Confusing Crufts Critique!

Now you know I'm critical of my own dogs, sometimes harsher in my critique of their conformation than I am of other people's dog. I wish Loki wasn't so tall, I wish Nico had just an extra inch of length of foreleg, I wish Asha had better colour etc etc ... But I also see their virtues, and last night as I read Loki's Crufts critique I swear my jaw dropped to the floor ... to read him described as "pale" black and gold and needing better pigment in his head left me astounded! Loki is the strongest tan here, I would describe him as a rich tan and though he does have a Winter nose he does not have poor pigmentation. I read on .... "toes in on the move" .... er NO!
Then I read the critique of the dog in second place .. errr hang on that sounds more like Loki .. I think there has been some confusion here, Loki does have slightly light eyes, and his ears could be firmer! And the dog in front of him was a very pale tan with poor pigment .... anyway sadly it has gone to print as it is and there's shit all I can do!
Have a read of both ... which best describes Loki?
2 / 19 months black and gold above middle size, dry and firm. Masculine, eyes could be darker and ears should be firmer. Normal wither, slight nick in the backline, very good angles front and rear with very good reach and drive.

3/18 months pale black and gold above medium size and strength of good proportions and well balanced. Masculine head which would benefit from stronger pigmentation. Toes in coming, with good reach and drive!

Here are the two dogs he's describing! 

But which is which???