Cosmetic Faults 

By Steve Wolfson 

 

Every breed standard has a description of faults it wants to highlight and avoid. This process helps to insure 
uniformity of type and construction while preventing breed type from deviating. The Rottweiler standard, a highly 
descriptive and exacting one, is no exception. When selecting the compatibility of breeding partners, or how much 
emphasis a judge should place on a fault that a dog possesses, is a topic of discussion eliciting great debate. The 
Rottweiler standard contains 25 faults; all are listed as serious, with the exception of two (# 13 and # 25). They are 
listed as faulty. Below is the list: 

 

1. Lack of proportion 

2. Undersized 

3. Oversized 

4. Reversal of sex characteristics (bitchy dogs, doggy bitches) 

5.Yellow (bird of prey) eyes 

6. Eyes of different color 

7. Eyes of different size 

8. Hairless eye rim 

9. Improper ear carriage 

10. Total lack of mouth pigment (pink mouth) 

11. Level bite 

12. Any missing tooth 

13. Wavy coat 

14. Open coat 

15. Excessively short coat 

16. Curly coat 

17. Total lack of undercoat 

18. Any trimming that alters the length of the natural coat (caused by grooming not a fault due to genetics) 

19. Straw-colored markings 

20. Excessive, markings 

21. Insufficient markings 

22. Sooty markings 

23. Rust markings other than described 

24. White markings any place on dog (a few rust or white hairs do not constitute a marking). 

25. Any structural fault that detracts from the above-described working dog must be penalized to the extent 
of the deviation. 

 

Despite the standard referring to these serious faults and simple faults, many breeders, and exhibitors often speak 
about “cosmetics faults”. Factually, there is no point in the standard listing or referring to faults as cosmetic. 

 I believe this “cosmetic” terminology has little value. It is a dismissive term and implies that a fault can be 
easily removed or overcome. Nonetheless, with great frequency we hear its use. All involved with the Rottweiler for 
any length of time understand that faults are not easily overcome. A fault does not disappear as in a magic act. 
They can be re-combined to become recessive, but will re-surface, some place, sometime in the proceeding 
progeny. This is why the study of a pedigree is so important. Discovering and acknowledging problems within a 
bloodline helps to prevent a fault from emerging. It is best to avoid them before the breeding takes place. 


 Where did this term “Cosmetic” originate? It is difficult to determine its origin within the folklore of the dog world, but 
its implication is to diminish and rationalize deviations from the standard that certain dogs posses. 

 

For example, the correct color for markings is mahogany. However, many presently exhibited Rottweilers possess 
light color of markings (straw markings #19). It is listed as serious in the standard; yet, many will simply call this a 
problem of cosmetics. If this were just a matter of cosmetics, then why are so many Rottweilers exhibiting this fault? 
Would it not be easily eliminated? All Rottweilers would possess rich mahogany markings. 

 

Another example of a fault deemed as cosmetic is pink gum pigmentation. Not only is this listed in the standard as 
serious fault (#10), more importantly, it is a type fault as well. That is why dark gum pigmentation is highly desirable, 
difficult to obtain, difficult to maintain once achieved in a breeding program. Nonetheless, a problem often observed 
on many exhibits is, “bubble gum” pink inner mouth pigmentation. Below are some faults categorized as cosmetic 
that seem to prevail. 

 

Light markings- Tan –Yellow 

Light eye color (3a - 5a) 

Dark markings 

Sooty markings on pasterns 

Poor ear carriage ( high set, low set, fly away) 

Large ears 

Small ears 

Ears that have a fold in them 

Coarse coat 

Wavy coat 

Fine, silky coat 

Pink gums 

Pink spotted gums 

Rose colored gums 

Tuck up in groin area like that of the Dobermann 

 

There are probably more out in the field than these listed. Why have these prevailed? Most likely, they are used as 
an excuse for problems, faults encountered on an otherwise good specimen. It is easier to rationalize a fault than it 
is to improve it. One should always be objective and critical when faults are the topic of discussion. Avoid making a 
fault more palatable by labeling it cosmetic.