Red varies from a deep (though never welshterrierlike) red to very light colouring, which is often called wheaten. Red grizzle, grizzle and tan and black and tan are all multicolour forms, consisting of a darker (black) or lighter (grizzle) plate on the back. Varying from quite a lot (grizzle and tan) to just a little (red grizzle) and theoretically liver and tan is a possible colouring, though this is very rare. Black can vary from a complete deep black (coalblack) to a light gray colouring, called blue. Liver is a very rare colour, coming with lighter eyes and a liver nose, varying from a quite dark brownish colour, in America recognized as chocolate (coming close to the colour of a brown Labrador retriever) - in most European countries not accepted - to the accepted liver. All colours have the same characteristics: they live! You never can be sure where they will go. You get certain indications. Pups are born red, black, black and tan or liver, but that is as far as it goes. Red pups can stay red, end somewhere in the middle or become wheaten. Blacks may remain black, but can become blue - dark blue or very light, which is still called blue, but looks more like gray. And tan dogs can keep their black plate, or might become grizzle or even redgrizzle. Knowing the bloodlines helps, but you still can get surprises. And there is no end to it: a black still being black at the age of three is probably going to stay black, but I myself had a grizzle and tan, that in old age became a redgrizzle.

While I'm at it, I might as well address a question I often get: What is the differrence between a Lakeland terrier and a Welsh terrier or Fox terrier? Most easy is to look at the colouring: a Welsh terrier can only be black and tan and a Fox terrier is supposed to be predominantly white, whereas a Lakeland can be a variety of colours, but he may never be white.
So it is easy to spot the difference between a Lakeland and a Fox terrier.

The only difficulty is between a grizzle and tan or black and tan Lakeland and a Welsh terrier. Of these three breeds the Lakeland is the smallest and his tan colour never ought to be a squirrelred like a Welshterrier. Still, some Welshterriers have a coat that is actually too light, so it is still difficult to distinguish. A Lakeland is also the less extreme dog of the three. Both Fox terriers and Welshes have longer faces than the Lakeland, which makes their eyes look like they are set very close together (particularly when trimmed badly or in the rough). They have deeper chests and shorter backs, which puts more emphasis on their frontsides. A Lakeland looks more balanced. Added difficulty is that in all breeds dogs can be to big or too small, coats may be clipped and therefore not look their best, and not every dog is a perfect example of it's breed. Differences in character are even more difficult to describe. Fox terriers were used to hunt with the pack and were not supposed to kill their quarry, but make it bolt. Generally I feel they have a tendency to make a lot of racket and since they were a rich man's dog they often go their own way, since rich people could afford to have specialist dogs - each job has it's own breed. When raising a Fox terrier it is more difficult to get him to look you in the eye. When you know how to make contact with him, your battle is over and there is not much difference with raising a Lakeland. But getting him to make that contact is a lot more work than with a Lakeland, who is a poor man's dog and therefore had to be an allrounder. Being able to work together with his owner, next to being able to make decisions on his own while hunting, was an important Lakeland trait. The Welsh people keep (so the story has it) more to themselves than the average Englishman, so Welsh terriers are not as outgoing as Lakeland terriers. For all three breeds goes that any individual ís an individual: the result of the bloodline his breeder has followed, the upbringing and training he has had and the experiences he has had in his life. Sometimes breeders claim their breed fights least of these breeds, but I can't tell which of the three that would be ;-)

There are some rumours going round about the origine of black and blue Lakelands. Since these colours have been brought back into the breed by American bloodlines, they are said to come from crossbreeding with Miniature Schnauzers. Now this is something I really have to oppose. First let me state that I have nothing against Schnauzers and I wouldn't mind if they were part of Lakeland makeup. Nowadays pedigrees are very well kept, but in earlier times the distinctions between breeds were not always that clear, but for one reason or the other some people tend to get very upset if certain dogs would be part of their breed. Other dogs don't seem to pose this threat. So is delivered to us in Lakelandhistory that the Lakeland is closely related to the Bedlington terrier. There no-one gets upset. They are also my main argument in renouncing schnauzer-influence. Yes, there are completely black Miniature Schnauzers and it seems logic to think they were a quick way to get black Lakies. At first appearance they seem very similar. There are great differences too, though. Let me list the problems you run into with this reasoning:

Black Schnauzers would also have brought with them the tendency to light (silver) markings on face and feet. These are not found in Lakelands. "Problems" that do appear in black Lakelands (they are not real problems) are brownish undercoat - not found in Miniature Schnauzers - and a lightening of the coat when the dog grows older (blue Lakelands) - also not found in Schnauzers, they tend to have a coat in a certain colour and it stays that way (unless they get clipped, but that is not the issue here).

Miniature Schnauzers have a tough coat, whereas Lakelands have a typical terriercoat (also called tough, but anyone who has ever petted a Schnauzer and a Lakeland will know what I mean) and Lakeland breeders face the difficulty of keeping blue and wheaten coats hard enough.

Schnauzers are build differently. At first glance they look similar, but a schnauzer is a far sturdier, shorter dog, with a heavy, short neck, where the Lakeland looks more natural, less artificially bred (if you look beyond the way they are groomed).

The temperaments differ. Oké it is said about black Lakelands that their behaviour differs from that of other Lakelands and I must admit my own two black Lakelands are different from other Lakelands I have met. But so does my grizzle and tan Lakeland. And the two blacks also differ from one another. To my knowledge dogs from the same breed have broadly the same characteristics, but looking closes they all have different personalities. I have known quite some Miniature Schnauzers and I know their 'broad characteristics', none of them I have found in my black Lakelands, their broad characteristics make them stand out as particularly Lakeland! There is one difference though: so far I have found them to bark less than other colours, but I tend to take this as a credit to the breeders who have strived to breed social dogs, extremely well fit to be pets, though they don't lack any terrierqualities: when push comes to shove they are courageous beyond belief and everyone of them would be willing to give his or her life for me or any other member of the 'pack'.
Now let me tell you why this schnauzertale is an unnessecary invention: Lakelands are as said closely related to Bedlingtonterriers. These dogs display all the 'uncommen' colours found in Lakelands : they are born black or brown (chocolate) and later their colour lightens to blue or liver, with or without tan markings. They have a very soft coat, a 'problem' sometimes found in the lighter coloured Lakelands, making it possible for some blue Lakelands to be clipped or sheared to be - as someone once said to me - Bonzai Kerry Blues.