Standard of Perfection

[feathers4fun]

Whew, I found this post yesterday and have just finished reading all of it. Thus far this has been the most interesting and thought provoking thread I've come across. I have a 2010 SOP that I refer to often, even packing it out to the barnyard to assess and compare. I've thumbed thru the first 40 pages but will be reading that section now. I sure hope Mr. Miller can return to share more knowledge with us.

 

[warbirds]

Hi Walt,
If I may interrupt a minute? Feathered World magazine did a wonderful series of painted pictures of the various varieties of the Sussex breed. Full color. I am new to the breed but liked the breed type I see in the pics. Anyway, Country Books in New Zealand reprinted the 1934 edition of Outram's "Sussex Poultry". They illustrated it with full size, full color prints from the Feathered World series. Just a stunning over-sized high quality glossy softcover with stiff high-quality full color wrap-around covers. I used to have a copy and need to buy another. In the back are reprints of the ultra-rare letters by breeders about Sussex gathered by (name escapes me). I could only find these letters listed in 2 of the world's libraries. Anyway, here's the website to Country Books : http://tinyurl.com/7jh6uzy
The Batty book is good too. Kinda cute. He states he started out to write a book on Dorkings but it became obvious real quick it would mostly focus on Sussex. Check Ebay for the Batty book. Also nice color pictures ( paintings).


URL to heritage Poultry Stud, Australia.
http://tinyurl.com/88o58mn
They have lovely reprints and reproductions of classic poultry paintings.
Red Sussex- Supplement to the Feathered World. A.J. Simpson and signed.
Walt, how closely do ou think the Simpson is to the APA Red Sussex?Best regards,
Karen in western PA

Thanks for this information, Karen!!

One thing that has me a tad bit concerned about the APA Standards for the Red Sussex - all of the photos/paintings I have come across from around the world show the Red as it is described in the SOP, with one big difference - the black neck hackles. Apparently some English lines were brought in a few years ago to try to improve the limited gene pool in the US. As a result, most all Reds have the black neck hackles, including the females.
It makes sense that this feather pattern is present, as it is in all of the other Sussex varieties - the Lights have the black outlined in white and is stated so in the SOP, the Silver has that as well (when properly bred to proper standards!), the Buff has it, the Speckled has it according to the SOP. However, the SOP states only "Lustrous mahogany red" with the front of the neck "rich mahogany red". No mention of any black hackle feathers! That said, the only DQ stated for the Red is "one or more white feathers showing in outer plumage".

So my question for Walt and any other APA judges reading - would there be any issue showing Red Sussex in an APA show that has the black hackles? Could this be considered a point deduction?
And is it possible/feasible that the SOP may need to revisit the coloring of the neck for the Red Sussex?

I've asked a lot of questions of British and Australian breeders of the Reds, and they have stated that the black neck hackles should always be present. I've yet to be able to remove the black hackles in three years of working at that with one test group...........and they sure look a lot better with the black hackles!

 

[fowlman01]

Thanks for this information, Karen!!

One thing that has me a tad bit concerned about the APA Standards for the Red Sussex - all of the photos/paintings I have come across from around the world show the Red as it is described in the SOP, with one big difference - the black neck hackles. Apparently some English lines were brought in a few years ago to try to improve the limited gene pool in the US. As a result, most all Reds have the black neck hackles, including the females.
It makes sense that this feather pattern is present, as it is in all of the other Sussex varieties - the Lights have the black outlined in white and is stated so in the SOP, the Silver has that as well (when properly bred to proper standards!), the Buff has it, the Speckled has it according to the SOP. However, the SOP states only "Lustrous mahogany red" with the front of the neck "rich mahogany red". No mention of any black hackle feathers! That said, the only DQ stated for the Red is "one or more white feathers showing in outer plumage".

So my question for Walt and any other APA judges reading - would there be any issue showing Red Sussex in an APA show that has the black hackles? Could this be considered a point deduction?
And is it possible/feasible that the SOP may need to revisit the coloring of the neck for the Red Sussex?

I've asked a lot of questions of British and Australian breeders of the Reds, and they have stated that the black neck hackles should always be present. I've yet to be able to remove the black hackles in three years of working at that with one test group...........and they sure look a lot better with the black hackles!

If a Red Sussex is shown with black in the hackles it would be a deduction of points. The Brits and Aussies call for black in the hackles, but the APA SOP does not and that description has never been challenged since their admission in 1914. There would have to be some very good reason to change it to allow black in the hackles. Since there are already several differences between the British and APA Standards, that would not be enough to change the APA description.

Generally the APA does not change it's Standards to meet the existing birds. I will forward any reasons to change the existing Standard for the Red Sussex to the rest of the SOP Committee, but the argument will have to be very compelling. The fact that it is different in the British Standard would not be enough to get it done.

Thank you so much for your research Karen. You are always a huge help.

Walt

 

[warbirds]

If a Red Sussex is shown with black in the hackles it would be a deduction of points. The Brits and Aussies call for black in the hackles, but the APA SOP does not and that description has never been challenged since their admission in 1914. There would have to be some very good reason to change it to allow black in the hackles. Since there are already several differences between the British and APA Standards, that would not be enough to change the APA description.

Generally the APA does not change it's Standards to meet the existing birds. I will forward any reasons to change the existing Standard for the Red Sussex to the rest of the SOP Committee, but the argument will have to be very compelling. The fact that it is different in the British Standard would not be enough to get it done.

Thank you so much for your research Karen. You are always a huge help.

Walt

Thank you so much, Walt, your expertise is invaluable!
I appreciate the history lesson on the SOP as well...........a person can't learn this information from just anywhere.

If we need no black hackles on the Red, then that's what my grandson and I will continue to work towards. Not going to be an easy task, but then, it's never easy breeding to the SOP when a breed/variety has been neglected for so very long!

I do wonder how the bird came to be so different over the years.........compels one to want to really dig deeper.

Doc

 

[fowlman01]

Thank you so much, Walt, your expertise is invaluable!
I appreciate the history lesson on the SOP as well...........a person can't learn this information from just anywhere.

If we need no black hackles on the Red, then that's what my grandson and I will continue to work towards. Not going to be an easy task, but then, it's never easy breeding to the SOP when a breed/variety has been neglected for so very long!

I do wonder how the bird came to be so different over the years.........compels one to want to really dig deeper.

Doc

No you can't learn it just anywhere......you have to find some old person who can still remember such things. Sam Brush the President of the APA is not what I would think of as an old guy, but he may have the answers on the Red Sussex. He is a poultry history expert. I can't remember his screen name on BYC, but his email addy is available on the APA site.



Walt

 

[cgmccary]

Quote:
I am very thankful it is difficult to change the Standard . . . it should be; otherwise, no telling what we'd end up with. Correct me if I am wrong, Walt, but it seems that changes, when they do happen, are usually just refinement in language or better language.

Chris

 

[fowlman01]

I am very thankful it is difficult to change the Standard . . . it should be; otherwise, no telling what we'd end up with. Correct me if I am wrong, Walt, but it seems that changes, when they do happen, are usually just refinement in language or better language.

Chris

Changes are usually to fix an error or to clarify some point. Some think it should be easy to change things in the Standard, but I agree with you. The Committee has been reluctant to change many things over the years. One that keeps coming back is changing the Cornish eye from pearl to a range of colors. The other thing that the SOP Committee is stuffy about is using ranges of color or shapes in the breed description. If you do that why have a standard.

It is surprising to me how many errors have turned up recently that are not typo's, but things that one would think a person would notice over the last 30-60 years. I am talking about errors in long established breeds. Some of the eagle eyed ladies on BYC found something that was never questioned in the last 50 years in the Delaware section. It was not really an error, but it was not clear. This is maybe a good reason to pursue the history of the Red Sussex. There has been at least one occasion that I know of when there was a major change to a breed that no one alive today can fully explain and no one noticed until recently.

There has not been any unusual changes to the SOP in the last 40 years, but before that things changed in mysterious ways.

Walt

 

[warbirds]

Changes are usually to fix an error or to clarify some point. Some think it should be easy to change things in the Standard, but I agree with you. The Committee has been reluctant to change many things over the years. One that keeps coming back is changing the Cornish eye from pearl to a range of colors. The other thing that the SOP Committee is stuffy about is using ranges of color or shapes in the breed description. If you do that why have a standard.

It is surprising to me how many errors have turned up recently that are not typo's, but things that one would think a person would notice over the last 30-60 years. I am talking about errors in long established breeds. Some of the eagle eyed ladies on BYC found something that was never questioned in the last 50 years in the Delaware section. It was not really an error, but it was not clear. This is maybe a good reason to pursue the history of the Red Sussex. There has been at least one occasion that I know of when there was a major change to a breed that no one alive today can fully explain and no one noticed until recently.

There has not been any unusual changes to the SOP in the last 40 years, but before that things changed in mysterious ways.

Walt

It does seem odd to me that a breed is recognized all over the world as being one feather pattern, yet our Standard would be so different.
Hubby jokingly said well, maybe the first Reds to come to America were somebody's culls out of England..........and so the first ones here were just wrong....
I'd laugh along, but with all the dollars spent on "breeding stock" in several breeds over the years that came nowhere close to any Standard when they reached adulthood..............it's hard to find the humor............
I have an older Standard on its way to me right now..............curious to see how the Red was depicted long ago in the Standard.


Doc

 

[warbirds]

No you can't learn it just anywhere......you have to find some old person who can still remember such things. Sam Brush the President of the APA is not what I would think of as an old guy, but he may have the answers on the Red Sussex. He is a poultry history expert. I can't remember his screen name on BYC, but his email addy is available on the APA site.



Walt

Thank you! I'm going to do some additional digging over the next couple of weeks as time allows. I'm now more than a little curious, especially after closely viewing the currently more than 150 Red Sussex in the pens and seeing that I don't have a single roo or hen, young or old, that has no black in the hackles, out of stock from all over the country, not just one or two breeders.
Curiouser and curiouser.....................

Doc

 

[fowlman01]

It does seem odd to me that a breed is recognized all over the world as being one feather pattern, yet our Standard would be so different.
Hubby jokingly said well, maybe the first Reds to come to America were somebody's culls out of England..........and so the first ones here were just wrong....
I'd laugh along, but with all the dollars spent on "breeding stock" in several breeds over the years that came nowhere close to any Standard when they reached adulthood..............it's hard to find the humor............
I have an older Standard on its way to me right now..............curious to see how the Red was depicted long ago in the Standard.


Doc

It is not odd to me. The Aussies and Brits don't have the same standard in some breeds and the German Standard is different as well. Birds imported from England that are called the same breed name here, but do not have the same variety or breed description, is not anything new. The Red Sussex will be a good research project.

The other countries Standards also take liberties with the American Breeds descriptions. I don't see the unification of the Brit, Aussie, German Standards with the APA anytime soon. Most of the birds shown in each country would look like a cull in another country...that is how far off the Standards can be.

Walt

Walt