Post Pics Of Orps/ Orpingtons HERE

[FuzzyButtsFarm]

Quote:

That makes sense. I have read elsewhere that when crossing two different lines, of what ever breed, you can't always be sure of what latent gene will pop up. I should have listened. It wasn't a lack of proper attention but ignorance on my part. Now I have a choice of starting over or cull the white lobed hens from my breeding program. I don't show my chickens and do it to satisfy my enjoyment of the chickens of my childhood. Thanks for helping. We need more people who are willing to educate. You have my utmost admiration.

 

[DaveK]

Walt, There are still cuckoo Dorkings around but a lot of those early and very active breeders are no longer actively breeding anything. I was not popular at their qualifying meet as I suggested that while the ongoing teamwork involved in the project was awfully impressive the smallish, short bodied birds were not. I like cuckoo and I love a grand big Dorking so darn it, I want the cuckoos to be real Dorkings. As far as these two Orp hens I'll toss my own thoughts into the ring. I don't think these two birds have been bred with a basically different mind's eye ideal. Just slightly different slants on the same thing. What I do love about the Ammarell bird is the deep, well filled front swinging back into a long, sort of, underline. I am not sure the ideal underline as I understand it should be described as a semi circle but semantics sometimes don't convey the vision at hand. Walt would argue that the hen's underline is visually interrupted by excessive fluff. Well, alright, except that what I have seen over many years with the Orps in general wouldn't have me overly concerned about the fluff in that particular bird. It's there but on a bird that I would be glad to feed and breed from otherwise. There's more to any breed than fluff or the lack of it. Those who compare the superficial resemblance of some photos to Cochins have probably never owned or observed either of those breeds on the ground. Not put together the same way at all. Feather and fluff can build illusions and paint all kinds of pictures. I realize from having been told that my breed type and character views are old fashioned. So be it. I am only one opinion, albeit one who cares about breed type. My own vision of Orpington type has been forged by hands on daily experience with Marcus Davidson buffs (his Cochins too!

) and whites sent as chicks directly from Cecil Moore back in the late 1970s. Not to mention the old Schilling print which to my way of thinking is not an idealized bird. There were lots and still are some that have walked right out of those old plates.

 

[fowlman01]

Walt, There are still cuckoo Dorkings around but a lot of those early and very active breeders are no longer actively breeding anything. I was not popular at their qualifying meet as I suggested that while the ongoing teamwork involved in the project was awfully impressive the smallish, short bodied birds were not. I like cuckoo and I love a grand big Dorking so darn it, I want the cuckoos to be real Dorkings. As far as these two Orp hens I'll toss my own thoughts into the ring. I don't think these two birds have been bred with a basically different mind's eye ideal. Just slightly different slants on the same thing. What I do love about the Ammarell bird is the deep, well filled front swinging back into a long, sort of, underline. I am not sure the ideal underline as I understand it should be described as a semi circle but semantics sometimes don't convey the vision at hand. Walt would argue that the hen's underline is visually interrupted by excessive fluff. Well, alright, except that what I have seen over many years with the Orps in general wouldn't have me overly concerned about the fluff in that particular bird. It's there but on a bird that I would be glad to feed and breed from otherwise. There's more to any breed than fluff or the lack of it. Those who compare the superficial resemblance of some photos to Cochins have probably never owned or observed either of those breeds on the ground. Not put together the same way at all. Feather and fluff can build illusions and paint all kinds of pictures. I realize from having been told that my breed type and character views are old fashioned. So be it. I am only one opinion, albeit one who cares about breed type. My own vision of Orpington type has been forged by hands on daily experience with Marcus Davidson buffs (his Cochins too!

) and whites sent as chicks directly from Cecil Moore back in the late 1970s. Not to mention the old Schilling print which to my way of thinking is not an idealized bird. There were lots and still are some that have walked right out of those old plates.

Out of the 50+ Cuckoo Dorkings there were entered only two that looked like Dorkings to me. I was out voted on letting them in. If it had been up to me alone they would not have passed the qualifyer. If I remember right there was one really pretty good pullet and maybe a hen or another pullet....I can't remember. I agree on the depth of the birds and I don't care too much how people arrive at their destination as long as the birds fit the Orp description. Since the SOP has a whole paragraph about how important the feathering is on Orps, I guess I take that literally and think it is important as well. If I was judging and ran across a bird that had excessive fluff but still looked balanced I would probably go with it if it excelled in conformation. My personal objection, which is just that, is when they have too much fluff, they don't look balanced....at least not to me.

The bottom line is that if they meet the SOP great, but again the Orp description, as it is now is pretty clear about the importance of the type of feathering an Orp should have.

Walt

 

[OSUman]

Jim, I dont see why you have a problem with a discussion. I dont see much difference, but I am no expert. I wasn't trying to say that Walt was wrong, I was just pointing out what I see and am trying to learn.

Folks need to keep in mind that Walt has been an Orpington breeder, licensed judge and a member of the Standards committee longer than many on this thread has even had chickens. Not saying Walt is old, but he may have helped Noah with the chickens on the Ark. We need to glean from his wisdom. When we post photos on public sites, folks like Walt has every right to give their opinion. It is still just his opinion. However, Walt's opinion comes with years of valuable experience and knowledge.

We can all grow, cross and breed whatever we want. But if we show, it must meet the Standard.

On the Buckeye thread someone said they were DQ because their Buckeye had a pea comb. The exhibitor grab a SOP and showed the show officials a pea comb is required. The judge removed the DQ. Obviously it did not win anything but a Best of Breed, as the judge still know very little about the breed. With Walt, we have a lot of experience.

Thanks Walt for keeping us pointed in the right direction for type!

 

[lildinkem]

Here they are side by side. The left photo is courtesy of fowlman01 aka Walt Leonard and the right was posted by OSUman.

I would like to see both these birds at the same show and have several of our APA better judges gives their opinions. Both birds have great traits. One has a fuller rounded front breast and more depth, the other has less underline fluff. The legs on one is thicker then the other. As I mentioned before the bird from Alan is one that is not representative of what he has produced in the past. He said in an email he is just now getting back some of his culls to restart his Buff lines.
Breeding birds is like art. Each artist has their particular view of what they like. And each should be given equal praise for what they produce.

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

Praise is only earned at an APA sanctioned show if the bird meets the Standard of Perfection. I will stick with Walt's opinion. Most posters on this thread have raised chickens less than 10 years. Walt's been doing it since the Civil War (okay, not that long

) and has been trusted by the APA Board to chair the Standards Committee.

Dragonlady has also been doing this a very long time.



Quote:

We each may have our own particular view, but when we get to the showroom, the only view will be a licensed judge's view. I respect Walt's opinions and agree that the bird presents in the photo as very poor type for an Orpington. It makes a nice and beautiful yard bird. But per the SOP, it misses the mark.

 

[lildinkem]

Alan's birds wins shows. His birds are now some of Bill's birds. Paul Montieth is a licensed APA judge has seen them. He has raised Orps over 20 years and said their the best he ever seen. I will stick to my friend Paul's opinion. Paul knows what he is doing and also has some of the best White Orps in North America. His Whites are from a strain of Cecil's that he has raised for 20 plus years.

 

[aveca]

both birds are beautiful..in my opinion ...im kind of wondering why the comb on the right kind of stops then appears again..might just be photo angle..it kind of dissapears then re-appears a bit in the back.maybe the rooster got her... shes s stunning rep thou..you are impressed with her right away..it would probably the subtle things.and the judges taste..and the details...im no judge , one thing i did learn while touring some poultry shows with nephews in england was they had their own arguements going on..the chests had become so big and deep that they went from round to square like somone put a box in the front..they now consider that a very serious fault..i think their judges were trying to get them to back it up just a bit..they seemed to have worked a lot of that out but now going a bit too much cochin looking..i though some of the birds we saw were cochin - clean legged..you dont see anything like that here.in the end dont they break it down into the numbers? points for wing and carriage, eye , feet and legs comb ect...it would boil down to points and a last walk by for the judge..one of my judge freinds says first thing he does is walk the line..the first impression . he selects the ones that stand out, gives them another look, then starts deducting points on his selected birds... walt could tell more about that..it seems like it might boil down to 1/2 a point..

 

[syble]

They only Buff from last year's season I am keeping.  Near 6 month ole Sasquatch.

A big clumsy Buff cockerel.  you can tell he is a baby.  He has no hint of any spurs.



A WIDE LOAD

I like him nice deep breast to him

 

[galanie]

   Those who compare the superficial resemblance of some photos to Cochins have probably never owned or observed either of those breeds on the ground..

Would like to clarify that I was not comparing any of the orps pictured in this discussion to a Cochin, but what is winning shows in the UK which aren't like those here. You are correct, I haven't any experience with cochins. Here is a show winner from www.keiths-orps.co.uk to clarify what I was referring to.

Simply clarifying a point, not arguing.