Leo C Wilson says . all-rounders have no monopoly in bad judging . there is , perhaps , no need for me to join in the controversy over the appointment of judges for championship shows since Raymond Oppenheimer is doing very nicely on his own , thank you . but it is a subject on which I have expressed an opinion many times over the years so I could hardly keep out of it . personally I think that the shows regulation committee holds the view that because a championship show committee asks for a certain judge that judge is ipso facto a suitable appointment whilst reserving the right , of course , to refuse the appointment for any reason of its own . that , to my mind is a basic and very grievous error . I could understand this point of view better if the SRC were composed entirely of people who did not know the workings of show committees , but the present SRC includes people who have quite intimate knowledge of the manner in which championship show judges are appointed ( and of the way this varies according to the promoting club ) so all one can think is that their voices are either not raised in protest or go unheeded . my main point of difference with Mr Oppenheimer is that his present campaign is concerned with the appointment of unsuitable non-specialist judges whereas I am just as much concerned with the appointment of incapable specialist judges . I believe Mr Oppenheimer shares that concern , but feels that the issue he has raised is sufficient at the moment to keep him fully occupied without widening it . personally I hold the view that if anything is going to be done at all to revise the methods of selecting and approving judges then it might as well be all embracing . I do not want to stand up as champion of the all-rounders merely because I am , in fact , one of them , especially as I feel that the term all-rounder is applied much too loosely and made applicable to people who have just judged small shows and variety classes or best in show at championship shows whereas it should , strictly , be only applied to those judges who have demonstrated a working knowledge of all breeds and are acceptable to exhibitors in at least the large majority of breeds . few of the people who are given the label of all-rounders could pass that test . I feel obliged to support Mr Oppenheimer &apos;s contention that some all-rounders have insufficient experience of this breed , for good bull terriers , like good Alsatians and a number of other breeds are but rarely met with in variety classes at small shows and even when a breed class is scheduled the top dogs rarely go pot hunting . this being so , the opportunities for seeing the best of the breed ( and therefore getting one &apos;s eye in ) are limited . I suppose I judge as many shows as most people but I must confess that so far this year - apart from when I have judged at Ch shows - I have not come across more than a dozen bull terriers ( possibly only half that number ) and only one really top class specimen that I recall and that was in the best in show ring at Welks where I left the best of breed bull terrier in the last few from which I made my final selection . so far as this goes therefore I agree with Mr Oppenheimer that judges who are merely termed all-rounders because they have a limited experience of judging varieties can not be regarded as fully equipped to award CCs in the breed . all I want to say is that all-rounders ( or if one prefers the term non-specialists ) have no monopoly of bad judging and it is , as I have said many times before , one of the faults of our system that a judge can not be hauled over the coals and asked to explain his or her reasons for placings which cause widespread amazement in the same way that an official referee or umpire can be arraigned for decisions alleged to be bad . I have myself seen at least one amazing display of judging by a specialist judge in Mr Oppenheimer &apos;s own breed where several very ordinary dogs and one which was really in the pet category were placed over the latest champion who had only just won his qualifying CC under Mr Oppenheimer himself and was not unfit or lame or anything else apparent which accounted for his being ignored . there have been occasions when I have spoken to specialist judges in connection with their CC winners and have been amazed at their apparent lack of knowledge or perception . it is understandable that they should have some enthusiasm for their CC winners , but not to the extent that they can not see their imperfections yet I have come across cases where specialists - in some cases I must admit where they are fulfilling their first championship show engagement - when they have gone into raptures over very ordinary specimens with quite obvious faults and even when fundamental anatomical faults were pointed out to them - such as faulty shoulders , movement and so on - they have not only been unable or unwilling to see the faults , but have even given me a sort of pitying look one gives to a half-witted child because I even suggested that their idol had feet of clay - so to speak . on the other hand I have heard specialist judges condemn exhibits for faults which either they did not possess , were not provided for in the standard or for things which they obviously were not equipped to judge . as examples of this I recently heard the scathing comment slipped patella used about the action of a dog which gave an occasional hop when I am perfectly sure no veterinary surgeon would have committed himself to that diagnosis without at least subjecting the dog to examination . and I am extremely doubtful if the judge making that remark would be able to recognise the condition by examination . especially as one of them added the revealing comment , I believe they &apos;ve had that trouble in that kennel . another specialist of some repute faulted a dog for missing molars , although in fact she had not examined the dog and was only going by hearsay . and even if the dog did have missing molars the breed standard makes no mention of that as a fault . I am not saying a dog should not be penalised for missing molars , but how many judges even look at molars ? and do they all know just how many teeth of each category a dog should have ? bench and field . how the minor breeds can help themselves . by F Warner Hill . the problem of the non-certificated breeds at the championship shows is always with us . the big boys are tacitly expected to schedule a number of them with the almost certainty they will lose money . the extent of the classification given to these breeds again rests on the generosity of the promoters , but here the breed clubs can play a considerable part . it is well known that breeds of this type often pay better at regional open and limited shows than they do at national events , but as breed clubs are invariably based on national membership I do suggest they could relieve those national shows who schedule them with guarantees , either whole or partial according to their financial position . if guarantees are impossible then could not there be more cash specials reserved for shows of this type to encourage the members to enter ? I am fully aware of the complexities of the problem , for I am president of one of the minor clubs concerned , and feel that when certificates are on offer these are a prime attraction , and could be balanced at shows without certificates with augmented prize money in the way of specials from the club coffers . it is of untold good to have a breed represented at national fixtures , and in the smaller breeds the club members must of necessity be prepared to give financial support whenever possible . one does not see so often a group of breed patrons providing private guarantees and so relieving the club finances as formerly , but I might commend to those interested the words of Robert Burns , translated into English . a lot of people offering a little extra support apiece can accomplish a large result , and this is by far the most satisfactory one . a patron with the best intent in the world wealthy enough to hand over plenty of cash is always in these suspicious days running the risk of being accused of buying their way in . I know for a fact one or two sensitive people have actually provided this cash support in the form of anonymous donations with no conditions as to how it should be used . I know one well-known club which opens a subscription list to offset show expenses , and the contributors &apos; names are listed , but not the amount of their donations , just one way of overcoming an embarrassment , and proving the widow &apos;s mite as equally well thought of as the gold of the wealthy pharisee . in glancing through the entry list at Birmingham ( taken at random as an example ) I note that there are some strange anomalies . for instance , pointers without certificates in six classes average 3.3 , while German short-haired pointers under the same judge with certificates rate six in six classes whilst Weimaraners which he also judges come up with a five average in four classes without CCs . this is all the more creditable to Weimaraners in view of their position in the schedule . maybe they are not looked on as bird dogs , but still they might have been listed with them rather than behind the spaniel classification . Birmingham , in fact , does not seek guarantees , but some of the bird dog breeds at least have flourishing clubs and might well have supported to some extent . I hope I will not be accused of taking invidious exceptions , but a new club such as the pointer club seeking more certificates for the breed particularly in the midlands might well have supported quite a generous classification of six , with something more attractive to their members than a couple of rosettes . Clumbers without certificates have 20 entries and average five , which is good when one considers that the overall average entry for the spaniel classes is 6.5 per class and fields ( without CCs ) though not so good at 3.25 per class are certainly better than last year when only two entries were received - an average of only 1 per class . it is also noteworthy that the general average at this show is about 6.5 and the gundog group as a whole must be classed as quite satisfactory with an approximate average of 7.2 . among all the difficulties of running a successful kennel , one problem is of naming the inmates . the Wilson Wileys who live at Little Wardrobes and adopted this place name as their prefix , have been christening homebred stock with names associated with a lady &apos;s wardrobe , such as Mink in all its varieties , Georgette , Hunting Pink , Sari , Sable , etc , and finally have run out of kindred names . returning from their round-the-world tour and faced with the naming of a couple of litters awaiting their arrival , Mrs Wilson Wiley , to while away time ( no pun intended ) on the last leg of the journey , started jotting down names of accessories such as jewellery . she listed such names as Cut Diamond , Emerald , Opal , Garnet , etc , and finally , running out of ideas , stuffed the paper in her make-up case . going through customs she was specifically asked if she had any jewellery bought abroad to declare and gave a conscience clear no , but a suspicious customs officer , insisting on examining the contents of the case , came across this list of jewels , and it took a lot of talking on the part of her solicitor husband to convince the officer this was not a smuggler &apos;s list but merely a list of names for some boxer puppies . 