Punnet's idea of "dual purpose" is very different from today's "dual purpose" though. Plus, as a leghorn-based breed they are considered a light fowl, at least as they were intended to be. Not to say we aren't seeing a size problem in that some birds are undersized, just saying don't create a problem that doesn't exist if that makes sense?
I do not believe that this is the creation of a problem. I think it is an issue that has not been addressed. If you take the draft SOP from the club site you have: [COLOR=666154] STANDARD WEIGHTS[/B]
Cock…………………………7 lbs. Hens…………………………6 lbs.
Cockerel…………………..6 lbs. Pullet…………………………4 lbs.
[/COLOR] The assumption is that a female is considered a pullet until it is one year old. My two pullets are 8-9 months old and have started laying. But there is absolutely no way that either of these girls are approaching 4 pounds. Granted there is still some time for them to get to one year. But my cockerels who are two weeks younger than these pullets are already in the 6-7 pound range. They look gigantic next to these two pullets. Dual purpose back in the early to mid twentieth century for chickens meant that they were good for meat production and, oh by the way, really laid a lot of eggs. The dual purpose was essentially meant for meat production in that time period which means that they should have some size and market advantages to be commercially viable. The latter part of the twentieth century is when things really turned around for the classic and developed breeds which nearly resulted in mass extinctions of everything not white leghorn and cornish cross. So my point remains, I think that there is a size issue with the hens of the crested cream legbar that are currently in the USA, assuming, of course, that my two pullets are representative samples of this population.