Standard of Perfection

[cgmccary]

I find all the red breeds interesting, the New Hampshire with its three different red shades; the RIR, originally once a sorrel, buff color but now exhibition stock is the darkest of all the red breeds; the Buckeye described as "rich mahogany bay," & color-wise as something between the N.H. and RIR . The undercolor also intrigues me of the RIR (undercolor all red); Buckeye (slate bar only in the undercolor of the back, red in other sections) & then the Red Sussex (slate under-color all sections). I wonder about the play of under-color with surface color and what it all means.

I don't have a dog in the hunt of the "Red Sussex" but took the time to look up a few old publications with some questions:

Quote:
warbirds: . . . 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 . . .
http://books.google.com/books?id=VC...#v=onepage&q=poultry and "red sussex"&f=false

The above "Book of Poultry" 1921 by Thomas Fletcher McGrew seems to indicate above that hackles should be striped in black (though I don't know that U.S.A. publisher means anything or if it is just an American published book describing the British Red Sussex??).

I can't tell about these old pictures the hackles, but I do notice that the cockerel won both in London (1915), then in Chicago (1915) and then also here at Madison Sq. Gardens (1916):
http://books.google.com/books?id=yQ...=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q="red sussex"&f=false

If different descriptions (APA vs. British Standard), why or how would the cockerel win in both countries? Maybe nobody has brought up the black hackle question before? Seems unlikely but you never know.

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

Here is a good example of the different Standards:

Trio of Blue German Langshan Bantams
http://poultrykeeper.com/german-langshan/the-german-langshan/german-langshan-photos.html

http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/CGK/Langshan/BRKLangshan.html
​

Unless I am mistaken, the fellow in the last photo is Forrest Beuford. this is one of his Langshans, bred to the Standard of Perfection. Or as Forrest would say: STandarrrd of Perrrfectiooonnnn!"

Same breed name, but definetly not the same bird.

​

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

In my opinion, the German Langshan looks almost like an Orpington with Modern legs.

Here is a good example of the different Standards:

Trio of Blue German Langshan Bantams
http://poultrykeeper.com/german-langshan/the-german-langshan/german-langshan-photos.html

http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/CGK/Langshan/BRKLangshan.html
​

Unless I am mistaken, the fellow in the last photo is Forrest Beuford. this is one of his Langshans, bred to the Standard of Perfection. Or as Forrest would say: STandarrrd of Perrrfectiooonnnn!"

Same breed name, but definetly not the same bird.

​

 

[BarnGoddess01]

Quote:

Same thing happens with the Marans. VERY diffierent Standards in the US, England, Holland, Australia, etc. Feathered shanks are a prime example in Marans. Having recently started digging into the genetics of chickens, I am DEFINITELY getting a feel for how many of the breeds are evolving differently in different countries.

 

[BarnGoddess01]

Here is a good example of the different Standards:

Trio of Blue German Langshan Bantams
http://poultrykeeper.com/german-langshan/the-german-langshan/german-langshan-photos.html

​

I purchased a book on genetics from Holland. A picture of Langshans like these ones appeared in it. I honestly did a double take. Took me a few minutes to digest what I was seeing!!!

 

[Robert Blosl]

Those are some unbalanced bantams with their modern game legs. If you look at Rhode Island Red bantams in Germany they have legs much like this. Their bodies are great t but goofy legs station. Thank goodness our standards are like they are. Hopefully we can keep our standards like they are and not have a movement of wanting to en crouch the English or German standards onto our birds. I have seen one breed that was brought over here and they looked like Co chins with out feathers on their feet. Not what our for fathers wanted us to have for this breed. bob

 

[warbirds]

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

I just meant that it was odd that of the three Sussex breeds recognized by the APA, only the Red differs in the hackle department from other countries' standards from what I can see so far.
I am doing a lot of digging around, have contacted a couple of breeders in Britain in search of more information on the early origins and if the early Reds had black hackles. I found some interesting information that explained some of the black splotching on the chest that showed up in one line of Reds I've been breeding from, which led to more interesting information on them going extinct in Britain and having to be re-imported from Germany to re-establish the breed in its home country. Ahhhhh...........research...........too bad one can't get paid for that job, I'd do it full time! Well, almost...........gotta have time for the chooks.

I wouldn't ever expect to see poultry breed standards unified around the world.......and I venture the guess that if it were attempted, it could possibly spark WW3!

Doc

 

[warbirds]

I find all the red breeds interesting, the New Hampshire with its three different red shades; the RIR, originally once a sorrel, buff color but now exhibition stock is the darkest of all the red breeds; the Buckeye described as "rich mahogany bay," & color-wise as something between the N.H. and RIR . The undercolor also intrigues me of the RIR (undercolor all red); Buckeye (slate bar only in the undercolor of the back, red in other sections) & then the Red Sussex (slate under-color all sections). I wonder about the play of under-color with surface color and what it all means.

I don't have a dog in the hunt of the "Red Sussex" but took the time to look up a few old publications with some questions:

Quote:
warbirds: . . . 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 . . .
http://books.google.com/books?id=VC...#v=onepage&q=poultry and "red sussex"&f=false

The above "Book of Poultry" 1921 by Thomas Fletcher McGrew seems to indicate above that hackles should be striped in black (though I don't know that U.S.A. publisher means anything or if it is just an American published book describing the British Red Sussex??).

I can't tell about these old pictures the hackles, but I do notice that the cockerel won both in London (1915), then in Chicago (1915) and then also here at Madison Sq. Gardens (1916):
http://books.google.com/books?id=yQ...=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q="red sussex"&f=false

If different descriptions (APA vs. British Standard), why or how would the cockerel win in both countries? Maybe nobody has brought up the black hackle question before? Seems unlikely but you never know.

Very interesting!!! I've been looking in other directions than older publications.........so thanks for the digging!
That first one does bring back that thought...........where did the black hackles go.............
As to the second one with the photos, I blew them up as big as I could get it to go on my screen, but couldn't tell if there were darker feathers on those necks or not.
That said, it is very curious that this bird would win on both sides of The Pond if it differed in any way..................as the old Standard I ordered arrived last night, and I was surprised to discover it is quite a bit older than what I thought I had purchased - it's the 1923 edition! (originally owned by Mr. Ives M. Kregar of Wakefield Kansas, if any historians are interested)
And surprise!!! The standard for the Red Sussex says not a word about black striping on the hackles!
So....................more mystery as to how the bird in the book above could have won in two countries with different Standards, unless one or both countries changed the Standard for the Red after that time.
I'm working on getting my hands on a current British Standard. More Research!
Oh, and of course going to have a bit of fun and learning by comparing the 1923 and the 2010 breed descriptions!
The 1923 doesn't have a rendering of the Red, either, but does have great ones of the Speckled Sussex.

Doc

 

[colby318]

Even though I don't own any, I love reading the different schools of thought on orpingtons. BYC has an ENGLISH orp thread.

 

[fowlman01]

Even though I don't own any, I love reading the different schools of thought on orpingtons. BYC has an ENGLISH orp thread.

I finally found a copy of the British Standard for Orps and it is close to the APA Standard. The Orpingtons that the British judges are picking look nothing like their Standard. It clearly states how low the feathers should be on the thighs and describes the feather quality and that is not what they are picking in shows or exporting to the US. I have no explanation for this. The main difference between the APA and British description is the size of the head and how far the feathers go down the thigh.

Jeremy here on BYC has the British Standard for Orps posted on his website.

Walt