128 THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



2. If you received a shipment of honey with no sections poorer 

 than the one shown in the Rkvikw as Xo. 1, would you accept it as 

 a shipment of No. 1 honey? If not, why? 



3. If you received a shipment of honey with no sections poorer 

 than the one shown in the Review as Xo. •;!, w<:iukl yoiv accept it as 

 a shipment of No. 2 honey. If not, why? 



4. What ol)jection is there to using pictures to designate the 

 grades? 



The replies which follow will show the producer what he has 

 been up against in regard to selling his honey. You will be better 

 able to know the real need for a more uniform grading standard, 

 and just why I am anxious to thresh this matter out imtil there is 

 no such variation in opinions both among the producers and buyers, 

 for you will get some producers' opinions before this is finished. I 

 feel that this is of enough importance so that it should be given 

 plenty of time to be discussed. 



lilake-Lee Co., Koston, Mass.. replied "yes" to each of the three 

 questions, and in reply to the fourth, said "None except color." 



R. A. Burnett & Co., Chicago, 111., say: "Replying to your 

 question X^o. 1, would say: If we received a shipment billed as 

 fanc_y honey with sections in it such as the one in question, we 

 should reject it, for the reason that there should l)e no imperfections 

 in fancy honey; however, it would pass in Xo. 1 h(jncy as about the 

 poorest section permissible therein. Hence, in our notion of how 

 honey should be graded, you should shove out Xo. 2 as luimer- 

 chantable fc^r the three grades you desire, and insert over the cap- 

 tion "fancy" more nearly perfect sections and place the present one 

 in No. 1 grade, and the Xo. 1 in Xo. 2. \A'e do not know of any 

 objection to using pictures to designate the grade." 



Rather a different reply than the one first quoted, isn't it? Here 

 is another different idea regarding grading, where a fancy grade is 

 condemned. Good arguments, too. Presented by C. C. Clemons- 

 Produce Co., of Kansas City, yio.: 



"In reply to your favor of the 2oth inst., in regard to the grad- 

 ing of comb honey, will say: In the first place we are not in favor 

 of making a fancy grade of comb honey ; for one reason the word 

 'fancy' means a whole lot; another reason the opportunities are too 

 great for rejecting a car if the market was not just right, and still 

 another reason is that after making a fancy grade you have left 

 only an ordinary grade of No. 1 and a very poor grade of X'o. 2. 



"In regard to your first picture, according to Colorado grading 

 rules, it would grade No. 1 ; the second picture is not any too good 

 for Xo. 1 grade, and the third not a very good No. 2, and a carload 

 all like that would hardly pass for No. 2 ; it would make a better No. 

 3 ; the main reason, hardlv half of the comb adheres to the section. 



