Discussion of Legbar Standard of Perfection for -Alternative- Legbars - SOP discussion

[ChicKat]

I like the look of the CL when they are slightly beefier and sturdier looking than a Leghorn. I do think they all need to retain length though in the leg/thigh, the backs and the neck to help keep the lean sleek look to an otherwise beefier build if that makes sense.

I like @flyingmonkeypoop also prefer the swept look of when the back has a flowing sweep like flow through the tail angle to the tip of tail (though not too U shaped).

Here is my CL with a tail angle that just angles from back to tail, not ideal. It seems most of the CL we see have a sharp angle and not a flow.


This is @KPenley s male who in my opinion has a very nice sweeping tail flow. This is more of what I would like to see in my flock.

nice picture references c.p. Thanks for posting --

I think maybe the U-shaped back is Leghorn and then the non-U is non-Leghorn?


In theory the shallower-the U the better? My little crew has U's that are so non-shallow they are like V's -- Oh the above image is from eFowl picture of Brown Leghorn for reference...Diane Jacky is the artist.

Here is Diane's CL image:


So Diane Jackey had shown a flatter back for the Legbar type.

 

[chicken pickin]

nice picture references c.p. Thanks for posting --

I think maybe the U-shaped back is Leghorn and then the non-U is non-Leghorn?


In theory the shallower-the U the better? My little crew has U's that are so non-shallow they are like V's -- Oh the above image is from eFowl picture of Brown Leghorn for reference...Diane Jacky is the artist.

Here is Diane's CL image:


So Diane Jackey had shown a flatter back for the Legbar type.

So is that curve/sweep not required per SOP?. It does have a nicer flow and look, but if the tail and back are to meet in an angle then maybe Im ok (minus the high tail angles). Or is this one of the "it depends on how you yourself interpret the SOP"?

 

[flyingmonkeypoop]

I have posted these a few times but here they are again. These two legbar pullets have the U shape that I like.

 

[ChicKat]

So is that curve/sweep not required per SOP?. It does have a nicer flow and look, but if the tail and back are to meet in an angle then maybe Im ok (minus the high tail angles). Or is this one of the "it depends on how you yourself interpret the SOP"?

I have posted these a few times but here they are again. These two legbar pullets have the U shape that I like.

Maybe these pullets are the perfect example -- It is a U -- but there is a very flattened bottom to the U -- IMO and maybe that is the best of all worlds. There is the graceful flwo - but still a long back and a definite back too!


The famous Lillian - very long back


my pullet from Saturday's show -- she may have a lot of faults - but the way she is standing there--she has a long back in the image -- a whimpy tail compared to the other pullets here.

In the show cage.... interestingly, she was up for sale...and now I'm glad that she didn't sell -- although she is full sister to the rooster I will use with my flock for spring breeding season. Maybe I could pair her up with her father. She is showing a bit more definite barring in her tail than some -- and BTW the judge said that he thought she was a bit 'dark' - which could be said of most of my flock -- her neck has a lot of melatonic pigment.
FMP is this juncture of the back and the tail the one that you think of as an awkward (I don't mind anything that you say about her... ) She was BB and BV -- but I was the only one with CLs there...so it was just a matter of which of my chickens was the least bad I think.

ETA - this is so interesting, I didn't remember that the SOP says the female should have 6-points in the comb until I was re-reading it as I sent to the judge for this show. I know, I know, the male should have 6 and therefore logically the female should have 6 points and all the CLs should have 6 in both sexes happily ever after. -- But with the fold, I didn't ever really pay much attention to the points on females combs. So when I was putting vetRx on her comb I unfolded it and lo and behold, she has exactly 6 points.

 

[flyingmonkeypoop]

Yes ChicKat, her tail meeting the body is just awkward looking to me. My legbar males are all the same too but this year I have a few pullets with the curve. I haven't checked the standard yet to see what it says

 

[ChicKat]

Yes ChicKat, her tail meeting the body is just awkward looking to me. My legbar males are all the same too but this year I have a few pullets with the curve. I haven't checked the standard yet to see what it says

Thanks FMP - now I understand -- guess I'm visual and have to see it.

I'm not sure that the sop does have any information about the juncture of tail and body -- I will cut and paste a copy here:'

CREAM LEGBAR
(Proposed Standard of Perfection Draft 3A for Preliminary Show Requirements as requested by
Walt Leonard, APA Chairman of Standard Revision and Advising Mentor to the Cream Legbar
Club)
The Cream Legbar was presented at the 1947 London Dairy Show as a new breed of
cream colored autosexing chicken, friendly in temperament, and prolific layer of blue
eggs.
The recessive nature of the cream color, the dominate blue egg color, and the crest
which sets this breed apart from its similar Legbar relations was discovered in genetic
experimentation performed by Professors R.C. Punnett and Michael Pease. Professor
Punnett received blue egg laying crested Chilean hens from botanist Clarence Elliott in
1929. He experimented with these birds to create crested blue egg layers with plumage
like Brown Leghorns except with cream instead of gold. Later Professor Pease performed
his own breeding experiments using Gold Legbars and an inbred White Leghorn from
Reaseheath, which also resulted in a number of cream colored birds. Professors Pease and
Punnett bred their cream birds together to see if they had stumbled upon the same cream
gene, proving it upon the hatching of all cream offspring. Descendants of these birds
were selected for crests, blue egg laying abilities, and the remarkable autosexing feature
that allowed the sexes to be identified at hatch. These qualities were stabilized by 1947,
and The Poultry Club of Great Britain adopted a written standard in May, 1958.
ECONOMIC QUALITIES
Especially noted for the autosexing feature in offspring, and production of
eggs. Color of skin, yellow; color of egg shell, blue or green.
DISQUALIFICATIONS
See General Disqualifications and Cutting for Defects.
STANDARD WEIGHTS
Cock…………………………7 lbs. Hens…………………………6
lbs.
Cockerel……………………..6 lbs. Pullet…………………………4
lbs.
SHAPE -- MALE
Comb: Single; large, fine in texture, straight and upright, deeply and evenly serrated with
six distinct points, extending well over the back of the head and following, without
touching, the line of the head, free from side sprigs, thumb-marks or twists.
Beak: Stout, point clear of the front of the comb, slightly curved.
Face: Smooth, skin fine in texture.
Eyes: Large, bright, and prominent. Round in appearance.
Wattles: Moderately long, thin, uniform in size, well rounded, free from folds or
wrinkles. Skin soft.
Ear-lobes: Large, elongated oval, pendant, smooth and free from folds, equally matched
in size and shape.
Crest: Small, well back from the eyes with narrow feathers falling off the back of the
head to below the blade of the comb.
Head: Medium size, symmetrical, well balanced, and of fine quality.
Neck: Long and well covered with hackle feathers.
Back: Moderately broad at the shoulders, narrowing slightly toward the tail, long in
length, flat, sloping slightly to the tail.
Saddle feathers—Abundant, long, and filling well in front of the tail.
Tail: Moderately full, carried at an angle of forty-five degrees above horizontal.
Main tail—feathers broad and overlapping.
Sickles—long and well curved.
Lesser Sickles and Coverts—long, of good width, nicely curved and abundant.
Wings: Large and carried close to the body without dropping.
Breast: Prominent, well-rounded, carried forward and upright.
Body and Fluff: Body--moderately long, sloping to the tail, broad in front tapering
slightly to the rear. Keel is of good length, following the line of the back. Feathers
moderately long and close to the body.
Fluff—medium in length, moderately full.
Legs and Toes: Legs--moderately long, straight when viewed from the front. Thighs are
medium length. Shanks round, strong, and free from feathers.
Toes—four, long, straight, and well-spread.
SHAPE -- FEMALE

Comb: Single; large, fine in texture, erect or first point to stand erect and the remainder of
the comb dropping gracefully to the side without obscuring the eyes, deeply and
evenly serrated having six distinct points.
Beak: Stout, point clear of the front of the comb, slightly curved.

Face: Smooth, skin fine in texture.

Eyes: Large, bright, and prominent. Round in appearance.

Wattles: Medium in length, thin, uniform in size, well-rounded, free from folds or
wrinkles. Skin soft.

Ear-lobes: Medium, elongated oval, pendant, smooth and free from folds, equally
matched in size and shape.

Crest: Medium, rising well in front so as not to obstruct the eyes, with feathers narrow
and falling off the back of the head to below the blade of the comb.

Head: Medium size, symmetrical, well balanced, and of fine quality.

Neck: Long and well covered with hackle feathers.

Back: Moderately broad at the shoulders, long, with an even slope to the tail. Feathers
moderately broad and of sufficient length to carry well up to tail.

Tail: Moderately long, carried at an angle of thirty-five degrees above horizontal.
Main tail—feathers broad and overlapping.
Coverts—broad and abundant, extending well onto main tail.

Wings: Large and carried close to the body without dropping.

Breast: Prominent, well-rounded, carried forward and upright.
Body and Fluff: Body-- moderately long, sloping to the tail, broad in front tapering
slightly to the rear. Keel is of good length, following the line of the back. Feathers
moderately long and close to the body.
Fluff—medium in length, moderately full.
Legs and Toes: Legs-- moderately long, straight when viewed from the front. Thighs are
medium length. Shanks round, strong, and free from feathers.
Toes—four, long, straight, and well-spread.
COLOR -- MALE
Comb, Face and Wattles: Bright Red.
Beak: Yellow.
Eyes: Reddish bay.
Ear-lobes: Enamel white.
Head: Plumage, cream and gray.
Crest: Cream and gray, some chestnut permissible.
Neck: Hackle—cream, sparsely barred with gray.
Shoulder—cream, barred with dark gray, some chestnut permissible.
Front of neck—same as breast.
Wings: Fronts and Bows—dark gray, faintly barred, some chestnut permissible.
Coverts—gray, barred, tipped in cream.
Primaries—dark gray, faintly barred, some white permissible.
Secondaries—dark gray, more clearly barred.

Back: Cream, barred with dark gray, some chestnut permissible.
Saddle—cream, barred with dark gray, edged in cream.
Tail: Main Tail—gray, evenly barred.
Sickle and Coverts—light gray, barred, some white feathers permissible.

Breast: Dark gray, evenly barred, well defined outline.
Legs and Toes: Yellow.
Under-Color of All Sections: Silver-gray.

COLOR -- FEMALE
Comb, Face, and Wattles: Bright red.
Beak: Yellow.
Eyes: Reddish bay.
Ear-lobes: Enamel white.
Head: Plumage, cream and gray.
Crest: Cream and gray, some chestnut permissible.
Neck: Hackle—cream, softly barred gray.
Front of neck—salmon.
Wings: Fronts, Bows and Coverts—silver-gray, faintly barred.
Primaries— gray, faintly barred, the outer web stippled with lighter gray and cream.
Secondaries— gray, very faintly barred.
Back: Gray, softly barred, feathers having a lighter shaft permissible.
Tail: Main Tail and Coverts—silver-gray, faintly barred.
Breast: Salmon, well defined in outline, some feathers having a slightly lighter shaft
permissible.
Body and Fluff: Silver-gray, indistinctly barred.
Legs and Toes: Yellow.
Under-Color of All Sections: Silver-gray.


ETA - as I understand this the juncture of the tail and the back could go either way as long as the back is sloping and the tail is at 45-degrees.

I guess referring back to chicken pickin's question :

"So is that curve/sweep not required per SOP?. It does have a nicer flow and look, but if the tail and back are to meet in an angle then maybe Im ok (minus the high tail angles). Or is this one of the "it depends on how you yourself interpret the SOP"?"

maybe it becomes just how an individual interprets it, or is aiming toward. ?? Makes it harder on us and harder on judges.....possibly in future when there will be very fine points that separate the better from the best in a show.....

 

[nicalandia]

I think if you take a look at a Cream light brown Dutch bantam you will see the color that is being searched for in the cream hackles. Due to barring the Cream Legbar would be lighter but it should still be a definite cream - and not a gray or gray-and-white look IMO
.

on none red enhanced birds, double barring will dilute an already diluted Cream bird to a Silver color males, too much red enhancers have been added to the Cream legbars already and some of them even when confirmed to be cream look just like gold crele

 

[flyingmonkeypoop]

To me, the wording for the female back almost sounds like a sweep. Feathers moderately broad and of sufficient length to carry well up to tail.
My cockerel has almost the ideal type for me but he has the lack of sweep.

 

[ChicKat]

Here is a female from 1947 when the bird was introduced at the London Dairy Show, I think



Here is a male from 1947



The original gold Legbar Pullet and Cockerel:


It's long been my impression that the two images directly above are illustrations and not actual photos.

and our friend in the UK who is hahaUthinkSo on BYC supplied a look at the Cream Legbar Cockerel from a version of the PCGB' SOP




So, I'm seeing things I hadn't noticed previously.

I think the early Legbars and Cream Legbar had the back with the tail junction unlike the one that Michael prefers - but the more modern one has a very long slped back - but more like a widened U-shape.

I think that the 1947 female shows a bit of a roach back, very little crest, and the keel (showing behind the legs) is low - giving a bit of a sagging abdomen. The 1947 males shows white tail feathers without a doubt. In 1947, I think that there was scarcity in the UK to a degree that we can't imagine, and to just survive was an accomplishment - and the birds may have not had the most deluxe feeding regime. IMO our birds (even the less stellar ones) are better looking today -- and a lot of time has passed since 1947.

Another influencing factor is that we really have ton's of unknowns introduced at the Time David Applegarth rescued the Legbar from extinction -- and most likely the birds we have don't have a lot of genetic material that would match the originals from Punnett's time.

 

[ChicKat]

on none red enhanced birds, double barring will dilute an already diluted Cream bird to a Silver color males, too much red enhancers have been added to the Cream legbars already and some of them even when confirmed to be cream look just like gold crele

Thanks nicalandia,

so if I understand correctly what you are saying, you are re-inforcing the early part of this thread were it is stated that appearance alone isn't going to tell us the answer. A confirmed Cream can look just like gold crele. This is kind of the conclusion that I have drawn. I can add some more intersting things:


This hen, is molting off the brass-gold colored feathers and growing in the white-looking ones. If someone didn't know that the sun changes the feathers color they would tell me that this is a 'gold' hen -- when infact, that isn't the case. Because the sun darkened the feathers so much, she could be silver -- unless sun affects the cream the same way it affects silver. Interesting concept. Her white barred feathers in the foreground - what replaced her old feathers - the very dark feathers on the back of her neck -- and the feathers way in the background could represent the spectrum of silver-looking, gold-crele looking and cream.

Punnett wrote that the cockerel of a cream can look silver - but the hen of a cream will have the cream hackles.