What makes a Decker a Decker?
I have heard this question asked numerous times and it is a very difficult one to answer.
Sure I can describe specific looks, I could send you a picture.... however, would you actually know whether you are looking at a Decker or not?  No, there are Deckers and there are Decker look alikes....
The real question lies in observing the dog in the area of its expertise.... In the field, on game of which it is intended to hunt.
I will illustrate what I mean, and where so much controversy erupts between Decker breeders.
Simon's Pharaoh
Fern Hill's Creedence
What is the difference in the two dogs above?  Sure, you describe the color difference, the somewhat different body types, one has a tipped ear the other has perfect upright ears, and (if I tell you) 53.3% Decker blood, even though Pharaoh is on Creedence's pedigree twice ..... does any of these traits make one a Decker and the other not?  Well, not if you are into preserving the traits of these dogs that really make them a Decker.
Now, if you see these two dogs on say coon, you won't see much difference except for maybe a little speed difference.
However, according to some breeders Creedence shouldn't be used in the Decker gene pool, simply because of his color!!!!!! He is blue/fawn..... of which if you didn't know blue is a dilute.  Ok, and this affects his hunting ability how?  Not at all.  So even though he looks Decker, has the heart of a Decker, the grit, drive, and treeing ability of a Decker.... because of his color alone he wouldn't be considered Decker by going by the standard that some breeders want to go by.....  That tells me one thing.... That the most important thing to consider as to the ideal Decker has everything to do with looks..... Not a good thing to look forward to our Deckers becoming..... Just another pretty face.
I'm not saying that looks has nothing to do with whether its a Decker or not.  But it is the order in which you hold importance in these traits.
For me its hunt, size, and ears.... Color is of no importance to me. (Disposition and health are not even considered since poor disposition and poor health arn't even allowed to exist..... The dog isn't even given a chance to prove its self in the other areas if either of these two traits exist.) 
As for size, I have a very wide range... being 25-40 for females and 30-40 for males..... I do not like my dogs over the 40 pound mark.... but it would not completely eliminate the dog if it possessed the other traits that I desire.
As for ears, they must have 2...... I prefer upright, but I can bring the carriage up in a couple generations, and frankly, I havn't seen that it makes any difference in their hunting ability, just as with color.
Now as for the standard that some breeders what to rewrite, tweek to their ideal, bla bla bla..... The don't believe that anything can be written into it as to how a dog is to perform in the woods.... the reason?  Goes right back to where they shouldn't be..... "Its impossible for a judge to judge this in the ring"  Thats exactly right..... proving that the standard they propose is more for show judges, than as a guideline for breeders to strive for...... I feel breeders need to rethink the direction they are headed with the this wonderful breed.