24 



Fanciers who contend that it caimot be a white Pouter if it has black in the beak, and 

 would disqualify it from showing, although there are not any properties in the head of 

 the Pouter according to the standard laid down. Yet the same Fanciers would allow 

 a black Carrier to be shown with a white beak. Now, where is the consistency, 

 although, according to Mr. Mooke's standard, a Carrier is reckoned to have twelve 

 properties, all in the head, viz., three in the beak, three in the wattle, three in the 

 head, and three in the eye ? The three properties in the beak are to be long, straight, 

 and thick. MoORE and Mayob says nothing of the colour of a Carrier's beak, buo 

 GiRTiN (page 63) says beak a black colour. As there is not any property in the head 

 of a Pouter, and as there is mention as touching the colour of the beak of a Carrier, I 

 think it would be only fair to carry the stain or black beak of the Pouter with the 

 feather, letting the Pouter lose one property, "feather," which is gread odds, one out 

 of five, and proceed upon the other four properties. It was so at the Crystal Palace 

 Winter Show, January, 1858, and showed the judgment of the judges. I would not 

 disqualify a white Pouter, being shown as a white Pouter with a black beak, any more 

 than I would a black Carrier with a white beak. I have seen splendid birds with these 

 beaks. 'Tis possible a cunning Fancier might make a match with a Gentleman 

 Fancier (taking him ofi' his guard) that he would show a black mottle Tumbler against 

 him for the five properties. This cunning Fancier might put in a bird that cost Is., 

 calculating he might find a grizzle feather in the bird of his opponent, although the 

 owner would not take many pounds for it, and declare that his opponent had lost the 

 match by stating his bird was a grizzle and not a black mottle. Unfortunately there 

 are few such men in the Fancy, and men that know what birds are, they are cunning 

 men, not Gentlemen Fanciers. If a wager was made to show a Pouter, for all pro- 

 perties, and a white Pouter put in with a black beak, taking three properties out of 

 five, would win. But if a wager was made to show the best white Pouter, the party 

 losing might demur, by stating the other was not a white Pouter, having a stain beak, 

 although, generally speaking, the colour of the beak nins with the colour of the feather 

 of the bird. If it is not a white Pouter, then, what is it ? There are excellent Carrier 

 Fanciers who prefer a streaky beak on a black Carrier, and some will go so far as to 

 prefer a few white feathers underneath, near the anus or vent, believing the birds 

 coming from a better strain. Almond Fanciers prefer a Kite, with a white beak, 

 rather than the colour of the bird, as more likely coming from two Almonds. Again, 

 generally speaking, an Almond has a white beak, but where an Almond has a deal of 

 black in its break, it often happens that it has a stained, dark, or even a black beak. 

 Some Fanciers, to answer their purpose, would even, if they dare attempt it, say it was 

 not an Almond with a black beak. Then, what is it ? some would say a splash. If it 

 is an Almond, it is an Almond, although it may have a splash or stain beak. There ig 

 no accounting for the crotchets some Fanciers have got into their heads. For instance, 

 a pair of Tumblers ; you know the cock has five properties, the hen also five properties, 

 making ten, whether good or bad, that is to be decided by the judges, provided they 

 are up to their work, as laid down by the standard. You know a pair of Carriers have 

 also between them ten properties ; also a pair of Pouters. Therefore, if either a pair 

 of Tumblers, Carriers, or Pouters can take six properties out of the ten, ought by all 

 means out of common honesty to have the prize awarded to them. It is evident the 

 birds shown against them had good properties, and kept the pair in check, otherwise 

 the pair that took the prize would have taken more properties. It is possible, if a pair 

 of Tumblers lost two properties, they were a broken or bad eye, and a wry beak. 

 Simply to disqualify birds from contending for prizes on this account, viz., from a 

 broken or bad eye, or from a wry beak, only proves that the judges are not, and never 

 were, up to the mark. For once a thorough good Fancier, always a good Fancier, 

 though infirmities may grow upon them that they cannot get about their avaries or 

 lufts as they did fifty years ago, yet they do not forget what the properties of birds 

 ought to be. You might equally as well with justice disqualify a pair of Carriers with 

 hooked and spindle beaks, or with pinched eyes, as a Tumbler with a wry beak, or a 

 bad eye from whatever cause ; or disqualify a pair of the finest English Pouters ever 

 witnessed simply because they do not exactly match in colour of Feather and markings, 

 viz. — chap, bib, pinion, chain, clear thighed, after all only one property out of five ; 

 provided I could find language to rivet it on your mind. By all means, look for the 

 bad properties of the birds, the good ones will shew at sight, with truth and honesty 

 give the properties to the birds that possess them ; above all things do not disqualify 



