Part of the problem here is that your idea is a force-fed version of dominance and recession taught as part of intro biology. Real genetics is a bit more... involved. Genes aren't magically "dominant" and "recessive". It's more like the gene for skin pigment comes in two varieties: one produces a lot, the other produces a little. The one that produces a little is overwhelmed by the one that produces a lot, making it recessive in expression.
Think of it like two faucets filling a bathtub. If both faucets are off or mostly off, you won't have a lot of water in the bathtub. That's a recessive phenotype. If one faucet is on at full blast and the other is off, you'll still fill the bathtub. That's a dominant phenotype. If both faucets are on at full blast, well, that might not make any difference (maybe someone's monitoring the bathtub and can turn it off) or it could mean a very wet house. Or if one faucet produces red paint and the other produces blue paint. The end effect might be very different from what either faucet intends. That's where the idea of co-dominance comes from, and other wacky things like that.
On top of that, most phenotypes aren't controlled by a single gene, and many genes have more than one effect, so the whole thing gets really muddy.