No, I wouldn't pay more as the colour of the dog doesn't really bother me. Obviously there are colours I prefer but it would never be such an issue that I'd want to pay more for a dog of a certain colour or with certain markings.

Yes, I would pay more.

My signature lists the dogs I would like and their colours. Call me shallow but first and foremost, I pick a dog based on looks, temperament is obviously important too.

If there is something specific somebody is wanting, why shouldnt they be allowed what they want? I much prefer tri colour Brittany's even though this is the least desirable coat colour.

All three colours in one litter would be pretty unusual for most Labrador litters. Reputable breeders DNA test their dogs to see what colours they carry (if any), therefore generally have a very good idea of the colours they can expect from the pups. NO reputable Lab breeder should charge more for a particular colour.

If an would-be owner was desperate for a chocolate puppy, logically they should find a litter from an all chocolate breeding. Not take a gamble on a breeding not necessarily guaranteed to produce chocolate pups.

I forgot to add I wouldnt pay more for a non standard colour, such as those 'rare' silver labs, a tri GWP or a white boxer. Plus, if the dog was a rescue I wouldnt really be concerned. However, I would be very specific about a dog I wanted afrom a breeder.

If there were a litter of collie pups and I wanted a particular colour and all had the same temperament and breeding I would pay more for the colour I wanted......

On the other hand I would not place colour preference over health and temperament.

interesting thread, I guess with there being no real choice in rotties I tend not to think about it much,

but I do wonder, for those who would pay more, what would be an acceptable amount 'more' for the colour of there choice?

Ah, a topic close to my heart!

Very sadly the dog world can discriminate regarding colour and in Boxers the White puppies come worse off. Whats the difference between a White and Coloured - nothing. There is a lot of myths and old wives tales. Actually I am sometimes totally amazed by the things that joe-public come out with

Would I pay more for a coloured than a non coloured, well I would have no choice if I wanted a coloured, I would have to pay more.

Would I pay more for a better bred pup - yes and I have done. My White pups actually cost the same or in some cases more than "pet" bred Boxers purely because they come from a breeder who health checks and shows his dogs.

A couple of years ago I was talking to a lady in Staffs and she said that you quite often got colour discriminatiion against White Staffs in the show ring, she was showing a little White bitch

Having said all that there can be instances where you will get a White Boxer pup who is hard of hearing or deaf but the percentages are not nearly as high as you could be led to believe. While there remains the trend for "flashy" Boxers - i.e. Boxers with nice white markings - white facial flashes are very popular, White pups will occur. 25% of all Boxer puppies born are White. I have had Boxers nearly 30 years and only come across one White pup who was deaf. However because there could be an increased risk if you were to breed White to White for instance, my own belief is that White Boxers are better not bred from. Treat them as much treasured and loved companions

Thankfully more breeders nowdays realise that there are loving permanent homes out there for their white Puppies - its not so long from White Pups were culled at birth and breeders could be frowned on for letting them live

OK I will get off my soap box

None! I would totally question the ethics of a breeder charging more for colour and wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. I can't see any justification for it.

Its as well you dont have Boxers

I must admit, I am against breeding for a specific colour because personally I think that should be the lowest of the considerations when breeding (though if all other criteria was met, there is probably no harm to it).

But if an unusual colour is produced, is it so wrong for the breeder to benefit from that?

Even those breeders who don't breed for money will still nearly always charge the 'going rate' for that breed. So if the 'going rate' for a 'rare' colour is more, why shouldn't the breeder charge it? If not, why aren't all dogs the same price irrespective of breed or colour or sex?

What is the difference between paying more for a 'rare' colour and paying more for a 'rare' breed? (assuming both are well bred).

The whole question of dog pricing is ultimately about supply and demand.