ok, starting this up here for those of you following it. If you are not interested, sorry for the intrusion.
So, some people were saying how they were not comfortable with the way "proper" tails look on a bulldog. I propose to you that you probably have not seen a good one yet.
If you look at the history of the breed, they always had tails.
This first dog had the tail the first standard called "approaching perfection"

Fulton always described bulldogs as having a "greyhound back. You can see why.. the tailset is similar in bulldogs and greyhound type breeds.. nice and LOW;


All the early dogs had tails. Even as they got more modernized and the tails got shorter, they still had them.

I take cues from history and the standard and admire tails that are more like (in as much as possible these days) tails and sets like the older dogs..set low with decided downward carriage. This means to me that there are no knots, no bulges, no indication of the tail until the tail actually starts so you get a smooth finish. The fact that a dog has a tail is meaningless to me if it has a large lump above it.. if it sticks out or in any way obstructs the finish of the topline. In my mind, a good tail with the required low set can never be raised high, even if the dog is insanely happy. "Decided downward carriage" is really not that debateable a sentence, IMO. The dogs I have here are what I find to be perfectly acceptable as I interpret the standard;




The two allowable tails by the American standard are straight;

and screwed, with the allowed bends and kinks. Notice how the start of the tail (I know the pic is blurry) is smooth off the body);

Now, in modifying my interpretation to the dogs that are available today. I personally, (and this by no way means that you have to agree, in fact, I can see and perfectly understand arguements to the contrary, but this is my post, therefore I am giving my opinion) would go for less of a tail that was set right than a longer one that was set between the dog's hipbones. If I had to choose between a dog with a curly sticky bun-looking tail over a dog with virtually no tail that was set nice and low, I would take the one with the lesser amount of tail, taking the tailset as the feature to admire. I figure both tails are faulty, but at least the low set of the no tailed dog is at least one out of three issues he can have correct (very short, hung low with decided downward carriage). We get "very short, right?, Hung low? Well, it can be set low, if it has no length, it can't very well be described as being "hung".. right? (laughing at myself) and with decided downward carriage.. well, with a tail that doesn't seem to be there you don't have that either, BUT.. with the dog with the curly tail.. he probably doesn't have any of the requirements.. Uncoil that tail and it might not be "very short" at all..most of those tails sit right on the backs of the dog, destroying the topline and you cannot have "decided downward carriage" if the tail is spiraling out of control.
My BamBam has a little stump of a tail, but I admire the set of it, and if I have to take one or the other, this one;

or this little curly button type;

Guess which one I am taking?
True, neither are ideal, but often you don't get "ideal" as a viable option.
Oh, and the pup that I kept for his tail? Here is his butt shot at 8 weeks. I will try to corner him outside here in a minute for a full body shot.

Sorry for the long post, but I had some xtra time for a change.
Back to work now!
e