I was not debating or disagreeing either. I just tried to clarify what I was saying. I do not communicate well, and I still do not think that I have made myself clear.
I understand, like you, that commercially they went in two different directions. Also, from what I can tell, the meat strains did tend to be lighter. It does not seam to me that there was a lot of emphasis in their development for color originally though. How they dress out has as much to do about under color as surface color. My dark Germans have a beautiful under color. The birds dress pretty clean. That said, the meat strains were more like we see in the standard print. More of a redish buff.
I am one of those that thinks that the dual purpose standard bird should be darker than the print in the standard. More in line with the description. I base that on the standard description of the colors, and the differentiation made under the "economic qualities". It is my opinion that personal preference played a part in that. I like the Schilling print, and that is my Standard picture for type and color.
It is an opinion of mine, that egg laying has more to do with unseen genetics and type than actual size. Of course too far in any direction is detrimental. I think some of the larger breeds could have been developed to have quite high lay rates. It would not have made economical sense, so it was never done. Brahmas and Cochins do not have the type (Well I do not know about the Cochins, as I can't see their type through all of the feather), and they are far removed from any functional role, IMO. Too me they have become ornamental.
Even Leghorns were what we would call average layers now. It took a long term, organized, well funded, and specialized effort to get them where they are today. Rocks could have been developed to reach similarly high lay rates, but it would not have made sense to do so. Too big to be an economical layer, but not too big to be a good layer.
All of this included, I agree 100% that it is a mistake to make New Hampshires too big. I want early fryer dates, but do not want to feed an extra pound of two of bird the rest of the year. Would take away from this advantage. I think in terms of fryers concerning males for meat. Too me, the roasters are a luxury. It is more economical to process fryers, and they do fry up nicely. I would want to cross them with Cornish to make roasters. They do not have to weigh 10lbs to make good young fryers.
I do not know how accurate the showmen were, but their advertising brags on pullets that start laying at 20 wks, and the birds being fryers at 12 wks. Apparently they at least considered this a breed selling point. Apparently the people that showed them early thought something of their performance.
