Which breed of dog usually fetches the highest price for a...

P

PatterdalePuppy

Member
Joined
19 March 2018
Messages
10
Visit site
...non-KC registered purebred puppy? (Sorry, the character limit for the title ran out.)

Just curious.

Or, if that question isn't answerable, what is the absolute most that you could possibly pay for a non-KC registered purebred puppy?
 
Nobody I know would pay anything for a "purebred" puppy which is NOT registered with the KC- after all the KC has a pedigree database which ensures you're getting the pedigree you've paid for! Otherwise you have no guarantee of parentage or health tests etc, and is what makes it " purebred"!
However, the rise of the designer crossbreed has seen people paying IMHO ridiculous sums of money for the cutesy name and no health tests. But if you want a GSD ( for example), and the KC reg ones are going for £500-£1000( not 100% on figure but thats about what id expect to pay!) you'll not be able to charge in the KC reg amounts- as why would you pay that for an unregistered dog!
 
Just a little point, being KC registered doesn't necessarily mean that it has had all its health checks - just usually a general once-over by a vet. It is only when you buy from an assured (or it might be called accredited) KC breeder that all necessary checks including blood tests are taken.

People I think pay more for a puppy from one of these breeders.

In my experience, I see KC registered pups of going for between £800-1,000. The non registered pups of a certain breed might go for £500. And the pups from assured breeders might go for about £1,000 to £1,300.

But this is for one particular breed but it might give you an idea of ratios on other breeds.
 
Agree it'll be one of the 'rare' colour not recognised bulldogs or Frenchies.

Unfortunately Chuckie even the KC assured breeder scheme is not a guarantee of appropriate health testing.
 
The English kennel club, or any kennel club/breed registry? I know people with dogs registered to Dutch, Belgian and German organisations. You get a lot more for your money IMO in terms of the recording of health tests, anscestry, DNA etc.

For me, a dog not registered with any breed club/registry at all, is a complete unknown and I wouldn't be paying much, if anything.
 
Last edited:
So you would be happy to pay say £600 for a " purebred" Lab, when maybe later it turned out to be something like a lab x staff? that at the very least is misleading in the advert! That is what the KC database prevents- and I didn't mean they HAD to be health tested to be KC reg - but you can check the whole pedigrees health tests using the database- so you can see maybe if granddad had high hips or something, . I just think its ridiculous to pay for a " purebred " when you've got zero guarantee and you might as well go adopt something from a shelter if having a KC dog doesn't bother you...
 
Does the English KC tie DNA and microchip numbers to health tests on their database so it's definitely the dog that it says on the tin which showed up to the vet that day? As far as I am aware BVA scores are still recorded on separate sheets of paper. I appreciate that the situation is improving but much more needs to be done.
 
funky coloured french bulldog, probably bred in essex would be my answer to the first question, not the second!
 
CorvusCorax said:
Does the English KC tie DNA and microchip numbers to health tests on their database so it's definitely the dog that it says on the tin which showed up to the vet that day? As far as I am aware BVA scores are still recorded on separate sheets of paper. I appreciate that the situation is improving but much more needs to be done.
Click to expand...

BVA scores appear in the myKC dog online "profile" which can be viewed by anyone. I think Chip number are (not 100%, but I'm pretty sure ours are on the certs- will check) but we don't DNA profile in this country as a rule- not like they do on the continent.
 
I didn't say that I would pay for a non-KC puppy but at the end of the day, people do - just look at the new-designer breeds that are coming through now. Some of them fetch huge prices and strictly speaking they are just crossbreeds.

You definitely get more assurances buying KC registered pups as to what you might get and that is why they are priced so much more highly.

However I was under the impression that assured KC breeders had to undertake all the necessary health checks - looks like I was wrong there so maybe pups from them are not worth the extra uplift.
 
ApolloStorm said:
Nobody I know would pay anything for a "purebred" puppy which is NOT registered with the KC- after all the KC has a pedigree database which ensures you're getting the pedigree you've paid for! Otherwise you have no guarantee of parentage or health tests etc, and is what makes it " purebred"!
However, the rise of the designer crossbreed has seen people paying IMHO ridiculous sums of money for the cutesy name and no health tests. But if you want a GSD ( for example), and the KC reg ones are going for £500-£1000( not 100% on figure but thats about what id expect to pay!) you'll not be able to charge in the KC reg amounts- as why would you pay that for an unregistered dog!
Click to expand...

Unless of course your dog is a collie and registered with the ISDS.
 
Without dna testing your piece of paper registering a pup means very little. I have collies, never paid more than a hundred pounds, they aren’t registered but I do trust the farmer who says this is the Mum and dad !
 
ApolloStorm said:
BVA scores appear in the myKC dog online "profile" which can be viewed by anyone. I think Chip number are (not 100%, but I'm pretty sure ours are on the certs- will check) but we don't DNA profile in this country as a rule- not like they do on the continent.
Click to expand...

IMO a true breed registry needs to take and store DNA for the future good of the breed/s. There will always be fraud but tying DNA to chips goes a long way to stopping it.
 
Last edited:
CorvusCorax said:
Does the English KC tie DNA and microchip numbers to health tests on their database so it's definitely the dog that it says on the tin which showed up to the vet that day? As far as I am aware BVA scores are still recorded on separate sheets of paper. I appreciate that the situation is improving but much more needs to be done.
Click to expand...

When my shepherd had his hips/elbows xrayed to be sent to the BVA the vet did check his microchip correlated with the dog I brought in, and it was recorded on the KC database.
 
I watched a program about naughty breeders who held back registration papers for pups that died etc and then just used them on unregistered dogs. OP is correct - registration papers may well be worthless.
 
bonny said:
Without dna testing your piece of paper registering a pup means very little. I have collies, never paid more than a hundred pounds, they aren’t registered but I do trust the farmer who says this is the Mum and dad !
Click to expand...

We have a mix of registered (ISDS) and non registered collies. I would pay up to around £200-£250 for a non registered and up to £400 for a registered border collie.
 
WorkingGSD said:
When my shepherd had his hips/elbows xrayed to be sent to the BVA the vet did check his microchip correlated with the dog I brought in, and it was recorded on the KC database.
Click to expand...

Yes but you got a handwritten white sheet and a yellow sheet back. For me, it's still a little too open to fraud. I am however glad it's now being recorded on a database of sorts. Still room for improvement.
 
Thank you for your answers so far. Two more questions: if you want to apply to be a Kennel Club Assured Breeder, do the pups have to be KC registered, and if that's the case, assuming you registered them, can the bitch only produce one litter a year according to the rules?
 
DNA profiling would go a long way with preventing fraud, however, short of breeders getting it done with them as puppies, like they do chips now. Not sure many "pet" owners would be bothered, but then I always think if you're just after a pet and not a dog for a purpose ( show, working, assistance dogs etc.) you'd be better off at a shelter, even some of the best working dogs come from rescue! And of course the Kennel Club will NEVER make health testing mandatory for registering litters ( see their statement in " saving the british bulldog" about the breed) as that they want to include your average pet owner.
But from personal experience, I would always buy from health tested and registered parents, my sister has 3 "farm" BC, all lovely dogs, but two out of 3 have hip dysplasia before the age of 3, and the eldest is MDR1 positive, which they only found out recently after a bad reaction and a long and expensive vet stay. All conditions which a lot of collie breeders test for, though her dogs are all very stoic and will keep running and running despite being in pain. Whereas my tested and registered GSD has no problems and is very healthy. Anecdotal perhaps, but I do think that if you're buying an unregistered puppy you're asking for issues since can you guarantee any health tests? if there are any! Why would a breeder who has the puppies BEST interests at heart not health test, and I find *most* reputable breeders who health test also have KC reg dogs, since thats the simplest way to ensure pedigree dog.
 
Most litters are DNA'd at the same time as chipping on the continent. I got mine done at same time as he got his hips and elbows done at just over 12 months.
It wasn't difficult and now he can help contribute to a global database for the breed

ETA surely health testing is just as important for 'only pets'.
'Only pets' are part of family life for hopefully over a decade....why would you want to risk a debilitating and painful heritable condition :(
 
Last edited:
Our latest pup is neither registered with the KC nor from health tested parents. First time ever for me. Her price was about the same as a pedigree spaniel would cost. It was quite a lot!
I suppose that her breeder works a lot of spaniels and hers are cracking dogs, biddable, game and tireless. She easily sold the litter through word of mouth only and the bitch had 12 pups. She has kept 2.
A lot of KC registered spaniels now are so trials bred they are fast as lightening and flashy, but not so much use for the amateur like myself to train and work. In an ideal world I would prefer Health tests over registration but they do tend to go hand in hand.
 
I've had 3 (still got 2) non KC registered labs. I paid for the first and last one.
Didn't bother me in the slightest. I know the breeder and I saw both parents (my first was uncle to the current two who are full brothers from different litters)
Several people have asked to use the younger dog, who's entire as a stud and not been bothered when told he's not registered.
According to a game keeper I spoke too it's not overly important and they often breed unregistered dogs to use.
 
PatterdalePuppy said:
Another question: what is the maximum cost of a KC-registered puppy, then?
Click to expand...
Are you asking this because you want to start breeding ? It is looking very much like that and in my opinion to breed more dogs to make money is just immoral, there are more than enough already
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top