Judging Carriers. 
93 
It has been impossible to derive these values from any recognised judging; there being none 
such, uniform enough to be of service, accessible for examination ; but we have carefully tested 
them practically, both upon birds we have considered correctly judged, and the reverse; and 
can affirm that they do, practically and really, represent what our judgment would be between 
competing birds. 
It will be seen that we differ seriously from the values given by the “ National Columbarian 
Society,” who have attached the greatest number of points to eye-wattle, whereas we have given 
that priority to beak-wattle. We can only say that the “ National Columbarian Society’s” values, if 
applied honestly, will utterly fail to give satisfaction in practice to any good judge or fancier of 
Carriers. All such practically lay the most stress upon beak-wattle, as we have done, being 
most difficult to produce, and the longest in arriving at perfection. We should have allotted more 
than two points for space between the eye and beak-wattle, but that we found it held out practically 
too much encouragement to an artificial production of this point, and we have desired in our scale 
not only to afford sound material for judging, but to guard against a bird artificially got up having 
too much chance against another. In this very case, for instance, the two points allowed for the 
clear space are sufficient in the case of genuine birds ; and yet, although in the case of a genuine 
bird competing against an “improved” one, the latter might gain either one or even both the 
points for this property, the genuine one having both wattles crowded together, yet the genuine 
one, if really the best, would more than gain the lost points in size of wattles, as it takes a 
considerable quantity cut off to make the desired space ; and if a bird can stand this, and yet have 
enough left to show large and well-formed wattles, he is probably really the best, and ought to win. 
The same remark may apply to narrowness of skull, to which we should have given somewhat 
more value, but that we found on application to certain “doctored” specimens, it gave them an 
unfair advantage. We mention these things in order to show that the scales here given, though 
not formed from recognised judging (since there has been none), have really been carefully tested 
in every practicable way. 
Our views upon judging the form of skull have been sufficiently given in an earlier part of this 
chapter. We do not of course mean by what we have there stated, that if one bird have a skull 
fairly narrow, and only a little wider behind than in front, it is to be considered worse than a bird 
broad in skull, which is alike in front and back as regards width. That would be unfair ; but 
parallel sides or eye-wattles, with moderately narrow dimensions, are to rank before extreme 
narrowness in front only. 
The values we have given to length of legs and thighs we have found by constant experience 
to be necessary. It is for want of due stress on this property that we see so many bad-carriaged 
birds; and we have preferred to divide “carriage,” as too indefinite, into its component parts, 
which can in this form be much easier judged and estimated. 
In all judging by such a scale as this, the judge should carefully estimate what he thinks that 
point actually deserves, as compared with a bird supposed to be perfect, and deduct one or more 
points accordingly. This will be the easier, in that the real judging will almost always be found 
to lie between a few specimens, which are readily picked out by eye even from a large class, 
without attempting to judge the whole by scale. The few selected for honours, on the contrary, 
however the judge may proceed, should be most carefully compared ; and the best plan we are 
acquainted with, whenever the class is large, is to have a large pen or cage of at least three feet 
square, at the height of about four feet from the ground, and mounted on wheels so as to be readily 
moved. In this cage two birds at a time can be placed for comparison, point by point ; and if 
committees would provide such a pen for their judges it would really save much time, and enable 
