the exception of the somewhat too heavy head he was the ideal of Dobermann appearance. Coat, markings, bones, back and the totality were correct and impressive in every detail. In spite of his excellent breeding and type he failed to impress himself upon the breed either in Germany or America. He was the first dog of outstanding beauty to find his way over the ocean. Nothing of his heredity seems to remain in any of the principal blood lines of today.
Faust v.d. Pleissenburg (Johdihort) DZ6644, whelped April 14, 1919, (Zeus v. Parthengrund and Juno v. Parthengrund) was a medium sized dog of great sharpness. His name frequently appears in our minor blood lines, in which it seems to work with good effect.
Harras v. Ostersee, DZ6304, whelped June 3, 1919, (Salto v. Rottal and Freya v. Ostersee). This dog’s excellent blood lines on his dam’s side were completely blanketed and suppressed by the worse ones on his sire’s side. Almost all of the bad traits of his grandsire, Roland (later v.d. Haide) seemed to have focused in this dog. When seen in profile his outline was excellent. When viewed from the front, however, it became immediately apparent that he was not only thoroughly bad but a terrible specimen as well. His faults were so obvious and pronounced that warnings against his use for breeding should have been issued. He was narrow in front with a sharply pointed chest, a long, coarse coat and decided rocking-horse stance. We in Germany congratulated ourselves that we had but few and minor side lines of him in some of Bavarian strains and that a single main line was sent to Czechoslovakia.
For the Swiss breed Axel v. Hindendorff, DZ6406, SHSB10,909, whelped June 24, 1919, (Zeus v. Parthengrund and Asta v. Starkenburg) became a decisive factor. He sired the outstanding breeding dog Axel Kirchbuehl. Through both of these dogs Switzerland profits from the hereditary worth and power of the immensely important Asta.
All of the above dogs named in connection with this year were black.
Adela v. Oststem, DZ6599, whelped July 9, 1919, (Artus v. Langerode and Sybille Silberberg). This bitch could really be called Adela v. Simmenau for the breeder of the Simmenau dogs is the same as of the Oststern dogs. In conjunction with that sterling progenitor Burschel v. Simmenau she produced the top ranking Claus and Cillye v.d. Spree and with them erected an eternal monument to her memory. What the filialgenerations of this bitch accomplished both here and abroad can best be judged by a look at Claus v. Cothenius in Germany and at Big Boy of White Gate in America.
Lotte v. Stresow, DZ 7409, whelped November 22, 1919, (Burschel v. Simmenan and Elfriede v. Elsass). This brown bitch brought us the rejuvenator of the entire breed in Russia in Horst v. Stresow.
Asta v.d. Finohoehe, DZ8787, whelped September 13, 1919, (Rappo v.d. Blankenburg and Leddy v.d. Blankenburg) herself a weakened and debilitated product of an ill advised incestuous mating but productive of the vital Arno v.d. Weichselburg, the grandsire of Hamlet v. Herthasee.
Anita v.d. Blankenburg, DZ6579, whelped September 21, 1919, (Artus v. Langerode and Asta Voss) became the , mother of Asko and Artus v.d. Thumshoehe of which the former monopolized the hereditary worth of the litter while the latter contented himself with the not inconsiderable beauty and show qualities. Asko used these hereditary advantages to sire the modern Claus v. Cothenius.
Freya v. Rottal, DZ6550, whelped September 9, 1919, (Salto v. Rottal and Grete Rink) wins a place herein as the mother of Angola v.d. Dreitiussestadt, a bitch that played an important role in the development of the breed in Czechoslovakia.
Dora II v.d. Falkemteinerburg, DZ9496, whelped Sep- tember 24, 1919, (Flock v. Trannfeld and Sidi Meierhoefer) became the mother of Baldur v. Delmenhorst by Alex v.d. Finohoehe. Baldur’s contribution to the breed in Czechoslovakia is of the utmost importance.
With the exception of the brown Lotte v. Stresow and Freya v. Rottal all of the bitches named were black.
The chaotic post-war conditions were soon reflected in the stud book entries. The troops of occupation would buy and accept their dogs in good faith without bothering about pedigree papers and move to new locations. Then there were the dogs in the military depots, which, upon abandonment, would be simply appropriated by the civil population. Among these dogs were very valuable brood bitches. Dogs so informally acquired would then be bred because of their physical beauty and obviously good traits, and the progeny offered for registration. Almost all of these applications were approved and as a result Vol. VIII of the DPZ contains more than 1OO entries the pedigrees of which can only be guessed at but not exactly determined. An indirect obscurantism resulted and the breed suffered from this diseased condition for many years in spite of the rectifying influence of our best breeding stock.
Other good dogs were:

Bodo v. Emschertal, DZ64S6, (Black)
Benno v. Bergischen Hof, DZ6623, (Black)
Rolf v. Hardenburg, DZ7508, (Brown)
Falko v.d. Sternallee, DZ76S9, (Brown)
Anflitz v. Friedrichstadt, DZ6334, (Black)
Flora Fornoff, DZ6786, (Black)

This is the year which can unhesitatingly be designated as the most productive year in the history of the breed. As far as number and value are concerned it will always remain a credit to the home and foreign breeder. The money and commodity inflation had not yet proceeded to the point where dogs had to be sold for worthless money. The troops of occupation in Germany were buying dogs at good prices and the neutral countries were also clamoring for good stock. It can be positively asserted that the popularity of our breed in America had its inception in the many Dobermann specimens taken home by the returning soldiers. It seemed almost as if no more hard times would have to be met or overcome and that a new era had begun for the conscientious and systematic breeder. The breeding of dogs had actually become profitable and the breed’s fanciers and devotees had increased enormously. The most useful and creative work would become purposeless unless there is some return commensurate with the skill and labor involved.
Physically speaking, the best black dog of the year was undoubtedly the Holland bred Benno v.d. Roemerhof, DZ 12015, Holl. Reg. No. 29618, whelped August 15, 1920, (Urian v. Grammont and Bubine v.d. Koningstad). He was by no means the best transmitter of hereditary traits, however. To be sure, he sired dogs of a good average quality. He did not produce anything of rare or outstanding quality in Germany or in Holland. As a f1ve-year-old he went to America where he transmitted much of his best to a numerous progeny. Benno was big and powerful, especially as to back, and made a fascinating picture. Like all the Dutch dogs he had a good character: brave, sharp but not especially quarrelsome. Benno and Illissa of Westphalia, described later, were the only foreign bred Dobermanns ever to have a Sieger” title conferred upon them by a German breed organization.
We will now give our attention to a brown dog of this year. He was not only the best brown dog to come upon the scene in a period of seven years but had the further distinction of being the best hereditary transmitter of his time and, unless we are entirely misled, of the whole pre- ceding decade.
He is, Alex v.d. Finohoehe, DZ8754, whelped March 25, 1920, (Achim v. Langerode and Leddy v.d. Blankenburg). He had the best pedigree which could be either conceived or constructed. To visualize his rich heredity let us name just his grandparents; Burschel v. Simmenau, Asta Voss, Leuthold v. Hornegg and Asta v. Starkenburg. Sad to relate, his vast hereditary worth went unrecognized by most breeders and almost unused. It was on a par with that of Lord v. Ried, Prinz Modern, Edelblut, Troll, and Lux v.d. Blankenburg. This living gem lay neglected and was bought up by Czechoslovakia for the proverbial “song”. There he produced marvels of reproduction against the combined forces of mediocre mates and the cursed Roland blood. The identical blood which all of our best modern dogs carry constitutes the hulk of Alex v.d. Finohoehe’s heredity. His best daughter was Lotte v. Roeneckenstein. Her filialgenerations really surpass even those of Asta Voss in quality and hereditary value. When we run Lotte’s filialgenerations through our minds we needs must stop and wonder at such individuals as Ari and Alto v. Sigalsburg, Mars and Modern v. Simmenau, Lux II and Lotte II v. Simmenau, Dora v. Eckardtsburg, with her side issue like Jockel– and Jessy v. Lobenstein down to Kanzler v. Sigalsburg, Freya v. Burgund, etc. By way of Alex’s son, Stolz v. Roeneckenstein, the imposing parade continues to all of which we must add the impressive progeny of Alto and Ari. No dog of the past or of the living can vie with him as a progenitor in the true meaning of the word. The Czechoslovakian breed, in which we find such of his direct descendants as Nixe Meirling, Baldur v. Delmenhorst and Asta v.d. Goldflagge, was completely stabilized by him. How strange that in the ocean of pedigrees with which the breeder concerned himself the most valuable one should go unheeded and unrecognized! His blood was constructive in every direction and in every instance. Where others depended on reputation and publicity he relied solely on deeds and results. I saw him last in 1927 when he was seven years old. It was at Bruenn and be impressed me mightily. Alex was a surpassingly noble dog, with a world of “Adel”, infinitely more than his highly reputed predecessors, some steepness here and there, derived from the Langerode blood, and his eye might well have been darker. Here again we can see how the color of the eye conforms to the basic color of the dog and that with careful selection and discrimination a brown dog can produce the desired dark eye when mated to a suitable black bitch. With him went the best brown producer of his time; Germany had lost one of its best sires of all time. That alone would not have been so regrettable if this prodigal dog’s worth had been properly appreciated in his new location. For the German breed the motto must now be to: Find and safeguard every precious bit of Alex v.d. Finohoehe’s hereditary worth.
Another good black of this year was Dolf v. Wiesengrund, DZ8073, whelped October 5, 1920, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Lea v. Weissenfels). He was exported to a foreign land from which all information concerning this dog’s subsequent activity and effect was categorically refused. Another type of sportsmanship, I suppose.
Diethelm v. Hindendorff, DZ8326, whelped September 11, 1920, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Asta v. Starkenburg). This black dog carried the best possible blood and was bred in accordance with the Bruce-Lowe Theory . He was destined to play a truly great role in the breed’s progress but in his prime he became lost to the owner. Rumor had it that he was stolen by an officer of the French troops of occupation from which it would follow that he mourned his life away, unused, in some far-off corner of France. How many other dogs met the same fate during those troubled days? A rather weak reflection of him remains with us in his son, Rival v. Kranichstein.
The black Cajetan v. Nibelungenkort, DZ6830, whelped February 19, 1920, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Betty Weber). This dog was located in the neighborhood of Darmstadt and his heredity was good. Most of the dogs of the Zinsgut kennel and strain owe much of their quality to him.
Burschel v. Coeln, DZ7583, whelped May 20, 1920, (Zeus v. Parthengrund and Isolde v. Coe1n) was black. Through his daughter, Hedda v. Margarethenhof, he became grandsire of both Jockel- and Jessy v. Lobenstein.
Benno v. Burgholz, DZ8374, whelped October 17, 1920, (Salto v. Rottal and Diana v. Freihof) was a brown dog, correct throughout, but lacking in “Adel”. His power of transmission suffered because of the blood on his paternal side. He went to America at an early age and achieved acceptable if not noteworthy results through a few of the bitches he was mated to.
Switzerland had two good sires at this time:
The black Dox v.d. Barenburg, SHSB11039, whelped December 9, 1920, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Miss Berneck) from which sprang Britta v. Beundenfeld.
The brown Bosco Hambuehl, SH5B10256, whelped June 5, 1920, (Max Hambuehl and Helda Lentulus) the future sire of Gerda Lentulus.
Bitches with decided power to transmit their type and quality were quite numerous in this year.
Asta v. Stolzenberg, DZ6759, whelped January 19, 1920, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Lotte I v. Simmenan). This black bitch combined striking beauty and external quality with equally effective internal hereditary powers. Many good dogs are descended from her but the best of them were Claus- and Figaro v. Sigalsburg. She was sent to California (U.S.A.) at an advanced age. There she stayed to the end of her days without accomplishing anything which would compare favorably with her earlier product.
Dora v. Wiesengrund, DZ8080, whelped October 5, 1920, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Lea v. Weissenfels). Dora was black and gave us the best and hereditarily the most powerful bitch in Dobermann history to date. This daughter was Lotte v. Roeneckenstein and will be described in detail at the proper time and place. Dora, as all other Wiesengrund dogs, performed creditably.
Their blood lines were predominantly Ilm-Athen and, with well selected mates, were uniformly successful.
The little black Dutch girl, Elfrieda v.d. Koningstad, DZ29878, whelped October 14, 1920, (Carlo v.d. Koningstad and Angola v. Grammont) was necessarily endowed with eminent breeding qualities by her parents. As a show bitch she was equally outstanding. Her main activity was in the United States where she produced top-flight progeny, several of which were successfully exhibited in Germany. Her best son probably was Big Boy of White Gate, a product of her mating with Claus v.d. Spree. She was a real enrichment for the American breed.
The black Rela v. Goetterfelsen, DZ10955, whelped December 22, 1920, (Gerhard v. Parthengrund and Melitta v. Parthengrund) in conjunction with Troll v.d. Blankenburg became the maternal head of a good line of Goldgrund dogs at home and later in America continued to bring forth good progeny.
Another bitch that contributed heavily to the Dobermann strains in America deserves mention. The black Bella v. Stolzenberg, DZ7578, whelped July 28, 1920, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Lotte I v. Simmenau). With her contemporary, Benno v. Burgholz she produced many lasting and good hereditary results.
The black Blanka Halberstadt, DZ7960, whelped July 27, 1920, (Gerhard v. Parthengrund and Senta v.d. Moorinsel) became the mother of Fedor v. Buetersburg. Her mother, Senta, was the famous “talking dog” of the time. Many animal psychologists interested themselves in this marvelous bitch and “interviewed” her. Her ability to “talk” inspired long and learned scientific dissertations. Senta was a dog of the highest intelligence and no less a splendid brood bitch. Her pedigree was not complete and we can only guess at the gaps in it. Her paternal greatgrandsire was Carlo Viktoria, the dog that was owned and held at stud at Farmsen and that served the North German breed as well.
Anni v. Margarethenhof, DZ8433, whelped June 28, 1920, (Artus v. Langerode and Senta v. Nessellrode) was black and had very good blood lines with a heavy leaning to Lord v. Ried and Modern v. Ilm-Athen. Through her daughter Mia v. Stresow she was made known on two continents. The blue Hertha II v. Golzheim, DZ9029, whelped Feb-. ruary 26, 1920, ( Jack v. Stuebbenhaus and Asta Schirbach) was the first dog of her color to reach a high place as a show and breeding specimen in many a day. She was equally valuable in both respects. Her pedigree shows gratifyingly few “Sieger” titles but a large number of dogs famous for their hereditary worth and power of transmission. Several brown descendants, among them Achill v.d, Rheinperle assure her a high and permanent place in this history.
Blanka v.d. Funkenburg, DZ9383, whelped November 21, 1920, (Salto v. Rottal and Thela v. Ostersee). Her best son was Apollo v. Schuetzeneek. Several other of her progeny were worthy of note but, as a whole, were not of the highest class. Her mother, Thela, was a litter sister of the previously described Thesa v. Ostersee. It was this litter, in contrast with the usual run of the Ostersee dogs, that carried the best blood lines. Blanka’s greatest fault was her narrow chest.
Two litter sisters, the first fawn (isabella) colored and the second brown were helpful in improving the breed in Czechoslovakia. They were Gilka v.d. Sternallee, DZ8597, whelped December 4, 1920, (Zeus v. Parthengrund and Meta v. Ostersee). A son by her, Fels v.d. Kreuzhorst, whelped in Germany, assisted his mother valiantly in the work of regeneration. The litter sister, Goldelse v.d. Sternallee, DZ8598, became the mother of Artus v. Friedeek, one of the best Czechoslovakian dogs of his time.
That country had still another diligent worker in the brown Lola v.d. goldenen Hoche, DZ7078, whelped February 15, 1920, (Arnfried v. Brandis and Erika v. Parthengrund). This bitch served every interest of the breed and left behind her a daughter, Nixe Meirling, to carry on the good work.
Switzerland was fortunate in the arrival of two good breeding specimens: The black Dely v.d. Baerenburg, SHSB11041, whelped December 9, 1920, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Miss Berneck) later became famous as the mother of Gerda Lentulus and her son Emir Lentulus.
The brown Budy Hambuehl, SHSB10259, whelped June 5, 1920, (Max Hambuehl and Helda Lentulus) later brought the breed the famous and valuable Axel Kirchbuehl.
The black Asta v.d. Spree, DZ7038, whelped April 20, 1920, (Burschel v. Simmenau and Fanny v.d. Blankenburg) later proved herself to be one of the pillars in the construction of the newly rising Dobermann breed in Russia.
Other good dogs were:

Banjo v.d. Goklennen Hoehe, DZ6819, (Brown)
Artus v. Siegestor, DZ7393, (Black)
Artus v. Rheinerft, DZ7454, (Brown)
Artus v. Steigerwald, DZ8025, (Brown)
Droll v. Servira, DZ8136, (Black)
Rolf Weiss, DZ9326, (Black),
Benno v. Heidehof, DZ8609, (Brown)
Lotti v. Bischhofsbruch, DZ7705, (Black)
Freya v. Sachsen-Gotha, DZ9018, (Brown)
GRUENIG 1921 – 1925
This year was not as productive in the total number of good breeding dogs as the previous one but it did bring forth a larger number of productive bitches than dogs.
We will begin by selecting one of the dogs that was of outstanding importance in the land of his adoption and constituted a large section of the breed to his own image. This was the brown Holland-bred Favorit v.d. Koningstad, DZ24744, whelped June 19, 1921, (Carlo v.d. Koningstad and Angola v. Grammont). (See Illustration.) His blood lines were exceptional indeed. An interval of four parentalgenerations separates and leaves him entirely free from the blood of Ilm-Athen and by counting back only six we find also the complete extinction of that of Lord v. Ried. This unique condition or combination holds the secret and explanation of his tremendous ability to impress his distinctive traits upon his progeny by suitable bitches.
While never owned or located in Germany he was exhibited here with great success. He went to America early in life and found there a field of activity which for a dog of his high class he would never have found in Germany. He was a dog with a good and strong skeleton, his size was near the upper limits and his head was long, finely chiseled and with an appealing expression. His front and depth of chest were good. Like every other dog he had his faults, the most obvious one being a mildly “French stance” which resulted from a loose or yielding pastern. This may have been attributable to his great size because he rarely transmitted it to his progeny. In Holland he left descendants few in number but very good in quality. Of his American progeny several were shown in Germany with a high degree of success. The best bitch from him was Alli of Rhinegold. American statistics reveal a large percentage of his progeny among the winning dogs and those hereditarily most dominant. Many breeders in America regard him as the best Dobermann sire that ever came to their shores. To determine the best of his many good descendants would require a study of the breed in America extending over a period of many months. He died only lately nearly 13 years of age. Favorit was for America what Horst v. Stresow was for Russia: A sire of vast and individual potency in transmitting his own peculiar traits, particularly those of head and body structure. His influence on the breed in America will make itself felt for many years.
The black Claus v.d. Spree, DZ1 0037, whelped April 17, 1921, (Burschel v. Simmenau and Adela v. Oststern) was the best dog of his color in this year. He was always the cause of much argument and dissension for he had a peculiar head type which was very reminiscent of Leuthold v. Hornegg. On his mother’s side only three parental generations separated him from Leuthold. He was striking in his general appearance but his skull was domed above the eyes. Any classification of this dog was the signal for endless polemics but he transmitted his best trait with confounding regularity. His main field of activity was America although he had sired some excellent progeny in Germany before leaving there. He was available for stud service twice in Germany. In America Big Boy of White Gate was probably the best of many excellent dogs he sired and still remains to remind us of Claus’ breeding quality. His American-bred daughter, Ilissa of Westphalia, was shown and acclaimed in Germany.
Another good sire, though not to be ranked in the same class with Claus, was the black Achill v.d. Rheinperle, DZ10808, whelped February 26, 1921, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Bertha II v. Golzheim). This dog was unfortunately not used as much for breeding as he should have been because he did not measure up to the vulgar taste of the time which had set Lux v.d. Blankenburg up as its ideal. One of the more undesirable legacies he fell heir to from his sire were the latter’s loose shoulders. His hereditary traits in spite of this fault far exceeded the normal and average of his day and he left behind him many good dogs the best of which were Eike zum Ziel now in the U.S.A. and Egil zum Ziel, now in Switzerland.
The black Arno v.d. Weichselburg, DZ14863, whelped July 23, 1921, (Achim v. Langerode and Asta v.d. Finohoehe) was another dog that was not drawn upon for breeding as much as he should have been. Only in this case it was because of his far-off location. However, through his daughter, Countess v. Steyerberg he achieved the determining influence over his great grandson, Hamlet v. Herthasee.
Another black dog Dechant v.d. Eckardtsburg, DZ11477, whelped July 8, 1921, (Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Isolde v. Coeln) furnished cumulative proof of the value of the mass of his sire’s heredity. In conjunction with Rita v. Louisenheim he produced the stately Gustl v. Tan nenhaus.
In Switzerland this year was important because it brought its Axel Kirchbuehl, SHSB12688, whelped October 10, 1921, (Axel v. Hindendorff and Budy Hambuehl) a good black sire. His outstanding achievement was his production of Emir Lentulus.
The black bitch Freya v. Stresow, DZ14209, whelped September 21, 1921, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Elfriede v. Elsass) is of importance as a good brood bitch only in America. Her litter brother, Eido v. Stresow was also there and both of them achieved creditable results in the state of Michigan.
Ilisa v.d. Koningstad, a litter (?) sister of the previously described Favorit and likewise brown, is registered in the DZ as 24745. (An error must have crept into the stud book as this bitch was really whelped in October, 1922.) She, too, went to America where, along with other good specimens, she produced Ilissa of Westphalia, more widely known in Germany than was her mother.
Fredegunde v. Fernsicht, DZ11716, whelped July 30, 1921, (Wotan v. Thueringen and Thula Carlsson). This black bitch had great power of transmitting hereditary traits, although her ancestry on the mother’s side was a little dubious. The best proof of her worth was in her son Lux v. Treidelschloss.
The black Cilly v.d. Spree, DZ10040, a litter sister of Claus, had the identical powers of her eminent brother of transmitting her hereditary traits. In addition to the many beautiful specimens she produced her main line of offspring brought us the unusually potent and beautiful Claus v. Cothenius. This dog’s progeny is the most sought after today.
Dora v. Eckardtsburg, DZ11484, whelped July 8, 1921, (Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Isolde v. Coeln). This brown bitch became the grandmother of the Lobenstein dogs through her daughter Hedda v. Margarethenhof.
The brown Agathe v. Roemerwall, DZ9631, whelped March 4, 1931, (Orest v. Kranichstein and Flora Fornoff) was of excellent blood line and in conjunction with Diethehn v. Hindendorff, produced the (unfortunately, Dominant-Recessive) Rival v. Kranichstein.
Alruna Haeusser, DZ3650, whelped April 20, 1921, (Cajetan v. Nibelungenhort and Flora III v. Alt Worms) became the mother of the numerically few but qualitatively excellent Schnabenhuck dogs and was very successful in Holland.
Because she was of some value to the Czechoslovakian breed we give mention here to the black Angola v.d. Dreifluessestadt, DZ12,212, whelped August 23, 1921, (Harras v. Ostersee and Freya v. Rottal).
Both of the following bitches were in Czechoslovakia: The brown Nixe Meierling, DZ20,524, whelped October 10, 1921, (Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Lola v.d. goldenen Hoehe) with a parentage like hers could not do otherwise than produce dogs of best inner and outward quality, which Dar- and Dalila z. Isonzo were.
The black Luci v.d. Hohenwarte, DZ9507, whelped January 16, 1921, (Treff Abfalter and Luci v.d. Falkensteinerberg) together with her distinguished mate, Alex v.d. Finohoehe, produced the lovely Asta v.d. Goldflagge.
An interesting product of closest inbreeding was the black Bona v. Seehagen, DZ14332, whelped December 22, 1921, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Adda v.d. Blankenburg). As a daughter of a mating between half-brother and sister, over Asta Voss, she proved to be of exceptional value to the Russian breed of Dobermanns.
In this year the dogs exceeded the bitches numerically but one bitch, Lotte v. Roeneckenstein more than wiped out the numerical minus by establishing an overwhelming plus of hereditary value in favor of the bitches.
The most powerful dog of this year in hereditary potency was the black Stolz v. Roeneckenstein, DZ17303, whelped February 18, 1922, Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Dora v. Wiesengrund). When we discuss his litter sister Lotte we will return to the matter of this dog’s blood lines. Stolz was an attractive dog in body but his back was not beyond criticism. His hereditary values, like those of his sire, seem to have been recognized too late. His best descendant was decidedly Helios v. Siegestor, the dog with the loudly controverted cream-colored hind feet. In all likelihood there were many other excellent progeny still awaiting discovery.
Asko v.d. Thumshoehe, DZ18602, whelped May 13, 1922, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Anita v.d. Blankenburg) was black in color and a big, mighty fellow in body, though somewhat lacking in angulation. His head was too heavily domed over the eyes and too round in the back. He was a good transmitter of his heredity and, in this respect, much better than his litter brother Artus, the possessor of the once valuable Sieger title. The latter had only one worthwhile sideline female. Asko produced a son in Claus v. Cothenins, that was valuable both as a show dog and transmitter of his own internal and external qualities.
Rival v. Kranichstein, DZ20061, whelped September 30, 1922, (Diethelm v. Hindendorff and Agathe v. Roemerwall). This black dog was unfortunately weak in color. In reality he was a brown overlaid by black, which was obviously attested to by his brown mother, his very light eye and his progeny. Only his brown descendants were of any value and the best of them was Bayadere v. Zinsgut. He went to America but did not produce anything of startling value there either.
Amor v. Goetterfelsen, DZ15,435, whelped March 3, 1922, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Melitta v. Parthengrund). This black dog’s anatomical proportions were in keeping with his good lineage. He became the grandsire of the beautiful but faulty Bessie v. Brandenburg through his daughter, Elfe v.d. Voelkerruhe.
The brown Apollo v. Schuetzeneck, DZ16,441, whelped March 26, 1922, (Carlo v.d. Koningstad and Blanka v.d. Funkenburg). As previously stated he was Carlo’s best son in Germany; a striking dog, of correct size and with the best of color and markings. His body was splendid and especially good in the withers. His character was also good. Great hopes were entertained for this dog’s hereditary value but bitter disappointment rewarded them. His paternal hereditary did not suffice to nullify the blood of the notoriously destructive Roland (later v.d. Haide) which Apollo received from his mother. This rendered him quite worthless as a sire. I saw him later in America and was astonished at his deterioration. He displayed “monocles” prominently and was only a shadow of his former glory.
Astor v. Goldgrund, DZ15,200, whelped March 19, 1922, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Hela v. Goetterfelsen). This black dog’s excellent blood lines made his hereditary success with Fedor v. Buertersburg a foregone conclusion.
Moritz v. Blankenfeld, DZ15,057, whelped March 4, 1922, (Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Lore v. Eckardtsburg) was brown. He was an elegant dog throughout, medium size, good degree of sharpness and almost perfect in his proportions. In view of his paternity he might have performed prodigies of transmission but failed because of his color weakness which was evidenced by a bright and sulphur yellow eye, and his weak and indistinct markings. Faults that were barely discernible in his sire were fully developed in Moritz. In spite of his faults he had a host of enthusiastic admirers who were willing to overlook his breeding uselessness because of his appealing beauty. The extent to which the now worthless Sieger title was abused is shown in this dog’s case. An agent of an American principal bought the dog, title and all, at his real value, 120 Marks ($30.+ ) and promptly resold him to his American principal, on the basis of the title, for $1200.
Another chapter in the indirect and undercover history of the Dobermann. Another Sieger title found its way to America in the incidental vehicle of its possessor, the brown Carlo v.d. Schwanenhoehe, DZ21,831, whelped October 25, 1922 (Asko v. Grodno and Flora v. Klesbernwald) Carlo’s hereditary capacity was handicapped from the start by the presence in parental generations of such coarse and utterly worthless dogs as Bluto v. Isarstrand in the second and the abominable Roland (later v.d. Haide) in the third. His mother’s bloodlines were good but not strong enough to overcome or even dilute the hereditary worthlessness of the sire’s. Altogether, therefore, Carlo was a failure.
A potent sire of the highest class was the German bred but Russian employed Horst v. Stresow, DZ20725, whelped December 9, 1922, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Lotte v. Stresow). This black dog possessed exceptional and individual powers of hereditary transmission. He was the modern Dobermann’s pioneer in the Soviet Republics. Compact and correct, tight of back with straight and strong legs, chest both wide and deep. He had many hereditary values to dispose of through his sire, Troll, and his grandsire, Burschel v. Simmenan, and did so lavishly and constantly. His progeny, especially the dogs of the Arbet strain, were a true and constant reflection of himself in both their external traits and appearance (prototype) and internal hereditary traits and power of transmission (genotype). With the few bitches available he worked marvels of both quantity and quality. It is pleasant to relate that the labors so auspiciously inaugurated by Horst were later reinforced by a Lux son, Artus v. Eichenhain.
Fels v.d. Kreuzhorst, DZ15,485, whelped March 22, 1922, (Wotan v. Thueringen and Gilka v.d. Sternallee). This dog’s field of operation was Czechoslovakia. He must have been a dominant dog because his progeny all through his filialgenerations were black in spite of the fact that his mother was a fawn (isabella) color. His best descendants were Dur- and Dalila z. Isonzo, which in their turn dominated their descendants.
The brown Artus Friedek, DZ /4,494, whelped January 2, 1922, Salto v. Rottal and Goldelse v.d. Sternallee) was likewise in Czechoslovakia. His paternal generations were almost exclusively brown and therefore his descendants were the same. The blood of his mother predominated in him. We remember him best as the sire of the outstanding brown bitch Bora v.d. Goldflagge.
Towering, her hereditary worth and value gleaming like a meteor in the night sky, there suddenly appeared the best black Dobermann bitch heretofore recorded. This was the black Lotte v. Roeneckenstein, DZ20,691, whelped February 18, 1922, (Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Dora v. Wiesengrund). While her advent was generally unexpected it was logical and timely enough for the expert. She was a litter sister of Stolz v. Roeneckenstein but he did not measure up to her in greatness. Let us take a quick look at the most important ancestors which determined her internal and external traits. To be sure, both Asta Voss and Asta v. Starkenburg possessed noteworthy powers of transmitting their prototype and genotype in varying proportions and degree but neither of them attained the degree of power which Lotte possessed in transmating both to the unheard of extent she could and did. Lotte was mated to several dogs and each time produced Dobermanns which in every respect came up to the expectations which she herself inspired. The greatest hereditary values were probably brought forth in her descendants by Lux v.d. Blankenburg. Those by Lux v. Treidelschloss were not nearly as convincing and the strongly and expertly advised mating to Kunz v. Rodeltal produced only mediocre specimens. Like her famous ancestors Lotte was bred in almost every season but in view of her immense hereditary value to the breed it can be excused. She was located in Czernowitz, Berlin, Merschiltz and finally Recklinghausen. In the last place my investigation failed to turn up a single descendant from her. Her paternal grandsire was Achim v. Langerode and on the mother’s side Troll v.d. Blankenburg. In the same order Leddy v.d. Blankenburg and Lea v. Weissenfels. Now, which of these dogs had contributed most to hereditary power and value? A close study of her pedigree reveals that Sturmfried appears once in the fourth and three times in the fifth to the seventh parentalgeneration. No other dog or bitch is represented as often either in the total mass of her heredity or in so direct a line of descent. While we are not likely to make an error in assigning the dominant factors as coming primarily from Sturmfried we must not overlook the happy coincidence that his heredity was transmitted to her at his very best because of the exceptional capacity of her sire Alex v.d. Finohoehe, and through him by Achim v. Langerode, Leuthold v. Hornegg and Lord v. Ried. In the first litter of her progeny by Lux v.d. Blankenburg she produced the famous An- and Alto v. Sigalsburg, in a subsequent one Lux II and Lotte II v. Simmenau and still later, but by Lux v. Treidelschloss, Mars- and Modern v. Simmenau. From this it would appear that Lotte’s great heredity worked out best over the male line. This does not imply, however, that her endowment of Lotte II v. Simmenau is in the slightest degree below that bestowed upon her sons. Scientists and breed experts not only regard this Lotte II as the best single descendant of Lotte v. Roeneckenstein but of Lux as well. The biologist and physiologist saw in Lotte v. Roeneckenstein a singularly interesting case of hereditary, or better yet, let us say, atavistic reversion. For many months I carefully observed a young dog out of her litter with Lux v. Triedelschloss that was lacking two toes on the right hind foot. Careful questioning elicited the information that these toes had been absent at birth. Since I was not particularly interested at the time in determining whether this deficiency came from the sire or the dam I let the matter rest. Two years later, however, to my intense surprise I found that in a litter of Lotte II v. Simmenau (a daughter of Lotte v. Roeneckenstein and Lux v.d. Blankenburg) sired by a grandson of Lux there were again two pups, each of which showed the same deformity on the right hind foot. Science deduced that in Lotte’s parentalgenerations there must have been a progenitor that passed this deformity on to and right through her in, perhaps, a latent form. But my surprise became astonishment when a friend in America informed me that in a litter sired by a son of Lotte v. Roeneckenstein he had discovered a pup that was minus two toes of the right hind foot. In every instance this hereditary trait worked out through the male. At a later occasion in the discussion of young dogs we will refer the reader to a case similar to this and one possibly genetically connected herewith. What a great work breed organizations could do by furnishing recorded instances of hereditary peculiarities to biologists for analysis and research invaluable to our breed.
Ali v. Waldloh, DZ18,491, whelped June 24, 1922, (Danilo v.d. Krone and Lady Bittner). The sire of this black bitch carried the best possible blood (he was predominantly Ilm-Athen) but that of the dam was in need of elucidation, particularly that of her granddam, which was very doubtful. Was this another experiment with Manchester Terrier blood? This conclusion would be warranted by a study of her filialgenerations. Ali became the mother of Comtess v. Steyerberg and thereby the grandmother of Hamlet v. Herthasee.
The black Brangaene V. Weingarten, DZ16,458, whelped June 20, 1922, (Cajetan v. Nibelungenhort and Flora III v. Alt-Worms) was a peculiar creature. Her appearance would not have justified even the lowest rating in a show ring. There just was no fault which she did not have. Small, ugly, crooked and unattractive but withal a transmitter of good hereditary traits. This author, in whose possession she was at the time, gave her away as a four months old pup because of the complete hopelessness of accomplishing anything with her. I lived to see dogs descend from her of three times her weight and twice her size. All of the Zinsgut dogs were derived from her. Her descendants were literally scattered to every inhabited part of the globe. I myself saw them in America and South Africa. Her most important daughter was Bajadere v. Zinsgut, a litter sister of Baldur- and Balmung v. Zinsgut.
Holda v. Adalheim, DZ15,251, whelped April 6, 1922, (Faust v.d. Pleissenburg-Johdihort and Alruna Haeusser). A medium sized bitch of very good character, quality and sharpness derived from her sire. She produced important descendants of which Benno- and Boese v. Schnabenhuck were the best.
Alli v. Goldgrund, DZ15,201, whelped March 19, 1922, (Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Hela v. Goetterfelsen) was made of the stuff that good brood bitches are made of and acquitted herself accordingly. In America, where she was used extensively for breeding she whelped a litter of five every one of which subsequently won the championship title. Even the fact that Favorit v.d. Koningstad was its sire does not detract from this black bitch’s unique performance. Her best descendant, which was by Favorit, was Alli v. Rhinegold.
Almost equally good success was achieved by Alli’s black litter sister, Asta v. Goldgrund, DZ15,203, in another country: The Soviet Republic. Her heredity produced excellent results there but her whole progeny was to some extent afflicted with tooth decay.
Edeltrud v. Saumhof , DZ18,208, whelped July 18, 1922, (Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Senta v. Indura) was brown. Peculiarly enough here we have another case of the maternal grandmother’s identity being shrouded in complete mystery. Some good names are found in the fourth parental generation of that part of the mothers side known to us. Among them were Muck and Fedor and in the third Ida v.d. Funkenburg, the sister of Theo, calls for mention. Whatever the unknown part may have been it suffices that Edeltrud brought us the hereditarily valuable Lux v. Saumhof.
The older dogs and bitches of the best form and highest quality had always dominated the field and had successfully repelled every charge of the younger generations. Now, however, young stock appeared which were to reverse this situation. We can place our finger on this year as inaugurating the reign of youth and the new alignment. In particular there were two litter brothers which tore through all resistance with lightning rapidity and created the new style of homogeneity and harmony which bordered on perfection. Every real expert who has delved deep into the being and physical proportions of the pure bred dog will find individual traits of internal or external quality which fascinate him and enable him to distinguish, rate and classify one dog from another, however identical the individuals may seem to the lay fancier, or however obscure and unreliable the distinguishing trait may seem to the pseudo-expert. In the case of the two litter brothers An- and Alto v. Sigalsburg I did not at any time have the slightest doubt the former was superior in class and quality to the latter.
Ari v. Sigalsburg, DZ23418, whelped March 24, 1923, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Lotte v. Roeneckenstein. (See illustration 22) When we discussed this black dog’s parents we commented upon their hereditary qualities and to what extent and proportion these factors were transmitted to their descendants. Sturmfried, Moritz v. Burgwall, the Langerode dogs, Lux v.d. Blankenburg, Burschel v. Simmenau and in particular Alex v.d. Finohoehe are the pillars of the paternal temple. The female side is emblazoned with names like Asta Voss, Asta v. Starkenburg and the Silberberg bitches. How then, we ask, could the most precious gifts of heredity be absent? Unless memory should play him a prank, your author was the first judge before whom this noble pair of brothers was shown. It was in Mannheim, and the impression which Ari and Alto made, not only upon me, but upon all the assembled experts, was decisive of their career. Ari was a little larger dog than Alto but not in the latter’s good condition. He overcame this handicap by a better body structure throughout and a somewhat better head formation. Ari’s shoulder was a little longer than Alto’s and therefore set at a better angle. The shoulder position, however, was the greatest and most serious fault in both dogs, neither being correct therein. Most serious of all, it became the distinguishing characteristic of their progeny. The lay anatomist or physiologist may delight in the shoulder structure and resulting “stackle” or “terrier gait” of many breeds-Airedale and Fox Terrier in particular-but to breed this structure and its necessarily ensuing gait into the Dobermann would be a calamitous loss not only to the aesthetic appearance of our dog but most of all to the breed’s mechanism of locomotion and, of course, to its usefulness. This confusion of taste as applied to the terrier breeds owes its origin to pure aesthetic emotions of a passing moment: an impressionistic form of the animated canine conception and which by its very nature can be applied only to the rough and wire-haired terrier breeds. I do not mean to assert that An and Alto were already afflicted with this front but only that each showed a definite trend into that direction. Alto more than Ari. Otherwise no one could honestly find fault with the body of either. They were marvels of Dobermann compactness. Another trait which endeared them in the eyes of every fancier was their irrepressible courage and spirit, which, if it had been any sharper, would have been a menace to man and beast. The gait of these dogs, aside from the strictures conditioned by their shoulder formation was very good,-Ari’s being the better of the two. The inexpert fancier was usually misled into preferring Alto because of his uniformly good condition, in which respect, with few and rare exception, Ari was heavily handicapped. The head was more that of Lux v.d. Blankenburg while the body reminded more of Alex v.d. Finohoehe. Both dogs were dominant black in color although they had a brown grandparent. Ari’s greatest feat of hereditary transmission was performed in conjunction with the brown Edeltrud v. Saumhof which produced the black Lux v. Saumhof, in his turn a powerful transmitter. Without having been extensively used for breeding here in Germany Ari wandered to America where he died soon, unfortunately before his vast hereditary worth and power could be taken full advantage of. It was a pity that this truly outstanding dog should have been taken from his naturally ordained sphere of activity so soon. With the blood of bitches from Claus v.d. Spree-the combination his American importer had in mind for him-Ari might well have become the star to which the American breed could have hitched its wagon.
What we have previously said about Ari would, in the main, hold true for his litter brother Alto v. Sigalsburg, DZ23417. Alto was the beneficiary of well omened and fortunate coincidences in both show and breeding activities and thereby achieved results surpassed by but few dogs in Dobermann history. He had endeared himself to his owner with whom he remained to the end of his days ( in 1930). He was sensibly, humanely and, according to breeding science, correctly used. The task of carrying on the tradition of his sire, Lux v.d. Blankenburg, was assigned to him. The role became easy and simple because of the many German bitches of suitable blood lines he was mated to. In other words he hit upon bitches that were related to him by consanguinity and his hereditary traits were not only biologically supported but also emphasized and enhanced. A long line of our best dogs are derived from him. His son, Figaro v. Sigalsburg, a product of the same kennel that produced Alto himself, never was Alto’s equal, due to the fact that Figaro’s mother, Asta v. Stolzenberg, transmitting too much of her own Troll v.d. Blankenburg heredity endowed Figaro with an excess of mass and substance sufficient to spoil his general appearance. In Edel v.d. Barbarossahoehle Alto gave us another good sire that impressed his type and heredity especially upon the Swiss breed. The litter to which Jockel- and Jessie v. Lobenstein belonged was produced by Alto in 1926. Their good effect upon the German breed is too well known to require more than mention. In the same year he gave us the best dog produced by him, his “ace in the hole,” as it were. This Hamlet v.d. Herthasee was a worthy vehicle for the transmission of Alto’s tradition and heredity. After this feat, however, Alto’s power waned rapidly and noticeably and, with intermittent failures, produced nothing of consequence. In 1930 he did succeed in producing another good dog in Kanzler v. Sigalsburg. The latter’s powers are still in doubt and remain to be proved. Alto’s accomplishments as an outstanding breed factor must be recognized by all who would know the history and traditions of the breed, especially the novice. Alto will remain a living force as long as descendants from him are with us.
It seemed almost as if the year 1923 were bent upon an orgy of beauty production. It brought us many lovely specimens of the highest standard but none approached the hereditary peaks attained by those idols Ari and Alto. In Fedor v. Buetersburg, DZ25731, whelped August 15, 1923; (Astor V. Goldgrund and Blanka Halberstadt) we had an an attractive black dog with a body that forestalled all criticism. Everyone who had known Carlo Victoria in 1906, professed to find a reproduction of him in Fedor but in somewhat more refined form. The same compact, short-backed body, the sound, firm quarters, the faultless chest, tight shoulders and straight legs were all special plus- traits of Carlo as well as Fedor. They also had a minus-trait in common: the head which showed a tendency to cheekiness. More than just a few generations lie between Carlo and Fedor, and it is interesting to note that halfway between them was the beloved and exceptionally intelligent Senta v.d. Moorinsel, the famous “talking dog”. This blood line ran an even course, occasionally effervescing and erupting, volcano-like, an outstanding individual. Fedor’s breeding career apparently followed this plan. The results expected from him were not immediately realized, the grand sweep has not yet materialized. In Germany he produced the brown Dankwart v. Erzgebirge, proof that he was not dominant black. No star of the first magnitude has yet been produced by him in America whither, with most of our best dogs, he was exported in 1926. Fedor died in the summer of 1932 and left behind him a progeny of great promise and more than merely high average.
A black dog that became very valuable for the Russian breed calls for notice here. Artus v. Eichenhain, DZ21944, whelped February 2, 1923, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Asta v.d. Rochsburg). As a two year old he went to Leningrad and there took up the work so ably begun by his predecessor, Horst v. Stresow. He raised the Russian breed to a broader but blood related basis. He was a big dog with good traits but, because of his size, lacking in compactness.
Following this quartet of the best dogs of the year we will consider five bitches equally good though not as hereditarily decisive.
Mia v. Stresow, DZ31140, whelped September 19, 1923, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Anni v. Margarethenhof ). She was the most beautiful bitch of the year. On her mother’s side Artus v. Langerode was her grandsire and through the granddam on the same side she brought a living jet of the blood of Edelblut. As a show bitch she achieved the pinnacle expected of her but whether the fault lay with the dogs selected for her mates or with some inner fault of her own I cannot determine from here. The bitch went to America but no first class progeny from her has been heard from.
Much better in this respect was the black Dilly v. Stolzenberg, DZ21455, whelped February 15, 1923, (Troll v.d. Blankenberg and Lotte I v. Simmenau). She gave us two very valuable dogs in Edel- and Fee v.d. Barbarossahoehle and both rank as top-flight specimens of the modern breed.
The black Fee v. Roedeltal, DZ25116, whelped April 7, 1923, (Faust v.d. Pleissenburg-Johdihort and Carla v. Roedeltal) was really and specifically the maternal head of the Roedeltal strain of dogs. But it must not be overlooked that the practically ignored Faust was a decisive factor in the production of this line, to be sure, through Fee. This is proved beyond question by his daughter Holda v. Adalheim, the mother of Carla, an Edelblut daughter. In this way Carla brought to bear many hereditary values which worked out to such good advantage in Kitty v. Roedeltal.
Ella v. Siegestor, DZ25403, whelped June 8, 1923, (Bluto v. Isarstrand and Thessa v. Ostersee). This black bitch has only her mother to thank for her ability and capacity to produce Helios- and Ikos v. Siegestor. Through her father Bluto she was infected with the destructive blood of Roland (later v.d. Haide). There were two brown bitches in our list for this year.
The Swiss Gerda Lentulus, SHSB16199, (Bosco Hambuehl and Dely v.d. Baerenburg). Like Cornelia her jewels were her children, Britta- and Christel v. Beundenfeld, although her other progeny were lasting monuments to her worth.
The brown Asta v.d. Goldflagge, ZPBSt., TB, 6a, whelped September 1, 1923, (Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Luci v.d. hohen Warte) was endowed with the hereditary traits which enabled her to achieve her success by her distinguished sire. Together with Artus v. Friedek she produced the best Dobermann in Czechoslovakia, the brown Bora v.d. Goldflagge.
This year still offered us the opportunity of passing judgment upon the hereditary capacity of the individuals it produced. The dogs of the later years had not sufficiently completed their work, at the date of this writing, or reached a point where a just appraisal of their worth was possible. The year brought us a goodly number of noted specimens. It also brought us certainty in what was merely indicated throughout the entire history of the breed: that, with the exception of blue and fawn (isabella) color, the other colors reappear in the same proportions that they held in preceding generations and that a retrogression of deterioration of color is not ascertainable in the dogs of quality even if, to a limited extent, in the breed as a whole. The export of outstanding dogs increased rapidly but did not in the slightest degree affect the quality or the quantity of the home product.
Claus v. Sigalsburg, DZ27614, whelped January 13, 1924, (Lux v,d. Blankenburg and Asta v. Stolzenberg). This black Dobermann might justly carry on his escutcheon the motto, “Sans peur et sans reproche.” Claus was the fortunate beneficiary of a happy and skillful selection of mates: the blood of the somewhat over refined Lux made an excellent combination with that of the equally unrefined and massive Troll. Claus never did have the blinding class or flash of many another dog but in the individual traits he was quite outstanding and, withal, of excellent proportions. It is regrettable that he was not given more opportunity to prove his worth at home. He went over the sea to America. He left nothing of exceptional worth behind him and in America he did no better, in spite of the relatively high number of Troll- blooded bitches available there. Even his kennel mate, Mia v. Stresow, failed to produce anything of importance by him.
Lux v. Treidelschloss, DZ31434, whelped June 2, 1924, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Fredegunde v. Fernsicht) was a thoroughly stable black dog with the best of form. There was a gap in the ancestry on his mother’s side but this hiatus did not prevent him from transmitting a good and sound heredity. His somewhat coarse coat brought much heavy criticism upon his head. Since smooth and short hair dominates over coarse and long this fault of coat, even to the limited extent that afflicted him, was never transmitted. He produced-to be sure with the best mate in Dobermann history: Lotte v. Roeneckenstein-the beautiful and hereditary potent Mars- and Modern v. Simmenau. Such a feat constitutes the fulfillment of any mission.
Balmung v. Zinsgut, DZ30930, whelped March 13, 1924, (Rival v. Kranichstein and Brangaene v. Weingarten). This black dog received many hereditary endowments from his ancestor Edelblut but his mother’s side seems to have predominated over that of his father. We cannot very well pass judgment upon his progeny since he left none in Germany. At an early age he went to South Africa where he won his championship in short order. If I can rely upon pictures of them submitted to me for estimating the quality of his progeny I would say that they are very good indeed. Balmung’s brown litter brother Baldur v. Zinsgut, DZ30931, also went abroad early, this one to America. He produced many good dogs of a high average, though none of outstanding quality.
In spite of his very good ancestry the black Lusts piel v.d. Koningstad, DZ29883, whelped March 20, 1924, (Claus v.d. Spree and Ilisa v.d. Koningstad) had a most detestable character to offset a body that was good all over with easy flowing lines. It is cause for regret when we must name just this dog as a progenitor. Instead of Lustspiel he should have been named Trauerspiel. (See Translator’s footnote) Cowardice and nervousness were his outstanding traits. Breeding should never be undertaken with such animals. It was a fortunate circumstance that his sire was that paragon of sharpness and character, Claus v.d. Spree, and that by the laws of genetics not all of Lustspiel’s descendants were cowardly. He became the sire of Prinz v. Brunia.
Czechoslovakia was making rapid progress in raising the quality of its dogs. In a large measure this was due to the fact that Alex v.d. Finohoehe was producing and transmitting at his best.
The brown Baldur v. Delmenhorst, ZPBSt 28a, whelped November 24, 1924, (Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Dora II v.d. Falkensteinerburg) was equally good as a show dog and transmitter of his qualities. He produced many good dogs and thereby contributed to the progress being made in his country.
Dar z. Isonzo, KP.P.II 846, whelped January 26, 1924, (Fels v.d. Kreuzhorst and Nixe Meierling). This black dog could have filled an important place in the German breed. He was a dog of equally good size and body. He demonstrated his powers of transmission by producing the singularly successful Beno z. Nameste.
Among the bitches of the year the browns predominated heavily both in number and in quality over the blacks.
The brown Adda v. Nettebach, DZ31767, whelped May 24, 1924, (Claus v.d. Spree and Dora v. Baerental) while the maternal side of this bitch is good that of the father is much more valuable. Adda was one of those bitches that always succeeded in transmitting her hereditary traits with almost any dog that was even in the slightest degree suited to her by reason of blood relationship or trait. Her litters always contained uniformly good dogs that have not to date had opportunity of demonstrating their hereditary value. One of her best known sons, though sired by the cowardly Lustspiel v.d. Koningstad was the brown Prinz v. Brunia. Her two grandsires, Burschel v. Simmenau and Bodo v. Hoernsheim would always be a guarantee of good progeny even when inbreeding with one of the mates is resorted to.
Corina v. Sigalsburg, DZ27620, was a black litter sister of Claus v. Sigalsburg and therefore certain to possess breeding qualities of high value. In conjunction with a closely related mate, Figaro v. Sigalsburg she proved her hereditary worth by producing the good dog, Boby v. Hohenzollernpark.
The black Bona v.d. Loeknitz, DZ34676, whelped November 11, 1924, (Artus v.d. Thumshoehe and Bona v.d. Deckersburg) was a black bitch that gave great promise on the basis of her exalted parentage. She did not disappoint us entirely for she produced the exceptionally beautiful Alraune v. Abendrot in conjunction with Hamlet v.d. Herthasee.
Comtess v. Steyerberg,DZ28979, whelped February 10, 1924, (Arno v.d. Weichselburg and Ali v. Waldloh). The paternal blood carried by this bitch is decidedly more valuable than that of the mother although the latter is not really bad, except for a doubtful spot. Certainly she became a good transmitter. Her resplendent son, Hamlet v. Herthasee, which she produced in conjunction with Alto v. Sigalsburg is reason enough for favorable conclusions concerning her hereditary powers and qualifications.
Hedda v. Margarethenhof, DZ36490, whelped September 11, 1924, (Burschel V. Coeln and Dora v.d. Eckardtsburg). This brown bitch transmitted her heredity far beyond the greatest expectation entertained for her. She brought us the well known Jockel- and Jessy v. Lobenstein out of a mating with Alto v. Sigalsburg. The brown Bajadere v. Zinsgut, DZ30932, was a litter sister of the previously described Balmung- and Baldur v. Zinsgut. Anatomically and in character she was a bitch of the utmost quality. She, too, went to America at an early age where she transmitted her qualities through many excellent dogs. Her bloodlines, as we have stated before, were in the main those of Edelblut v. Jaegerhof.
Lucie v. Luisenheim, DZ34520, whelped March 4, 1924, (Artus v.d. Firnhaberau and Pita v.d. Staatlichen Zuchtanstalt). Although the ancestry of this brown bitch was not often of the best we must give her credit for comparatively high hereditary powers. She became the mother of the brown Troll v. Luisenheim by Helios v. Siegestor.
Dalila z. Isonzo, KP.P.II 848, a litter sister of the above described Dar z. Isonzo, was one of the outstanding show dogs of Czechoslovakian breed. If her mating will be strictly confined to dogs of related blood the heredity which she brought with her will be a guarantee of successful transmission and progeny.
Czechoslovakia had still another good bitch in the black Blanka v. Korsika, ZP.BSt BI 29d, whelped May 25, 1924, a daughter of Artus v. Friedeck. Out of a mating with Dar z. Isonzo she brought us the beautiful Beno z. Nameste.
Beginning with this year a qualitative rating of the individual dogs becomes increasingly difficult due to the fact that filialgenerations have not appeared in public view in sufficient numbers to permit of a well reasoned and conclusive judgment as to their hereditary qualities. We can, however, name some of the individuals that have demonstrated their capacity for transmitting their distinctive and hereditary qualities at an early age and others which by all visible signs and in all probability will succeed in doing so.
Figaro v. Sigalsburg, DZ40115, whelped November 4, 1925, (Alto v. Sigalsburg and Asta v. Stolzenberg) was a black dog of the best blood lines. Coming from the same kennel and bred according to the same method that produced his famous sire, great hopes were held out for him that he might supersede Alto. Though I may have liked his lines and appearance better even than Alto’s he did not have the latter’s blood lines. His build was essentially that of a surpassingly useful and beautiful working dog, stately, sharp and full of fiery temperament. His neck and nape were overdeveloped to an extent that almost became a fault. His entire structure reminded less of his paternal grandsire Lux than of his other grandsire Troll. That he was a good transmitter of his hereditary traits is proved conclusively by his son, Boby v. Hohenzollernpark. His hereditary worth could not be finally established or extensively exploited in Germany because he went to America at an early age, where he achieved some measure of success.
Lux v. Saumhof, DZ36464, whelped March 5, 1925, (Ari v. Sigalsburg and Edeltrud v. Saumhof). This black dog is the only outstanding hereditary transmitter among the descendants which An left behind in Germany when he went to America. His build is of the best: a back as solid as iron, a closely knit body, tight and sound throughout, all of which is enhanced by his extraordinary type. His bloodlines might have been a little more inspiring. His brave and powerful appearance, coupled, as it was, with a good character and disposition, made him a most attractive dog. He faithfully transmitted the inheritance bestowed upon him by his sire. His dam, Edeltrud, was a daughter of Edelblut and sired by him in his ninth year. In Lux v. Saumhof we find a mixture of the hereditary qualities of both the Blankenburg and Edelblut lines in highly intensified form. Our hope is that he will be productive of much good. To date his most outstanding descendant is his daughter Freya v. Burgund.
Kunz v. Roedeltal, DZ37248, whelped June 2, 1925, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Fee v. Roedeltal) a striking black dog of good medium size, best type and expression and displaying fine dark markings. His shoulders might well have been tighter. His hereditary qualities were good. His best progeny are to be found among the Simmenau dogs, of which the hereditarily powerful bitch, Pia v. Simmenau was his daughter. (See Kitty v. Roedeltal).
The black Edel v.d. Barbarossahoehle, DZ39789, whelped December 14, 1925, (Alto v. Sigalsburg and Dilly v. Stolzenberg) is likewise a noteworthy specimen of the breed. His paternal ancestry has been sufficiently described heretofore and the maternal line is equally valuable. His mother Dilly was a daughter of Troll v.d. Blankenburg and Lotte I v. Simmenau, both of which have achieved a high mark of hereditary distinction in both Germany and America. Edel co-operated with Britta v. Beundenfeld in presenting the Swiss breed with Donar v. Beundenfeld.
Unknown to the rank and file of Dobermann breeders but, nevertheless, a very good and valuable dog is the black Benno v. Schnabenhuck, DZ36274, whelped April 30, 1925, (Benno v.d. Roemerhof and Holda v. Adalheim). He was of good and correct size, faultless body and best possible character traits. Judging entirely by his good blood lines he should acquit himself splendidly as a sire and transmitter. One of his daughters is the brown Addi v. Friesenwaldt.
Switzerland produced another good show dog in this year but his hereditary power and value cannot well be checked in all their ramifications as he left his home country. This was the black Emir Lentulus, SHSB21194, whelped 1925, (Axel Kirchbuehl and Dely v.d. Baerenburg). He is a grandson of Edelblut and a great-grandson of Zeus v. Parthengrund and on the basis of such heredity he seems to be destined to become as good a sire and progenitor as he is show dog.
In justice we must mention another good dog, the black Ferry v.d. Triumphpforte, 1925, DZ39517.
The year’s bitches equal the dogs in number. The black Rita v. Luisenheim, DZ36634, whelped April 19, 1925, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Dita v.d. staatlichen Zuchtanstalt) has excellent hereditary factors in the accumulated Lux and Langerode blood lines. With Dechant v.d. Eckardtsburg she succeeded in producing the beautiful show dog Gustl v. Tannenhaus.
The best show dog of the year was the black Kitty v. Roedeltal, DZ37249, a litter sister of the above described Kunz. She represented a mixture of the blood of Lux and Zeus v. Parthengrund. Up to this date I have not been able to determine the extent to which Kitty could transmit her heredity but both of her litter brothers Kunz- and Kuno v. Roedeltal performed creditably therein. The Roedeltal dogs are a good and thoroughly stabilized strain.
Boese v. Schnabenhuch, DZ36279, the black litter sister of the previously described Benno is a bitch of the best proportions and solidity. Though not of a sensational type her hereditary transmissions are uniformly good.
Elfe v.d. Voelkerruhe, DZ35957, whelped February 20, 1925, (Amor v. Goetterfelsen and Asta v.d. Voelkerruhe). With this black bitch Amor achieved a successful transmission of his heredity. Through her solid and stable sire Elfe was endowed with a large portion of Troll blood and, when mated to Alto she demonstrated her inherent capacity by producing Kanzler v. Sigalsburg.
Annette v. Burghofplatz, DZ35943, whelped April 13, 1925, (Benno v.d. Roemerhof and Anneliesel Niessen) was a brown bitch handicapped with the singular misfortune of not coming into the possession of a skilled and sensible breeder until the sixth year of her life and of not being mated to a suitable and outstanding dog. At that age, however, her hereditary powers were given an opportunity of asserting themselves through the first class dog, Eike zum Ziel. In another and later litter, every individual of which was well worth showing, she produced the outstanding Kloth v. Adalheim-Goldaue. Her blood was in part that of the Rhenish Rheinerft line.

GRUENIG 1926 – 1930
This year is another and extraordinarily fruitful year in both show dogs and hereditarily potent breeding stock. However, it seems to have been the last of the progressively successful years for a long time. In the years immediately following a rapid sinking of the breed in both quality and popularity becomes noticeable. Fortunately this condition will be temporary. Few years have been as productive of beautiful animals in every land where Dobermanns are bred as this year of 1926.
Hamlet v. Herthasee, DZ41,151, whelped 1926, (Alto v. Signalsburg and Comtess v. Steyerberg). This black dog is by far the best progenitor of the year, a fact to be noted at the very outset. His paternal line over Alto has already been fully discussed. Concerning his maternal line a good deal more remains to be said. Hamlet’s mother, the brown Comtess v. Steyerberg carried equal quantities of Blankenburg and Langerode blood on her paternal side. On her maternal side, that is, over Ali v. Waldloh these bloodlines are considerably diluted. Although her immediate ancestor, Danilo v.d. Krone, is of pure and authentic Ilm-Athen blood several dark and unauthentic spots appear on this side, which apparently have produced no adverse effect upon Hamlet’s heredity. Thanks to skillful selection the dog solved the problem of transmitting his heredity splendidly in Germany where a number of good specimens sired by him bear witness to this quality and power. Among them are Ikos v. Siegestor, Bessie v. Brandenburg and Alraune v. Abendrot. In America, his new home, he is most active in the region of the Great Lakes where a large proportion of Lux blood, especially in and around Detroit, should prove suitable to him. Whether the descendants of Carlo- and Favorit v.d. Koningstad in the East will offer him an equal opportunity of demonstrating his hereditary powers is doubtful but anxiously awaited.
The black Jockel v. Lobenstein, DZ40,050, whelped June 4, 1926, (Alto v. Sigalsburg and Hedda v. Margarethenhof) by reason of descent has all the essential qualities of a good progenitor. His mother, Hedda, is a granddaughter of Alex v.d. Finohoehe and his grandfather Burschel v. Coeln goes back to the brown Marko v. Luetzellinden in but two successive generations. Jockel has demonstrated his powers of transmission by his daughter, Fee v.d. Barbarossahoehle. He is now in America and whether he will be able to assert himself hereditarily or not will depend to a large extent upon the degree of care with which his mates will be selected. On the whole, his problem is the same as that of the above described Hamlet.
Helios v. Siegestor, DZ39,728, whelped January 4, 1926, (Stolz v. Roeneckenstein and Ella v. Siegestor) was a black dog and as much the subject of strident controversy as Claus v.d. Spree was in his time. Anatomically a beautiful correct dog, with the best possible points, but-note this- on one of his hind feet he had several cream-colored toes. The hereditary nature of this trait and its dangerous consequences cannot be lightly dismissed, as the filialgenerations of Helios will realize to their cost and sorrow. My attitude today, differing from that which I maintained at first, is that the other hereditary values of Helios may outweigh this fault, serious as it may be. That this trait is hereditary is now beyond dispute. That the fault will reoccur in his descendants is proved by the fact that Helios inherited it through a remote side line which was causatively afflicted with it. If you will review the critique of Lotte v. Roeneckenstein you will find an analogous condition, that one consisting of the absence rather than the discoloration of the toes of the hind right foot. In that case several individuals of her more distant filialgenerations were hereditarily so afflicted. The controversy becomes really significant in its scientific aspect when we realize the startling fact that the sire of Helios, that is, Stolz v. Roeneckenstein was a litter brother of Lotte v. Roeneckenstein. I challenge successful refutation of my assertion that the cause and origin of this hereditary defect must be found more or less latent in their parental generations. I personally incline to the opinion that it comes from the maternal side over Dora v. Wiesengrund. How tenaciously a hereditary trait like this, be it discoloration, deformity or absence of a member, persists in reappearing is demonstrated by Eike zum Ziel, a grandson of Lotte v. Roeneckenstein and now in America. In a litter by him here in Germany, one of the seven pups, peculiarly enough a male, also had two cream-colored toes on the right hind foot. Lotte II v. Simmenau, the mother of Eike zum Ziel, had one male pup in every litter she produced that was lacking a toe and always on the right hind foot. That there is an internal, if you please, hereditary connection between all of these occurrences must be plain to every one and it remains only to trace the rules and laws of its operation. Exact observation and registration of all such occurrences by the breeders and breed organizations would be most helpful and is hereby suggested. Let us return to our subject Helios. His hereditary qualities, particularly those on his paternal side, are quite outstanding. Concerning those on his mother’s side comment has already been made with reference to Elly. Helios produced a very good descendant in Troll v. Luisenheim and high hopes are held out for a good and numerous progeny.
Dankwart v. Erzgebirge, DZ40,428, whelped September 6, 1926, (Fedor v. Buetersburg and Feodora v. Atlantic). Neither of this brown dog’s parental lines can properly lay claim to hereditary potency. Fedor v. Buetersburg’s did not succeed in rising beyond a mean average in his descendants in America. The mother’s carries in part the blood of the Parthengrund strain of dogs but in Banjo she has a dog that was never particularly convincing. Whether Dankwart will fulfill his mission as progenitor in America is a matter for the future to determine.
Big Boy of White Gate, DZ44,729, whelped December 6, 1926, (Claus v.d. Spree and Elfrieda v.d. Koningstad) is a black dog of more than medium size with the best of anatomical features. His appearance is typical of the American bred dogs. The head is narrow and long, muzzle strong and good, the entire stature being erect and noble. He is a product of the best combination of German and Holland blood. Carlo v.d. Koningstad and Angola v. Grammont on one side and Burschel v. Simmenau and Adele v. Oststern on the other are his grandparents. He has not been drawn upon for breeding as much as his ancestry would warrant but in the younger generations his heredity is very good. He is the best progenitor for bitches of Claus v.d. Spree and Lux v.d. Blankenburg blood.
Prinz v. Brunia DZ39,930, whelped April 8, 1926, (Lust- spiel v.d. Koningstad and Adda v. Nettebach). In spite of the risky combination from which he sprang this brown dog has a wealth of “Adel” and expression. He does not seem to transmit the cardinal fault of his sire, a matter for congratulation. On his dam’s side he was the recipient of excellent hereditary factors and as a product of the closest (incestuous) inbreeding to Claus v.d. Spree his blood lines are all that anyone can desire.
Lux II v. Simmenau, DZ40937, whelped November 17, 1926, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg and Lotte v. Roeneckenstein) . Here we have one of the very best dogs of the year, a full blood brother of An- and Alto v. Sigalsburg and in a later litter. In short, this black dog is the all around equal of his brothers An and Alto. That this cannot be proved and visually demonstrated by an equally large number of high class descendants is entirely due to the fact that this prime dog was kept and owned in an isolated spot far from the beaten paths travelled by the Dobermann breed and that access to him by suitable bitches was difficult, indeed. In spite of these difficulties his breeding success is outstanding. No efforts should be spared or opportunities neglected to take which advantage of his heredity, and, while time permits, to preserve it for the breed. This dog excels his famous brothers in substance, has the best possible character but seems to transmit these hereditary traits more to the females of his progeny, which are also greater in number, than to the males. The litter brought us Lux was the last sired by his famous parent in Germany.
The bitches of the year measure up to each and every reasonable specification.
The best bitch of the year is unquestionably Lotte II v. Simmenaii, DZ40,748, the black litter sister of the above described Lux II. She is by consent regarded as the best individual descendant of her sire, Lux v.d. Blankenburg. Anatomically she is entirely beyond fault or criticism, extremely large for a bitch and extraordinarily deep and broad in the chest. Shoulders and front are of the best. Her head is somewhat too fine but well within the Dobermann ideal. This sister of An, Alto and Lux II was not only the most strikingly beautiful of the lot but also proved herself one of the greatest hereditary transmitters in Germany. She produced an impressive number of excellent progeny in Germany among which Eike zurn Ziel stands out most prominently. The singular characteristic of this great bitch’s power of hereditary transmission is that she produced excellent progeny with every dog she was mated to even if his pedigree did not reveal a common ancestor until the fourth or fifth parental generation. Her descendants in America, where she now is, are not sufficiently developed to warrant any final conclusion as to their quality. She is also the most outstanding daughter of her mother, Lotte v. Roeneckenstein.
Jessy v. Lobenstein, DZ40,141, the black litter sister of Jockel v. Lobenstein is by and large a feminine reproduction of her excellent brother but unfortunately I am not in a position at this time to report in detail on her power of transmission. That, like her brother, she has a great deal to transmit was proved to everyone’s satisfaction with her daughter, Freya v. Burgund, which she produced by Lux v. Saumhof. My best wish for the Lobenstein dogs is to see their chests become broader.
Illisa of Westphalia, DZ40,489, whelped July 9, 1926, (Claus v.d. Spree and Ilisa v.d. Koningstad). A brown bitch of extremely good and correct build and equally good in color. She represents the ideal mixture of Dutch and Claus blood and a mating of her with dogs of the same or similar blood lines is highly recommended. The bitch does not incline to delicacy. Her progeny, I am told, is well above the mean level, though I cannot speak from personal observation of them. (See Illustration.)
The black Atli v. Rhinegold, AK560,310, whelped May 4, 1926, (Favorit v.d. Koningstad and Alli v. Goldgrund) was anatomically and hereditarily a bitch of the highest class. She was the product of the closest (incestuous) inbreeding to Edelblut v. Jaegerhof with an interval of four parental generations. It would seem axiomatic, therefore, that she would be an excellent transmitter of her hereditary qualities.
Bora v.d. Goldflagge, ZPBSt I 129, whelped February 15, 1926, (Artus v. Friedeck and Asta v.d. Goldflagge) is by far the best bitch in Czechoslovakia. Brown herself, she has a most interesting color heredity: two successive generations of brown on her mother’s side and two successive generations of brown on her father’s side to which is joined one of blue. This offers a unique opportunity of determining the effect and extent of color deterioration by mating her experimentally with another brown dog. Her owner, Mr. Hosch in Bruenn, could do Dobermann science a great service by approving of this step. Parental generations of such brown successions have become extremely rare in the German breeding process. I am not personally acquainted with Bora’s filialgenerations.
Britta v. Beundenfeld, SHSB26752, whelped May 17, 1926, (Dox v.d. Baerenburg and Gerda Lentulus). This outstanding black bitch can, among many other famous dogs, boast of having Zeus v. Parthengrund and Edelblut v. Jaegerhof in the gallery of her ancestors and of being otherwise of the best blood produced in Switzerland. In conjunction with Edel v.d. Barbarossahoehle she brought us that excellent Donar v. Beundenfeld.
The dogs of this and the following years, which we enumerate today as the most recent, have performed no hereditary transmissions by which we are enabled to pass judgment upon their qualities as breeding dogs. There are a few exceptions to this but we must wait for the future to disclose the rest. The descendants of the dogs whelped in 1927, which are now at hand, will not appear as mature specimens until 1932 or 1933. We have, therefore, adduced only such specimens which, by reason of the quality of their early progeny, have given promise and furnished evidence of becoming progenitors of the higher class. It is not precluded, however, and they have our best wishes in that respect, that many of the 1927 dogs which are now unknown may force their entry into our list by their powers of hereditary transmission in the future.
Claus v. Cotkenius, DHSt.2488/28, whelped May 11, 1927, (Asko v.d. Thumshoehe and Cilly v.d. Spree) was an extremely attractive black dog with the best of size and proportions. Head, expression and legs were excellent. He also displayed a good deal of withers. His pedigree is imposing. He was a grandson of Burschel v. Simmenau and possessed much of the latter’s hereditary quality. Being also a grandson of Lux v.d. Blankenburg we are bound to regard him as inbred to Burschel. His heredity is therefore powerful and good. He furnished much living evidence of this power, particularly in conjunction with Lotte II v. Simmenau.
Mars v. Simmenau, DZ45091, whelped May 16, 1927, (Lux v. Treidelschloss and Lotte v. Roeneckenstein). A large black dog of the best form and quality but rarely in proper show ring condition. Although most of the Dobermanns since 1900 were known to me, Mars (well named!) was the sharpest one I ever became acquainted with. A fighter of the greatest heart and courage, he feared no opponent and preferred to go down fighting rather than admit defeat. He was covered with scars but was faithful and irreplaceable to his master. His progeny received his physical traits and courage, though no star of the highest rank was among them. He is now in America, specifically in Detroit, where he found more suitable bitches of Lux blood than in Germany.
Modern v. Simmenau, DZ42114, a litter brother of Mars and likewise black. Modern is a somewhat more refined replica of Mars and displayed agreeably flowing lines. His progeny in Germany will be about the same as that of Mars. He is now in America and owned by the same person who owns Mars. On account of his more refined appearance and his quieter disposition Modern has apparently won the greater popularity but both brothers have won striking success and great acclaim in America.
Gustl v. Tannenhaus, DZ41077, whelped January 16, 1927, (Dechant v.d. Eckardtsburg and Rita v. Luisenheim) is an outstandingly beautiful black show dog. Judging from his descent and ancestry his heredity and powers of transmission ought to be good: he was a grandson of Alex v.d. Finohoehe. He also went to America where he can become a vital link in the chain of hereditary continuance with bitches of Blankenburg blood.
Boby v. Hohenzollernpark, DZ41809, whelped November 1, 1927, (Figaro v. Sigalsburg and Corina v. Sigalsburg). A black dog with a tight closely knit body and good proportion. His blood lines are in equal parts that of Troll- and Lux v.d. Blankenburg, a fact which should make his heredity valuable with suitable bitches. His product to date is quite satisfactory.
Beno z. Nameste, ZPBSt I 348, whelped June 1, 1927 (Dar z. Isonzo and Blanka v. Korsika). A Czechoslovakian dog, black and rated among the best in his country. He carries the blood of his great-grandsire, Alex v.d. Finohoehe, and in addition that of Artus v. Friedek and, of course, Zeus v. Parthengrund. If judiciously used he can only produce good for his home breed.
Addy v. Friesenwaldt, DZ50029, whelped July 28, 1927, (Benno v. Schnabenhuck and Asra v. Borkhof). On her paternal side she is a granddaughter of Benno v. Roemerhof and on her maternal side of Lux v.d. Blankenburg. In addition her lines trace back to Carlo v.d. Koningstad and Zeus v. Parthengrund. In her general appearance this bitch is very good but could be a little stronger in pastern and feet. Her progeny by Mars v. Simmenau shows several exceedingly promising individuals.
lkos V. Siegestor, DZ43326, whelped November 1, 1928, (Hamlet v. Herthasee and Ella v. Siegestor) is brown. His hereditary transmission, powers and quality would seem to be about the same as that of his half brother, Helios v. Siegestor.
Troll v. Luisenheirn, DZ41694, whelped January 15, 1928, (Helios v. Siegestor and Lucie v. Luisenheim). The bulk of this brown dog’s hereditary traits are in all probability derived from the paternal side and will be transmitted in manner, form and quality about the same as that of Ikos.
Donar v. Beundenfeld, SHSB30544, whelped May 19, 1928, (Edel v.d. Barbarossahoehle and Britta v. Beundenfeld). In this black dog we see the result of the Swiss breeders’ commendable experiments designed to rejuvenate their stock by introducing foreign (German) but related blood. This is not to be construed as meaning that the breed there is not progressing but rather that it is always advisable to inject some fresh blood in districts that are so geographically circumscribed. Donar can only be of benefit to the Swiss breed as his blood lines are those of Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and Lux v.d. Blankenburg.
Bessie v. Brandenburg, DZ43692, whelped December 19, 1928, (Hamlet v. Herthasee and Elfe v.d. Voelkerruhe). This black bitch soon joined the migration to America. She ought to be productive of the best, judging from her descent and heredity. She carries equal quantities of Troll and Lux blood.
Another of the few bitches we will name for this year is the black Fee v.d. Barbarossahoehle, DZ41596, whelped March 9, 1928, (Jockel v. Lobenstein and Dilly v. Stolzenberg). She is known to us as the mother of Kanzler v. Sigalsburg. On her maternal side she is a granddaughter of Troll vsl. Blankenburg and on the paternal side of Alto V. Sigalsburg. This combination assures her of a rich hereditary endowment and, when mated to properly selected dogs, we can confidently look forward to her transmission of it.
The brown Alraune v. Abendrot, DZ42959, whelped July 28, 1928, (Hamlet v. Herthasee and Bona v.d. Loeknitz) is a first class specimen of beauty. If her hereditary qualities hold pace with those as a show bitch we can expect the very best progeny from her. Her mother is a daughter of Artus v. Thumshoebe. We can trace this dog’s parentalgenerations through those of his litter brother Asko (See Pedigrees) of the year 1922. It is safe to say that we are all in accord concerning Hamlet’s power of hereditary transmission and that a bitch of direct descent from Lux would be the best and most suitable combination for him.
Pia v. Sinimenau, DZ42090, whelped April 25, 1928, (Kunz v. Roedeltal and Lotte v. Roeneckenstein) a black bitch of first class blood lines. She was bound to transmit her hereditary traits if mated to well selected dogs. This she did splendidly in conjunction with Lux II v. Simmenau. Still later she produced the beautiful Mira v. Pannewitz.
Christel v. Beundenfeld, SHSB27597, whelped June 8, 1928, (Axel Kirchbuehl and Gerda Lentulus). This brown bitch is the great-granddaughter of both Zeus v. Parthengrund and Edelblut v. Jaegerhof and soon demonstrated her hereditary capacity. If the blood of this bitch is at all complemented by that of the dog she is mated to the filialgenerations will infallibly be valuable.
Eike rum Ziel, SHSB39436, whelped April 7, 1929, (Achill v.d. Rheinperle and Lotte II v. Simmenau) was a black dog that was as good in character as he was in external appearance. His descent was ground for the surmise that he possessed the stuff of which good progenitors are made and the few descendants he left behind in Germany more than justified that surmise and made it a certainty. Without revealing a trace of being “overtype” he has a skull of the enormous length of 31 cm. but which is in correct proportion to its width and the rest of his mighty body. He emigrated to America at an early age and there achieved the greatest success in a short time. It is of interest to note here that his parents were a dog of advanced age and a bitch in her prime of life.
His litter brother, Egil zum Ziel, SEISB39499, was likewise black. Egli has taken up his domicile in Switzerland where he has already produced good looking progeny. He is a little smaller in build than his brother Eike but in equally good proportion throughout.
Mira v. Pannewitz, DZ44005, whelped April 10, 1929, (Lux II v. Simmenau and Pia v. Simmenau) is a very fine, beautiful and stately black bitch in the best of physical forms and proportions. She is the product of a doubly incestuous mating and mostly to her double grandmother, Lotte v. Roeneckenstein and then again to Lux v.d. Blankenburg, once as her grandsire and again as great-grandsire. This bitch should be mated to some immediate descendant of Alex v.d. Finohoehe. Helios v. Siegestor would probably be suited to this purpose and the offspring from this mating could easily stand in the highest rank both as outstanding specimens of hereditary and anatomical excellence.
Freya v. Burgund, DZ43546, whelped February 7, 1929, (Lux v. Saumhof and jessy v. Lobenstein) is a brown bitch with good and graceful lines. We see from her pedigree that in three parental generations she goes back to Lux over both parents, and is, therefore, inbred to him. If mated to a well selected and related dog her hereditary transmission is bound to be of the best.
Kanzler v. Sigalsburg, DZ44988, whelped January 28, 1930, (Alto v. Sigalsburg and Fee v.d. Barbarossahoehle). A clean cut dog of medium size. He is inbred to Alto and carries other very valuable blood lines: from Alex v.d. Finohoehe and Troll v.d. Blankenburg. He would be especially suited to bitches of predominantly Troll blood. He is now in America where several of these bitches are available.
Kloth v. Adalheim-Goldaue, DZ50140, whelped June 24, 1931, (Eike zum Ziel and Annette v. Burghofplatz). He can serve as an example of what scientific breeding and objectiveness can accomplish. His outstanding sire transmitted to him a heredity which he in his turn received from a happy combination of Jaegerhof and Simmenau bloods. Kloth’s mother was a Benno v. Roemerhof daughter. The mating from which Kloth sprang was the first in which this splendid bitch was bred to a dog with hereditary powers commensurate with her qualities. She carries the rare and extremely valuable Rheinerft blood.

GRUENIG addendum 1921 – 1937

Eido v. Stresow AKC 394783 black, whelped September 21, 1921, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg – Elfriede v. Elsass) -an imported dog- a litter brother of Freya v. Stresow (see Author’s note year 1921) a good sound dog of medium size. Noteworthy as one of the first, if not the first, Dobermann to win best of show honors in this country.
Carlo of Rhinegold AKC 551481 black, whelped May 4, 1926, (Favoriet v.d. Koningstad – Alli v. Goldgrund) -a medium sized dog with iron hard body and great substance. Litter brother to Alli of Rhinegold. Carlo was probably the first American bred Dobermann to win best of show.
Ilisa of Pontchartrain AKC 571491 black and red, whelped June 9, 1926, (Claus v.d. Spree – Ilisa v.d. Koningstad) -an attractive and sound female of great quality with inherited value as a brood matron; three of her get became American champions.
Hesta of Pontchartrain AKC 607184-black, whelped March 22,1927 (Favoriet v.d. Koningstad – Freya v. Stresow) -sound working build, good bone and substance, correct angulation and dark eye. In Hesta’s litter were Hertha, Hexie, Hella and Hyde, all splendid examples of the Dobermann and all American champions. This litter was an illustration of combining the best of German and Holland blood lines. Unfortunately, the breeder never repeated this mating.
Alphabet of Dawn AKC 681563-black, whelped August 5, 1927, (Lux v. Blankenburg – Schatz v. Ostersee) -a large bitch of great substance and many good qualities. Her hereditary value has not been proven.
Tinker of Rhinegold AKC 667097 black, whelped June 18, 1928, (Favoriet v.d. Koningstad – Alli v. Goldgrund) -one of the best American bred males of his time reflecting his splendid parentage. A full but not litter brother of Carlo and Alli of Rhinegold. His hereditary value should have been great.
Adonis of Pontchartrain AKC 710287 black, whelped December 1, 1928, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg – Hella of Pontchartrain) -a dog of good conformation, correct angulation and again through the admixture of Blankenburg and Koningstad blood-a sire of great hereditary value.
Klare v. Brunia AKC 795631 brown, whelped December 8, 1928, (Gerd v. Sporthof – Hella v. Winterberg) -a beautiful, imported female of outstanding show quality. Her elegance was probably inherited from her sire and certain other good qualities from Artus v. Langerode through’ her darn; bred but seldom, there is nothing to show her value as a brood matron.
Prince Claus of Pontchartrain AKC 710286 black, whelped February 1, 1929 (Lux v.d. BlankenburgIlisa of Pontchartrain) -a dog of good working type- good substance and proper angulation. Sired four American champions.
Alto v. Torrez AKC 713439-black, whelped February 22, 1929, (Claus v. Sigalsburg – Burga v. Torrez) -somewhat on the large size-good working type with heavy bone. Sired five American champions.
Princess Flora of Pontchartrain AKC 710290 black, whelped April 12, 1929, (Figaro v. Sigalsburg – Tilly v. Melrap) -a bitch of considerable beauty-intensely Blankenburg bred with hereditary value as demonstrated by the fact that five of her get became American champions.
Karl v. Blankenburg AKC 722359 black, whelped April 23, 1929, (Graf v. Blankenburg – Altara v. Riga) -a Pacific Coast product who, like his sire Graf, had a splendid show record -a large compactly built dog with good substance -also a proven sire. His dam was imported from Russia and was well known there.
Astor of Westphalia DPZ 46704 black, whelped December 19, 1929, (Helios v. Siegestor – Ilissa of Westphalia) -good middle size dog with correct body, splendid bone and substance. One of the best stud dogs sired by Helios, he would have been invaluable for American breeding purposes. His early death upset the plans of his owner in this respect.
Other well-known dogs of this year were:
Lady Ortry of Pontchartrain AKC 757159 black, whelped October 26, 1929, (Lux v.d. Blankenburg Freia v. Buetersburg).
Alicia of Dawn AKC 737244 black, whelped March 3, 1929, (Figaro v. Sigalsburg – Alphabet of Dawn).
Doddy of Rhinegold AKC 739666 black, whelped June 26, 1929, (Hasso v. Sigalsburg – Princess Lita of Rhinegold) -a very showy bitch with attractive and correct body. The picture marred by exaggerated faults of a Sigalsburg head. Withal a proven brood matron as demonstrated by the four American champions numbered among her progeny. Apparently the blood of her grand sire Favoriet v.d. Koningstad is dominant in the third and fourth generations.
The outstanding dog of this year in Germany was Muck V. Brunia DPZ 44392 black, whelped July 9, 1929 (Luz v. Roedeltal – Hella v.d. Winterburg) -Muck was the best of Alto v. Sigalsburg’s grandsons. He was destined to exert a great influence on the breed, both in Germany and the United States. “Welt-Sieger” Troll v.d. Engelsburg was his best known son. Like Alto, Muck was a better sire of dogs than bitches. In America Falko v. Lindenhof is the best of his progeny.
Troll v.d. Hoehen AKC 759608 black, whelped February 15, 1930, (Favoriet v.d. Koningstad – Elodia v.d. Hoehen) -a dog of good type, somewhat on the small side but possessing good bone and excellent body. His hereditary value was great as demonstrated by the litter he sired containing the exceptional sisters Orsova, Orissa, and Orama of Westphalia. Unfortunately this dog, one of the last of Favoriet’s sons, was not used at Stud as frequently as he should have been.
Attila of Oxbo AKC 751353 black, whelped February 16, 1930, (Emir Lentulus – Valuta v.d. Blankenburg) -a North Pacific Coast dog of great reputation. His sire was a nephew of Edelblut v. Jaegerhof, and he stems back to the Parthengrund line. We are not familiar with his record as a sire, but with the proper bitches he should demonstrate the value of his heredity.
Princess Pan of Pontchartrain AKC 752818 black, whelped April 12, 1930, (Mikosch of Pontchartrain – Hertha of Pontchartrain) -an attractive, well-made bitch of the right size. Successful show bitch in the middle west and later in the Pacific Coast. A granddaughter of Favoriet.
In Germany this year was a bad one for black dogs. Only one brown male is worth mentioning.
Alex v. Augustenburg DPZ 45584, whelped July 25, 1930, (Troll v. Luisenheim – Tamina v. Kranichstein).
Annerl v. Zinsgut DPZ 45099 black and red, whelped March 26, 1930, (Olaf v. Simmenau – Annerl Becker) -she was the best bitch of this color of the year -migrated to Switzerland where she raised several good litters.
Anita Zur Immermannhoehe DPZ 45544 brown, whelped March 11, 1930, (Bodo v. Siegerpark – Asta v. Burghofplatz) -Anita, bred to Astor of Westphalia, produced the famous “K.” litter for the Rheinperle Kennels. Her son, Kurt v.d. Rheinperle, is today one of America’s outstanding sires.
Angar von Angustenburg DPZ 45586 brown, whelped July 25, 1930. Litter sister of Alex v. Augustenburg. Her claim to fame is solely as a brood matron. Bred to Asso v. Memminger-mau, she produced that famous trio of “brown” bitches Alma, Asta, and Annemirl v. Sailerhaus. Alma, the best of the three, is a champion of Switzerland, her adopted country.
Erna v. Graf Zeppelin AKC 864098 black, whelped March 13, 1931, (Hans v. Tannenhous – Tosca v. Luisenheim) -an imported bitch of large size-successful show dog and of demonstrated hereditary value, Mated to Kanzler v. Sigalsburg, she produced Alto and Ajax v. Verstaame. Powerfully built, her body could have supported a larger head. In this country she was considered better than her brown-red sister, Siegerin Ella v. Graf Zeppelin.
Dash of Bardo AKC 853708 black, whelped May 5, 1931, (Baron v. Simmenau – Princess Dot of Pontchartrain) -a dog of good medium size -beauty of outline -and nobility -successful show dog. Hereditary value not sufficiently demonstrated.
Rogerschmidt’s Orphan Boy AKC 821509 black, whelped June 21, 1931, (Adonis of Pontchartrain – Princess Flora of Pontchartrain) -a fine, better-than-medium sized dog, with good head, correct angulation and conformation. Successful show dog in the middle west. Hereditary value also not sufficiently demonstrated.
Glenna of Lawnwood AKC 898587 brown, whelped September 5, 1931, (Alto v. Torrez – Ima of Lawnwood) -a bitch of striking appearance with lovely, dark coat and markings and excellent body and head. Too high on the leg and not without fault in forequarters. Hereditary value not sufficiently demonstrated.
Carlo v. Bassewitz AKC 819773 black, whelped June 7, 1931, (Boby v. Hohenzollernpark – Fifi v. Heimfeldt) -an imported dog of strong Sigalsburg blood, with a mixture of this blood strain’s faults and virtues. His breeding activities are confined principally to the New England section where he has been successful.
In addition to the two German bred dogs of this year mentioned above the following were well thought of in the land of their birth:
Desir v. Glueckswinkel DPZ 46152 -and his litter sister Daisy v. Gleuckswinkel-DPZ 46155 -both black, whelped March 7, 1931, (Ferry v.d. Triumpfforte – Bajadere v. Brandenburg) -these two ranked as the best black red dog and bitch of the year, and in 1933 were Sieger and Siegerin respectively. The dog was purchased by a Japanese sportsman and has been used extensively at Stud in cherry blossom land.
Ella v. Graf Zeppelin DPZ 46192 brown, whelped March 13, 1931. Litter sister to Erna v. Graf Zeppelin. Ella, although 1933 red Siegerin, was from a standpoint of size (height) over the standard, but physically, in some respects, resembled her sister Erna.
Kurt v.d. Rheinperle (Rheingold) AKC 857104. Black and red, whelped December 28, 1931. (Astor of Westphalia – Anita v. Immermannhoehe). This imported dog, although not prepossessing in appearance and indifferently successful in the show ring; nevertheless due to his heredity has had a large measure of success at stud. With carefully selected bitches, particularly bitches dominant in correct head and eye, breeding results have been gratifying. This grandson of Helios is today one of the more valuable sires.
Sonia of Westphalia AKC 872360 black, whelped April 16, 1932, (Big Boy of White Gate – Aurora of Westphalia) -a very sound medium-sized bitch of great quality-beautiful back line, exceptionally short back and best of shoulders, legs and feet with a Koningstad head, marred somewhat by a poor ear trim. Her illustrious forebears would proclaim for her great hereditary value. Her successful show record has as yet never been equalled by an American bred bitch.
Nicholas of Randhof AKC 899987 black, whelped August 8, 1932, (Modern v. Simmenau – Angola of White Gate) -a large, powerfully built dog of great bone and substance-correct angulation-dark eye and markings. Resembling in some respects his grand sire, Favoriet v.d. Koningstad. Again his heritage on both sides proclaims great breeding value, in this case demonstrated by the American champions among his get.
Lady Lyle of Avernus AKC 863890 black, whelped May 24, 1932, (Dietrich v.d. Barbarossahoehle – Doddy of Rhinegold) -a very high quality bitch with show ring appeal-beautiful head and neck-with good back line. Could do with more substance. Proven value as a brood matron.
In Germany the 1932 vintage was a good one for black – red males, of which there were three outstanding examples. Asso v. Memminger-mau DPZ 47483 black, whelped February 5, 1932, (Hunko v. Buchenau – Jenny v. Reichshain). Asso sired a number of dogs and bitches of excellent rating in South Germany.
Cherloc v. Rauhfelsen DPZ 47216 black, whelped February 28, 1932, (Helios v. Siegestor – Prinzess v. Simmenau). As a sire, Cherloc demonstrated his usefulness in begetting two of the most outstanding bitches of the past decade, namely, Jessy v. Sonnenhoehe and Gretl v. Kienlesberg. The best of his progeny were bitches. He is now owned in Italy.
Jockel v. Burgund DPZ 47388 black, whelped May 24, 1932, (Helios v. Siegestor – Jessy v. Lobenstein). Jockel, because of his height being over the standard, was placed down the line in the Sieger Show-although winning several best of breeds in his homeland. His show career in the United States has been little less than sensational, where principally in the middle and far west he has compiled an amazing number of wins. As a sire, his half-brother Cherloc, is his superior.
Asta v.d. Domstadt DPZ 47892 black, whelped October 6, 1932, (Muck v. Brunia – Kova v.d. Ruppertsburg). She was the ranking bitch in Germany of this year. Siegerin in 1934, but several classes below the dogs of this year. Her hereditary value has not as yet been demonstrated.
Baroness Brenda v.d. Hoehen AKC 934286 brown, whelped April 10, 1933, (Xerxes v.d. Hoehen – Ursula v.d. Hoehen) -a very pleasing bitch of good substance and correct angulation-good head, neck, shoulders and feet. Back line could be better. Proven brood matron-her best children were those resulting from the mating with Troll v.d. Hoehen.
Baroness Blenda v.d. Hoehen AKC 964708 black, -a litter sister of Brenda-had a better show ring appearance and record than the latter and hereditarily should be as good a brood matron. Up to now this has not been demonstrated.
Shadda v. Verstaame AKC 890913 black, whelped May 11, 1933, (Kansler v. Sigalsburg – Trail ‘Ern-de-be) -one of the best of Kansler’s progeny in this country. A dog of better-than-medium size, with plenty of bone, an excellent working type. He was used sparingly at stud, hence his hereditary value was never demonstrated.
Alto v. Verstaame AKC 906923 black, whelped May 29, 1933, (Kansler v. Sigalsburg – Erna v. Graf Zeppelin) -a dog of excellent type-medium size, short back, good eye and markings. A somewhat faulty Sigalsburg head. This dog was sent to the West Coast, where his better show records have been made.
Ajax v. Verstaame AKC 902923 black -litter brother of Alto, and a larger dog resembling more nearly his half brother Shadda. This dog, a late developer, is also of excellent working type good bone and with a better head than his brother Alto; however, not as short in back and could have better spring of ribs. His breeding activities have not been extensive but with properly selected bitches, his hereditary value should be demonstrated.
In Germany 1933 was similar to 1932 in that there were three black and red dogs of note and but one bitch.
Troll v. Engelsburg AKC A201182 black, whelped June 1, 1933, (Muck v. Brunia – Adda v. Heek) -Troll was the outstanding Stud in Germany from 1935 to 1937, when he was sold to the United States. Due to the dearth of good stud dogs in his native country, he was bred to all the worthwhile brood matrons in Germany. As a consequence and corollary, he sired many of the outstanding dogs and bitches of today. In 1938 about one-half of all the dogs and bitches at the Sieger Show were his progeny, both the black Sieger and Siegerin-also the Second “V” dog, were sired by Troll out of Jessy v.d. Sonnenhoehe. His daughter, a red bitch, was best of breed. He also sired Reich Siegerin (1937), the brown and red Ossi v. Stahlhelm, Mona v.d. Rheinperle, and Roland v. Stahlhelm. As a showdog in the United States he has had a record second only to Jockel v. Burgund, although his wins have been exclusively in the middle west. He is the only male to have won best of breed at two consective Sieger Shows (1934 and 1935).
Blitz v.d. Domstadt DPZ 48396 black, whelped April 3,1933, (Muck v. Brunia – Kora v.d. Ruppertsburg). Blitz was the black Reich Sieger in 1934 and 1936. He is the only well-known Sire left in Germany and has to his credit several “excellent” dogs and bitches.
Blank v.d. Domstadt DPZ 48395 black -a litter brother of Blitz. Inferior to him as a show dog, he has overshadowed him as a Sire. In Germany he produced Sieger Moritz v. Roedeltal and in the United States, his adopted country, his best-known Son is Count Leo v.d. Domstadt.
Alma v. Sailerhaus DPZ 49019 brown, whelped September 27, 1933, (Asso v. Memmingermau – Angar v. Angustenburg). Alma was the only top-notch German bitch of this year. She is now owned in Switzerland, where she obtained her championship.
Dietrich of Dawn AKC 991302 black, whelped February 5, 1934, (Dietrich v. Barbarossahoehle – Alicia of Dawn) -a sound, compactly built dog of good working type-good bone, substance, head and correct eye. Value as Sire demonstrated by several American champions among his progeny.
Napier of Rhinegold AKC 983880 black. Whelped April 27, 1934. (Kurt v.d. Rheinperle – Miss Flash of Rhinegold) -a dog of correct size-good bone and substance-also a proven size.
1934 in Germany produced no first-class males of either color, but this was offset by the following two black daughters of Charloc v. Rauhfelsen: Jessy v.d. Sonnenhoehe -DPZ 49753 -whelped June 28, 1934, (Charloc v. Rauhfelsen – Alice gen. Bella v.d. Sonnenhoehe). Jessy is perhaps the best Dobermann bitch whelped during the past decade. A large beautifully balanced animal, splendid body, beautiful head, great substance and outstanding gait. She is the second bitch to have whelped a Sieger and Siegerin (1938) in the same litter. She is the only bitch to date to have won best of breed at the Sieger Show in two consecutive years. Her brief show record in the United States has been outstanding.
Her dominance as a brood matron is evidenced by the fact that her progeny show the greatest resemblance to her regardless of which dog is the Sire.
Gretl v. Kienlesberg DPZ 49762 black, whelped August 1, 1934, (Cherloc v. Rauhfelsen – Asta v. Ulmer Spatz). Gretl, like her half sister, Jessy, has the utmost quality, perhaps a more feminine quality. She is also a great show bitch and there are some very promising sons and daughters of hers to appear at the 1939 Spring Shows in Germany.
Mona v.d. Rheinperle AKC A143484 black and red, whelped April 27, 1935. (Troll v. Engelsburg – Kriemhilde v.d. Rheinperle). This attractive imported bitch is of medium size and makes a most pleasing appearance in the show ring. Her back line and silhouette are A.1, but her long nicely modelled neck supports (similar to her half brother Roland) -an undesirable head. Troll is the Sire of both Mona and Roland out of different dams -if the dams are unrelated we must assume that this head type is traceable to the paternal blood lines and if so, neither dog should be inbred to their Sire.
Eve AKC A52821 black, whelped May 16, 1935, (Dankwart v. Erzgebirge – Trail ‘Em-delsa) -a very attractive show bitch with a great deal of Adel . She has inherited a flashy appearance and pleasing outline from her grandsire Fedor v. Buetersburg. One could wish for greater bone and substance. Value as a brood matron not yet demonstrated.
Falko -v. Lindenhoj AKC A107402 black, whelped April 23,1935, (Muck v. Brunia – Cora v. Ruppertsburg) – a dog on the large side, fine body and ample substance. Angulation of quarters leaves something to be desired. His hereditary value, through his sire Muck and his grandsire (on his dam’s side) Hamlet v. Herthasee, is evident but not yet demonstrated.
German dogs of this year:
Moritz v. Roedeltal DPZ 50560 black, whelped September 1, 1935, (Blank v.d. Domstadt – Bubine v. Deutschen-Eck) -a large dog with splendid body and excellent substance. He has, however, certain congenital faults of head (teeth). Now owned in the United States, where he is siring some promising youngsters.
Carlo v. Fasenenheim DPZ 50854 black, whelped December 1, 1935, (Blank v.d. Domstadt – Angola v. Kur- hessen) -Carlo has had a convincing show record in Germany and has recently proceeded to the United States.
Ossi v. Stahlhelm DPZ 50650 Brown, whelped September 20, 1935, (Troll v. Engelsburg – Kleopatra v. Burgund) -1937 Reich Siegerin. Ossi is very attractive and feminine, somewhat on the small side with short back and exhibiting much quality. She whelped one litter before proceeding to the United States, where she has had a successful show record.
Roland v. Stahlhelm DPZ 51097 black, whelped April 15, 1936, (Troll v. Engelsburg – Citta v. Braunschweig) -a dog of good middle size-strong, dry and compact body, with ample bone and substance -his head type is not desirable and is seen in several of his sire’s progeny now in this country.
Count Leo v.d. Domstadt AKC A145298 black, whelped August 10, 1936, (Blank v.d. Domstadt – Cinderella v. Bornholm) -a good sound working type with excellent body outline and strong bone. Excellent heredity which should demonstrate itself in his progeny.
Orsova of Westphalia AKC A145780 black, whelped December 18, 1936, (Troll v.d. Hoehen-Baroness – Brenda v.d. Hoehen) -the outstanding American bred of this year with impressive show record to date. She, With her litter sisters, Orissa and Orama (both of the latter browns ), are intensively Koningstad bred with the quality and hereditary excellence that this breeding indicates.
Ferry v. Rauhzfelsen DPZ 51454 black, whelped January 9, 193 7, (Troll v. Engelsburg – Jessu v.d. Sonnenhoehe) -Reichssieger -1938. Ferry had a very successful record as a show dog in this country and quickly obtained his championship (AKC). Used at stud quite liberally he has however not left many outstanding progeny.
Freya v. Rauhjelsen DPZ 51459 -Reichssiegerin 1938. Litter sister of the above.
Kleta v.d. Schwarzwaldperle DPZ 51477 brown, whelped March 1, 1937, (Troll v. Engelsburg – Elfe v. Bad Heidelberg.) Best of breed and red Reichssiegerin, 1938.
Curt v.d. Schwartzwaldperle N.R. 48325 AKC A13410 (Helios v. Siegestor – Adda v. Bad-Heidelberg). One of the best of the imported sons of Helios had an outstanding record in his adopted Country, as a show dog and particularly as a sire.

You can read the full book on-line, The Dobermann History – this on-line version has been created by and published on Dobermann Review.

Leave a Reply