Post Pics Of Orps/ Orpingtons HERE

[HallFamilyFarm]

Ralph Brazelton had a copy of the Orpington Standard copied off that he kept in his barn. He suggested to me once to keep a photo of the Schiling Orpingtons up in my coop. Man taht fellow could breed Orpingtons. Perfect type and 200+ eggs a year!

FYI: Walt's avatar is a Brazelton Orpington.

Another FYI: Jerry Foley and a few friends are working on both Chocolate Wyandottes (B/LF) and Orpingtons at the same time. Jerry may beat everyone to the finish line!

 

[AGAMMARELL]

Hi Don : Big Difference Between Body and Fluff - Fluff: Moderately Full Showing Profile of Hock and Seeing Actual Hock.

 

[OSUman]

Where did Jerry get his Chocolate Wyandottes from?

Ralph Brazelton had a copy of the Orpington Standard copied off that he kept in his barn. He suggested to me once to keep a photo of the Schiling Orpingtons up in my coop. Man taht fellow could breed Orpingtons. Perfect type and 200+ eggs a year!

FYI: Walt's avatar is a Brazelton Orpington.

Another FYI: Jerry Foley and a few friends are working on both Chocolate Wyandottes (B/LF) and Orpingtons at the same time. Jerry may beat everyone to the finish line!

 

[aveca]

walt, let me ask you something..if you created a chicken, you yourself said what you envision in writing..there will be variation in that, would you want that to be carried into a standard? as written by the creator of that breed.. the brits went for deep chest neater type tail, shorter back, not saying us birds dont have that, but it is different, not much , and longer type than brits..it is confusing to somone like myself trying hard to understand other than what i see being a beginner - novice..especially from an organization that has no gold standard picture in their book to go by..to put that in terms you might understand....i can " describe " to you all day long what an ideal dressage horse looks like to that standard with reasonable variations, but until you see the ideal of exactly what that association expects, then im left to go throu those very old books, i have a pic that i use as ideal as apa does not give me one..is there anyway to adress that..i have a stash of cash waiting for that book to carry that picture of exactly what they expect..you can say look at nationals..had tight work schedule..couldnt, no pics avail..plus there are some variations as to location in type.i also think we can say without a shadow of a doubt, those english birds look darned good..

The back is moderately long and so is the tail, so pretty soon you have some additional length. A Plymouth Rock is "rather long" to give you an idea. long is long, long it is not medium or anything else. They say moderately long to define the length. . From what I have seen it should be very simple to get a short back in an Orp, since some are that way now. .. When these birds go for the qualifying meet they better have moderately long backs or they won't pass. Everyone who is not involved in that can make them with any kind of back that pleases them. The key word is....long however, if they are to meet the SOP description.

What you are seeing in the Imported Orp thread is not a always a way to judge what a US Orp is supposed to look like. You are looking at a picture not a Standard. Read the SOP and then look at the picture. A picture doesn't make the bird correct, the SOP description does...that applies to any chicken.

Walt

 

[fowlman01]

Dont give up, just have to breed breed breed! Plus I can kinda see the hocks on my birds LOL

That would probably work. We aren't going to demand anything we don't demand in the large fowl. The idea would be to start working on it.

Walt

 

[fowlman01]

walt, let me ask you something..if you created a chicken, you yourself said what you envision in writing..there will be variation in that, would you want that to be carried into a standard? as written by the creator of that breed.. the brits went for deep chest neater type tail, shorter back, not saying us birds dont have that, but it is different, not much , and longer type than brits..it is confusing to somone like myself trying hard to understand other than what i see being a beginner - novice..especially from an organization that has no gold standard picture in their book to go by..to put that in terms you might understand....i can " describe " to you all day long what an ideal dressage horse looks like to that standard with reasonable variations, but until you see the ideal of exactly what that association expects, then im left to go throu those very old books, i have a pic that i use as ideal as apa does not give me one..is there anyway to adress that..i have a stash of cash waiting for that book to carry that picture of exactly what they expect..you can say look at nationals..had tight work schedule..couldnt, no pics avail..plus there are some variations as to location in type.i also think we can say without a shadow of a doubt, those english birds look darned good..

There are no perfect birds. The idea is to breed as close as you can get. At the moment the British Standards mean nothing here in the USA. If you look at their Standard it is not that far off from the APA's. they allow some more fluff and they have a smaller head, but after that the Standards are not different. The problem is that the birds you see winning do not fit the British Standard...and you don't have to be a judge to see that. I'm curious........have you read either Standard or both? Looking good and looking like they meet the SOP are two different things. I like the way they look, except for the little head. They just look like another breed to me.

The SOP illustrations show the outline of the Orp very well...they just aren't works of art. No one could afford the book if we had to pay a fine artist to do them. The last edition has about 75 illustrations done by K. Plumer that are works of art. the Schilling pieces are accurate too. As a dressage person (letter perfect) I am surprised you don't see why we have standards that are upheld.

Walt

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

Where did Jerry get his Chocolate Wyandottes from?
Quote:
You would have to ask Jerry.

 

[Don Chandler]

You would have to ask Jerry.

He got some chocs orps from Greenfire and bred to his black wyns.

 

[AGAMMARELL]

Aveca: Study the Shilling Print, Burn it in your Memory; It will serve you well. Don't get hung up on Verbal Translations. Note the Long Back and Front Full Line. You have to make up your mind witch Type Bird You Like. I find some birds don't look anything like the Shilling Prints.

 

[aveca]

your a big help walt..(kidding)i own older copy 1998 sop and read britians..how did they get all of those works of art in there long time ago? nobody had any money.. , i guess the bottom line is...there is no answer..i dont see that much difference , written anyway......i dont see that terrible much difference in sop buff and britian imports..big meaty birds..
i respect the layout plan as well..can you see where it can get confusing for me? america did not create these birds, but we have quite a long history of dictating how its going to be.. i also saw some of the faddish birds in britian, the ones your talking about..but i have yet to see any of those here..i didnt care for them much..i honestly thought they were a cochin.i have yet to see one of those on imported thread..just for the record..wernt all orpingtons imported at some point?.i expect a drawing from you of a standard trakehner by morning.see how easy it isnt..just go by the description..

There are no perfect birds. The idea is to breed as close as you can get. At the moment the British Standards mean nothing here in the USA. If you look at their Standard it is not that far off from the APA's. they allow some more fluff and they have a smaller head, but after that the Standards are not different. The problem is that the birds you see winning do not fit the British Standard...and you don't have to be a judge to see that. I'm curious........have you read either Standard or both? Looking good and looking like they meet the SOP are two different things. I like the way they look, except for the little head. They just look like another breed to me.

The SOP illustrations show the outline of the Orp very well...they just aren't works of art. No one could afford the book if we had to pay a fine artist to do them. The last edition has about 75 illustrations done by K. Plumer that are works of art. the Schilling pieces are accurate too. As a dressage person (letter perfect) I am surprised you don't see why we have standards that are upheld.

Walt