Thanks Walt, keep it coming this is great stuff.

Checked the British Standard...don't have time to go word for word, but the major differences I see are the head and how much fluff they can have on their thighs. Those two things are not the same as the APA SOP, and those are pretty important differences. Looking at their Standard and looking at what they put up as superior specimens kind of throws me, but they may have a great answer about why the standard is different than the birds placed. The British Standard says: plumage-Fairly profuse but close, not soft, loose and fluffy like a Cochin or close and hard like a game. This is the same description the Australian Standard uses for Orps. This is pretty accurate for an Orpington plumage, but that is not what I am seeing in the British birds here or abroad.
A standard is useless if judges are picking birds that do not fit their Standard description.
Again...I have no axe to grind with the British birds, I like them. My responses here are my opinion as an APA judge and as a long time breeder of Orpingtons in black and buff.
(black-C. Moore, buff-R. Brazelton)
Walt