***Crevecoeur Thread***

[Rare Feathers Farm]

Quote:
i be worried about white earlobes on the roosters

hey, I didnt even notice that, LOL

Yep they are supposed to be red and very inconspicuous, most likely has a lot of polish in him

Yes, most of them do unfortunately. It's made them too leggy, flighty and other issues....this particular roo is from Duane Urch's line. The rooster I who is his father and the hen who is his mother were both successful at shows...

The "father" roo, not in molt:

Edited to say, I wish I still had this rooster. He was the last of my flock I allowed to range about. He decided to dust bathe in my horse's pen and got stomped.

 

[Rare Feathers Farm]

Here's another photo I took on Sunday of the my one & only rooster....(not in molt this time).

I have two dozen eggs coming from someone down south in another month...closed flock for many years and supposedly, "show quality" with red lobes...no pictures so I'm just having to trust what I'm told...but if it's true, I'll be excited and it will be a great asset to my flock. I only started with these guys in 2009 and from one pair. It's been brutal to try to get anything even halfway decent to work with...and there are also inbreeding/hardiness issues with some lines, horrible, mean roos in another...and hatchery stock....don't even get me started on that....

But I'm trying and in my opinion, I had to start somewhere!

 

[Rare Feathers Farm]

Here are some more pictures, just because I have them and I took them on Sunday....the roo is in the foreground...his lobes are more pinkish with some red on them than bright white. I think that one picture had a bad flash or something...

Here's little "Mrs Puff." She is now almost 4 years old and I don't have the heart to cull her...she only lays very occasionally, is very talkative and has lots to say all of the time. LOL

This was here in 2008 (before I got her):

 

[Boggy Bottom Bantams]

oh yea you got to start on them some where that's true. That old boy looked pretty good, hate he got smashed.

It is hard to find true crevies for sure, like you said unfortunatelt most have polish in them any more, mainly due to the lack of line out there to breed with, thus new blood was needed and hey a black polish looks close, so that's what people started using. I 'd dare say all hatchery "creveies" are nothing more than polish at this time, we all know they could careless about preservation of breeds as long as they lay and sell they'll use them.

I got lucky with these bantams and got some of Jim Parkers stock on them, couldnt be happier with them. no fighting, never seen an ounce of any aggressiveness in any of them, and they lay great

 

[Mrs. Fluffy Puffy]

Quote:
Okay...stop w/ the picture posting...you're making me drool on the computer!!!

and then...

 

[exop]

I'm confounded by the requirement for red earlobes... I've not been able to find out how it got into the American standard. The French standard calls for white earlobes... and French reference works from the 1800s describe the ears either as white with a bluish border in hens and reddish border in cocks, or as "bleu nacré", mother-of-pearl blue (which matches what I've seen in young birds).

Also, the neighboring breeds in Normandy - the Pavilly, Caumont, Merlerault for example - all have white earlobes today, and were described as having white earlobes in the 1800s. These are black birds with a small crest, related to the Crèvecoeur, but with a variety of combs,

Caumont

"Crète en couronne", crown shaped comb.

Pavilly

A single combed fowl.

Merlerault

V-comb, no beard or muffs; intermediate between the Crèvecoeur and La Flèche in body shape.

The Le Mans and La Fleche are from further inland. The La Fleche has a V comb, and historically the birds often had small crests or tassels; the Le Mans is similar to a La Fleche with what looks like a rose comb.

Here's where the places of origin fall on the map...
Orange and pink mark the regions of Normandie and Maine respectively.

 

[poularde]

Hmmm... That is interesting. I am just starting to read up on chicken history and in my copy I have of National Geographic volume 4 April, 1927 they say the Crev is descended from the Black Polish. Go figure. Why would Americans change the standard? Maybe it is to suite all the Polish blood.

 

[Boggy Bottom Bantams]

Quote:
all standards I have ever seen call for beards, little to no wattle, and red lobes, that are barely visbale if at all due to the muff.
Changing to that to support polish blood is not the case as none of that is polish related, they would have white lobes, thin or no beards and heavy wattles.

here's the current "STANDARD" for which they are judged from here

as copied directly from the "polish breeders club" whci also covers the houdans and crevies

would love to see this version from any country saying different.




Shape of male

COMB: V-shaped-medium size,resting on front of crest,each side level

CREST: Large, abundantly feathered, rising well in front so as to not obstruct sight, flowing well over sides and back of neck in a compact even mass

BEAK:Medium lenght,strong,well curved Nostrils: Large , wide, cavernous, rising well above curved line of beak. FACE: Fine in quality, nearly concealed by muffs. EYES: Full ,round WATTLES: Small, well rounded, nearly concealed by beard. EAR LOBES: Small, inconspicuous, nearly concealed by muffs. HEAD: Large in comparison with size of bird and with a decidedly prominent protuberance on forward section of skull, crested. MUFFS &BEARD: Composed of feathers turned horizontally backwards, from both sides of beak, from the center, vertically downwards, the whole forming a collar of three ovals in a triangular group, giving a muffled effect. NECK: Medium length, well arched. HACKLE: Abundant, flowing well over back and shoulders. BACK:Rather long,broad, straight,sloping to tail. SADDLE:Abundant, partially covering wing bay. TAIL: Main tail-large, feathers wide, well expanded, carried at an angle of about 45 degrees above the horizontal. Sickles & lesser sickles- abundant, wide, well curved. Coverts- abundant, long. WINGS: Medium size, closely folded, carried well above lower thighs. Shoulders & fronts- concealed by hackle. Bows- moderatly rounded. Coverts- two distinct rows of broad feathers across wings. Primaries- medium width and length. Secondaries-moderately wide, tapering convexly to stern, but not beyond, tips well concealed by saddle. BREAST: Full, prominent, projecting well beyond wing fronts. BODY & STERN: Body- medium length, compact, well proportioned. Stern- full;fluff, medium length. LEGS & TOES: Legs- set well apart, short, parrallel to each other without bowing or knocked knees. Lower thighs- short, strong, well feathered. Shanks- short, fine bone, nicely scaled. Spurs- stout at base, medium length, set low. Toes- four, straight, well and evenly spread. APPEARANCE: Graceful, ornate, active

SHAPE OF FEMALE

COMB:V-shaped- small,resting on front of crest,each side level. CREST: Large, full, compact, globular, well balanced. BEAK: Medium length, strong, well curved. NOSTRILS: Nostrils: Large , wide, cavernous, rising well above curved line of beak. FACE: Fine in quality, nearly concealed by muffs. EYES: Full ,round WATTLES: Small, well rounded, nearly concealed by beard. EAR LOBES: Small, inconspicuous, nearly concealed by muffs. HEAD: Large in comparison with size of bird and with a decidedly prominent protuberance on forward section of skull, crested. MUFFS &BEARD: Composed of feathers turned horizontally backwards, from both sides of beak, from the center, vertically downwards, the whole forming a collar of three ovals in a triangular group, giving a muffled effect. NECK: Medium length, well arched. HACKLE: Abundant, flowing well over back and shoulders. BACK:Rather long,broad, straight,sloping to tail. TAIL: Main tail-full, well spread, carried at an angle of about 40 degrees above the horizontal. Coverts- wide, flowing well up tail. WINGS: Medium size, closely folded, carried well above lower thighs. Shoulders & fronts- partly hidden by breast and cape. Bows- moderatly rounded. Coverts- two rows across wings. Primaries- medium width and length. Secondaries-moderately wide, tapering convexly to stern, but not beyond. BREAST: Full, prominent, projecting well beyond wing fronts. BODY & STERN: Body- medium length, compact, well proportioned. Stern- full;fluff, medium length. LEGS & TOES: Legs- set well apart, short, parallel to each other without bowing or knocked knees. Lower thighs- short, strong, well feathered. Shanks- short, fine bone, nicely scaled. Toes- four, straight, well and evenly spread. APPEARANCE: Graceful, ornate, active

DISQUALIFICATIONS

Shanks and toes other than black or leaden blue-more than one appearance of more than one half inch of positive white in any section of plumage.

DEFECTS

Split crest- twisted or reverse-faced feathers in crest-abrupt break at junction of back and tail-wings carried too low-lack of activity, sluggishness

COLOR OF MALE AND FEMALE

Comb, face, wattles & ear lobes: Bright red. BEAK: Black, shading to horn at tip. EYES:reddish bay. SHANKS & TOES: Black or leaden blue. PLUMAGE: The quill and surface of every feather in all sections of the plumage, over the entire body, pure black. The head, hackle, back, saddle, sickles, and wing bows of the male should have a rich beetle green sheen. The female should also show some brilliance of feather in the head, hackle, back, cuchion, and wing bows. UNDERCOLOR: Dull black

DISQUALIFICATIONS: More than one appearance of more than one half inch of possitive white in any section of the plumage- Any appearance of any other color excepting varying shades of grey in the undercolor in any section of the plumage.

DEFECTS

Purple sheen or purple barring of plumage

 

[exop]

Quote:
all standards I have ever seen call for beards, little to no wattle, and red lobes, that are barely visbale if at all due to the muff.
Changing to that to support polish blood is not the case as none of that is polish related, they would have white lobes, thin or no beards and heavy wattles.

NB. The origins of the Crèvecoeur are mysterious, it appears to date at least to the 1700s. Poultry historians can only speculate about its past. Up until the late 1800s, when some people started crossing in Polish for larger, exhibition crests, there is no positive link between the Crèvecoeur and black Polish (which has white earlobes).

The American birds would have to have picked up their red earlobes from another source - I always thought it might have been the Houdan. It could have been the result of crossing with other breeds too.

Quote:
I'm not making it up:

French Wikipedia entry, showing info from the SCAF standard, :

Standard (here's the link to the Wikipedia page)
Masse idéale : Coq : min. 3,5 kg ; Poule : 2,8 kg Ideal weight: Cock, min. 3.5kg (7.7 Lb), Hen, 2.8kg (6.2 Lb)
Crête : à cornes (en V) Comb: Horn type comb (V shape)
Oreillons : blancs, cachés par les favoris Earlobes: white, hidden by the muffs
Couleur des yeux : rouge orangé Color of eyes: red orange
Couleur de la peau : blanche Color of skin: white
Couleur des tarses : noire Color of legs: black
Variétés de plumage : noir, bleu, blanc, coucou Color varieties: black, blue, white, cuckoo
Œufs à couver : min. 65 g, coquille blanche Eggs for hatching: min. 65g, white shell
Diamètre des bagues : Coq : 20 mm ; Poule : 18 mm Leg band size: Cock, 20mm, Hen, 18mm
Existe en naine Also exists in bantam. ​

Note- the European Crève bantam was developed in Germany around the year 2000 (source: J.C.Périquet)

SCAF=Société Centrale d'Aviculture de France = like the French APA.

I checked the British Poultry Standard, but it appears the Crevecoeur is no longer in it and hasn't been at least since the 1960s. The first British poultry standard (The Standard of Excellence in Exhibition Poultry, ed. Tegetmeier 1865) doesn't mention Houdans or Crèvecoeurs, but the author's next book, in 1867 ("The Poultry Book") discusses the French breeds and has an appendix giving a standard for Crèvecoeur and Houdan, p. 349. All that he says about the earlobe of the Crèvecoeur is that it should be small and concealed by the muff; the earlobe of the Houdan is not mentioned at all. The 1874 British standard adopts these same guidelines, p.32-37. I haven't seen any of the British standards from between 1874 - 1960; the 2008 British standard, which doesn't contain the Crèvecoeur, specifies that the Houdan's earlobe should be white or tinged with pink (British Poultry Standards, Roberts 2008, p. 132).

The American Standard of Excellence from 1875 has the Houdan in it, specified with red earlobes, but no Crèvecoeur yet. The Crèvecoeur does show up in the revised 1883 edition, where it is specified with earlobes "red, small, and nearly concealed by the crest and beard", for the rooster p. 168; "red, small, and hidden by the crest and beard" for the hen, p. 169.

During this exact same time period, when large numbers of Crèvecoeurs are being raised in France as a commercial meat bird, French poultry writers, in French, are describing the earlobes as white.

What strikes me most in looking through the old standards is how many small differences between standards seem rather arbitrary. Something which is a tolerable defect in one standard is a disqualifier in another; certain things are not specified at all (eye color is just described as "bright and vivacious"). The oldest standards call for moderate sized, rounded wattles in the Crèvecoeur rooster, and long-ish wattles in the Houdan; the modern requirement for small, rudimentary wattles in both breeds must have been adopted later, for reasons unknown.

Best - exop

 

[Boggy Bottom Bantams]

Thanks for the info there,
yep funny how they vary from standard to standard aint it, make you wonder which is correct to start with. I guess they must base them off the current birds in that country at the time of submitting them.
Never seen a white lobed one not of polish decent though, like you said, most likely different breeds were used in different locals to make them what they are today in the various countries.