Post Pics Of Orps/ Orpingtons HERE

[galanie]

I think most of us are visual.....what I have been saying for a couple days is: Read the Standard, then look at the illustrations in the SOP that correspond with the breed. look at the comb. That illustration is tied into the description ....no matter what anyone thinks, it is accurate and  while not a work of art it will show you exactly how the comb should look. If a person does not want to do it in that sequence I can't help them. I try to help people understand the SOP. If they want to do it another way or don't care, I don't care. The mistake most make is just looking in the section that addresses their breed. Now go look at a leghorn...note the comb does not follow the head. There are different types of single combs. For "long" look at the Plymouth Rock....it says "rather long"..the Orp says."moderately long....look at the illustrations of the Rock and Orp to get the correct perspective on "long" as it relates to each breed. . Rocks have a longer back than Orps, in fact you will never see "back to long" written on a Rock coop card. Long means long, not  short or medium. Everything in the SOP is not in just the breed pages. To duplicate all that info the book would have to be over 1000 pages.

'The only reason I would ever hang out in a site like this is to help people understand the SOP. If they want to fight with me or forget how they posted that is up to them. I respond in the same way I am talked to online. This is not recreation to me, I am trying to help. My background is in graphics. If a graphic artist could not turn a buff Orp into a black Orp, I would fire them. If I still had photoshop on this computer I could turn that gray print from Dave K into a black Orp in about a minute.

Walt

Walt, I want to thank you for your frank words. And for your patience, even when it runs thin. Especially when it runs thin. Because you keep coming back and keep hammering it out to thick heads like mine. And I expect to be talked to the way I talk to others. In fact, I appreciate it.

 

[galanie]

Ok, lay it on me. I need to learn (obviously). I think this girl has the body. Am I wrong? Pictures aren't great. And she is not in good condition at all, having just risen from another bout of unbreakable broody (she can stay in a broody breaker for 2 weeks and not be broken!) Her tail is too high, and the worst is that her ears are too light, even in good condition. So perhaps should not be used for show stock. However, I'm here to learn.

Sorry for the large pictures, BYC is messing up and not giving me the right code for smaller pics except the one.

 

[fowlman01]

Ok, lay it on me. I need to learn (obviously). I think this girl has the body. Am I wrong? Pictures aren't great. And she is not in good condition at all, having just risen from another bout of unbreakable broody (she can stay in a broody breaker for 2 weeks and not be broken!)
Her tail is too high, and the worst is that her ears are too light, even in good condition. So perhaps should not be used for show stock. However, I'm here to learn.

Sorry for the large pictures, BYC is messing up and not giving me the right code for smaller pics except the one.

I prefer the large pictures. Overall she looks pretty good. Again it is very difficult to give an accurate critique from a photo. Now to start picking it apart. A female Orp should have a 15 degree tail, that is not much and most I see here are much higher than that. If the bird is leaning forward the picture will always look like a high tail. She appears to have a slight cushion right before the tail. She may need to be a little deeper in the lower part of the breast..can't really tell. Overall she looks good and doesn't have fluffy thighs and you can see her legs. She also appears to have good feather width in the tail, so she will have a good tail. Except for the lobes she looks good and is not a cull in any way that I can see.

Walt

 

[galanie]

Thanks Walt. As for tail angle and chest, it's odd to me because she always stands as in the middle picture. When moving, that tail goes down to a better angle. And she does have that cushion that's a bit too much. The chest I was unsure of. The middle picture is from a bad angle and so it looks really shallow. Top and bottom ones are more like her true look so far as that. I knew that tail was way high, and I'm pleased that you weren't able to find more faults. But then that could only be due to my photography skills or lack of them.

I'll try to get better ones. You know how it is. You take a zillion pictures to get a good one and I just popped off about 15 this morning to get what I did. They have that perfect pose then in the millisecond it takes to click the camera, they've moved.

 

[fowlman01]

Thanks Walt. As for tail angle and chest, it's odd to me because she always stands as in the middle picture. When moving, that tail goes down to a better angle. And she does have that cushion that's a bit too much. The chest I was unsure of. The middle picture is from a bad angle and so it looks really shallow. Top and bottom ones are more like her true look so far as that. I knew that tail was way high, and I'm pleased that you weren't able to find more faults. But then that could only be due to my photography skills or lack of them.
I'll try to get better ones. You know how it is. You take a zillion pictures to get a good one and I just popped off about 15 this morning to get what I did. They have that perfect pose then in the millisecond it takes to click the camera, they've moved.

Most cameras now can do video's. Try taking a video and then stop it when you find the right frame...the one that shows the bird best. With my camera even though it is supposed to be fast, by the time I shoot, the bird is standing another way.

Walt

 

[Don Chandler]

When you use Good Quality Birds from Good Lines; Sometimes there are Very Good Results but then you have to Fix the Traits you want in a good percentage of the offspring.

In my years of breeding chickens, there is about as many wreck as good deals. When everything is working good, don't mess with it.

 

[fowlman01]

In my years of breeding chickens, there is about as many wreck as good deals. When everything is working good, don't mess with it.

and hope you can keep it there....lol

Walt

 

[AGAMMARELL]

Hi Don there are way more Wrecks than Successes. This is why some Newbies Cross Birds way to much. Putting new Blood in a good Strain is very Expensive. When putting Watford Blood into Birds Bill and I had it was a Total Wreck But about 5 years and a couple Thousand Dollars Later I had some Success, and Yet I saw one Outcross to My and Bill Bacons Birds Work Almost Flawlessly and they were not Related.

 

[AGAMMARELL]

Oh Don: When I Introduce new Blood to a Solid Strain of Birds I Keep My Pure Stock at 15/16 Pure Blood. People do not understand the value of Prepotency in Good Linebred Stock Nor do they Value it as they Should. This is why I sell Limited #'s of Birds. Everybody wants 20 Years of Breeding For a Song and Dance. Then after about 2 Years they are Spouting Off about Their Strain. What a Joke

.

 

[Don Chandler]

Hi Don there are way more Wrecks than Successes. This is why some Newbies Cross Birds way to much. Putting new Blood in a good Strain is very Expensive. When putting Watford Blood into Birds Bill and I had it was a Total Wreck But about 5 years and a couple Thousand Dollars Later I had some Success, and Yet I saw one Outcross to My and Bill Bacons Birds Work Almost Flawlessly and they were not Related.

One of the best, if not the best line of buffs today came from 4 pullets from Betty Alexander when she quite and a Triple T male. One cross not related and they started winning that fall and haven't stopped. Never added nothing either.