6b 



FANCIERS' JOURNAL AND POULTRY EXCHANGE. 



as well in the United States as in England, and the propo- 

 sal to repeat it met with deserved ridicule from every one 

 who knew what fowls and judging really were. The idea is a 

 fascinating one to those who have not any practical knowl- 

 edge of such things ; hut nearly all skilled fanciers have long 

 given it up. This may be called the "empirical " method 

 of making a scale, and I do, as Mr. Woodward remarks, 

 consider that all such attempts "must bo failures." For 

 their course must be somewhat as follows : Either the old 

 scale of points, or some one prepared by a deputed authority, 

 must be brought as a basis before the meeting or convention. 

 Then the numerical values given to the various points must 

 be discussed ; and one skilled breeder thinks some one point, 

 perhaps color, " ought " to have more numerical valuegiven 

 to it than the draft scale allots. After some debate, per- 

 haps, this is unanimously agreed to. Then some one else 

 thinks that another point " ought" not to have so much ; 

 and this too is settled one way or another. At last the 

 various values are all decided as the convention, or at least the 

 majority of it, think they "ought" to be ; and there will 

 always be a little weakness for arranging these values in 

 even "fives," and to bring them to add up exactly the 100, 

 so that the scale may be symmetrical, compact, and " look " 

 well. 



Now what I mean is, that such purely theoretical scales 

 thus " fixed " by meetings or conventions will be found use- 

 less. If a really good and heavy class is judged by them 

 — really, practically, and truly, and not any professedly — the 

 awards that result will be evidently wrong to any first-rate 

 authority on the breed which may be so judged. It will be 

 found that the real values cannot be thus " fixed " round a 

 table, and by what people think they " ought " to be. 

 Some will be nearer than others, no doubt ; but it will be 

 found that mere opinions, taken in this way, in more or less 

 ludicrously out in its reckoning. Real, evident, good judg- 

 ing somehow won't square with it. It is very provoking ; it 

 " ought " to, but it won't. I began myself, of course, with 

 the very best theoretical scales I could frame, but I do not 

 remember one among them all wbich had not to be exten- 

 sively modified; my own mere "opinion " of the values in 

 a scale shared the same fate as those which had gone before 

 me. My " views " would not, any more than those of 

 others, square with the practice of good judges, and very soon 

 I had to confess the fact. 



But, on the other hand, I did find that good judging was 

 pretty consistent; there is always a proposition of judging 

 that is evidently not good, and whenever I came across a 

 ease of this kind I never hesitated to strike it out of the 

 calculation altogether. My principle was this : Taking 

 any scale as corrected to that time so far as I could perfect 

 it, I came to any given class, and considered whether it was 

 consistent with the awards. If it was, I took courage ; if 

 not, I considered whether the awards were correct or not, 

 and very possibly found that I should myself have allotted 

 the awards in the same way. They were evidently right, 

 but they would not square with my scale. Then I had to 

 alter something in the scale, and perhaps found that such 

 alteration harmonized the judging in that particular class — 

 say a class of pullets — but perhaps made the awards in a 

 class of hens of the very same breed more inconsistent than 

 ever. I would at last find that some point must be di- 

 vided into two separate features, or some entirely new point 

 added to the old standard ; and thus, by degrees, I felt my 

 way along. It was weary work enough, and whether the 



result be worth the trouble I must leave for others to decide, 

 only saying that at last scales did emerge from the process 

 which gave myself tolerable satisfaction. 



Now, I do not think scales formed in this way, " must of 

 necessity be failures;" if I did, I should certainly not have 

 given them. I doubt much if any scale can meet every pos- 

 sible case. I do not think those I have given are beyond 

 improvement. I do not think any " fixing" of values by 

 collecting opinions will ever produce a scale of real use. But 

 I do think that all good practice will be found pretty har- 

 monious. I do think such good practice can be patiently 

 studied, and its values for the various points compared and 

 analyzed, and thus by slow degrees tabulated. And while 

 I do not think classes can ever be really judged by such 

 scales, merely for want of time, besides other reasons, I think 

 that for cheeking grossly erroneous awards, or for private 

 study or guidance, they maybe, to the young fancier especi- 

 ally, almost invaluable. It will be seen at once that much 

 loving study, and considerable time, must be consumed in 

 constructing a scale in this way ; but I should have, after my 

 own experience, very small respect for any other ; and I 

 would at least attempt earnestly to dissuade from any other 

 method, the fanciers of America. 



Such are my views, which I hope I have made clear 

 enough to be understood. Let it not be thought for a mo- 

 ment that I wish to offer my own set of scales for the adop- 

 tion of Americans. I believe they do, as correctly as scales 

 can, represent good and correct judging, but it is correct 

 English judging. I was gratified beyond expression by the 

 favorable experience of them expressed by Mr. George F. 

 Clark, but not at all surprised to find that in " some " he 

 "does not agree" with my comparative values. It would 

 conclusively have shown error in them if he had, since it 

 was English and not American values which alone I could 

 express. I have not a shadow of doubt, that did I for two 

 years analyze the best American, judging the values as I 

 have given them, would be in some points considerably al- 

 tered. I can see no very especial reason why the standards 

 of our two hemispheres should exactly coincide. All I have 

 at heart is to dissuade fanciers from the useless form of put- 

 ting their mere "opinions " into figures, and deciding the 

 final values by a " majority ; " and to convince them that 

 the only way to have an American standard worth the paper 

 it is written on, is to spend upon it the needful time, pa- 

 tience, and study, to tabulate the practice of American judges. 

 Wherever an award is evidently wrong, throw it out ; but 

 if right, however far your scale be from squaring with it, 

 study where it is wrong till you get it right. Check one good 

 judge by another in this way, and by degrees you will come 

 right, and if you can thus get sound practice analyzed and 

 reduced to correct values, you will have accomplished a work 

 worthy of the effort, and which shall well repay you for all 

 it has cost. 



BUFFALO POULTRY SHOW. 



LIST OF AWARDS. 



The following is a complete list of the awards made at 

 the Fourth Annual Exhibition of the Western New York 

 Poultry Society : 



CLASS 1— ASIATICS. 



LIGHT BRAHMAS. 



Cocks— 1st special premium, W. H. Todd, Vermilion, Ohio- 

 2d premium, George Furness, Auburn, N. Y. 

 3d premium, P. Williams, Taunton, Mass. 



