Our standard calls for, to get the sweep in the back, "slightly sloping downward from shoulders to center of back, then rising in a gradually increasing concave sweep of tail."(APA Standard of Perfection 2010) looking at the standard, our standard calls for " lower thighs-- well feathered" for females. I see this being an issue, and an excuse for fad/trend setters.
Hi Cuba,
our SOP calls for " ....a sweeping curve from neck to tail." Ray Connor - " The sweeping curve from neck to tail is very important. The key here is that the curve starts at the base of the neck and continues in one sweep to the tail. No angles at all is the point to keep in mind." Don't really see any issue here.
Pretty strong words at the end, Cuba! Not really sure what you mean, but I presume you're referring to fluffy thighs. I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you on this one. It's a matter of interpretation, but I don't read "well
feathered" as meaning 'well
fluffed'. Don't want an argument, Cuba. I'll leave you with a couple of quotes from old Ray, whom I'd suggest knows more about BA's than all of us together!
" When I look down the sides of a fowl I don't want to see any side fluff hanging out."
"
Fluff is one of the terms in poultry often confused in its interpretation. Both definitions apply to Australorps but in different ways. The first ...is the silky feathering found on the inner half of every feather..... we do not want them to be 'fluffy' because they are a tight feathered breed. Orpington fowls and Pekin bantams are'fluffy' breeds.
The second definition ...... describes the soft
feathering on the thighs and abdomen. We really only want the absolute minimum here to cover the skin but no bare skin and
no feather dusters!"
"As breeders, we must try to breed a tighter feathered bird, particularly round the thighs."
I could go on, Cuba, but I'll spare you! Over here it's a "fad" that began with the first standardised BA's.
Cheers Geoff