THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION, Apiiil 7, 185 
O I 
Many good exhibitors oscillate between a third and fourth 
prize and a high commendation. If they show four pens 
every one is distinguished, yet they never stand iirst. Some¬ 
times they say they cannot make it out. Well, we can : this 
is another error. The four pens are made up, and scanned 
and criticised, and at last it is agreed very few can show 
four such pens. Quite right, good exhibitor; perhaps no 
one can. “ The usual luck, Sir—third prize, and every pen 
highly commended. Cannot understand it. Mr. Z. shows 
but two pens, and gets first and second.” This is another 
error. If, good exhibitor, you had made up two pens by 
taking the best of your four you would have won. Every 
one who shows for a prize should endeavour to win. To do 
that the very best pen that can be got together should be 
made up—the three or four best birds, as the entries 
may be. It is by grasping at too much that you lose all; 
you make four pens all above mediocrity, instead of one of 
surpassing merit. The next complaint is, “My birds do 
not tell so well as my neighbour’s.” Because you put some 
of your best birds in each pen, and you cannot, therefore, 
afford to sell at a moderate price. Mr. Z. takes the Cup 
with a marvellous pen; on that he puts a prohibitory price. 
He enters three other pens at sums which, while they are 
remunerating to him, are within reach of ordinary buyers, 
consequently they are all sold. That is the difference 
between you and Mr. Z. 
BANTAMS. 
I read with considerable interest the remarks by “A 
Wiltshire Poultry-keeper,” in The Cottage Gardener 
of the 10th, on the classes of Bantams. I regret that so 
little has of late been said respecting this very interesting 
portion of the fancy. Why should not Bantams rank as 
high as other varieties of fancy poultry ? Hamburgh 
fanciers report to us the wonderful egg-producing qualities 
of their favourites; Dorking, the advantages theirs possess 
ever others for culinary purposes ; Cochins as winter layers; 
Spanish as laying the largest eggs; Game as good for 
culinary use, as well as the superior quality of their 'eggs. 
Neither are the Polish forgotten by their many admirers ; 
but more appears to be said with regard to perfection in 
plumage than any useful quality. Malays have a few friends, 
who cannot say much for their beauty ; their other virtues 
are best known to those who keep them. 
I am often amused by seeing how tenaciously the lover of a 
particular variety sticks to the text that his favourites are the 
best for this or for that, when, after all, they are kept for no 
such purpose as represented. If poultry were kept only for 
the eggs they laid and the fineness of their chickens, the 
cross breeds worth from two to three shillings would take 
the place of those pure-bred beauties, worth, perhaps, twice 
as many pounds. We sometimes find a poultry-keeper—he 
can scarcely be called a fancier—announcing to the world 
that a cross between Spanish and Dorking or Spanish and 
Cochin produces the largest and greatest number of eggs. 
He wonders why there is no prize given to such birds, they 
being the most useful. Is he an exhibitor ? No; but keeps 
fowls that lay the best, and cares not whether they are 
black, yellow, or white. 
The majority of articles that we read in The Cottage 
Gardener are written by exhibitors, and I wish to class all 
poultry kept for exhibition as fancy poultry. Such being the 
case, why are not Bantams as deserving of cups and prizes 
as any other variety ? They pay the same entrance, take up 
less room, are less expensive to Committees, and yet they are 
insulted with a less prize than their giant neighbours. 
Now, is this right? In common justice to my favourites I 
say it is not; and unless better encouragement is offered to 
Bantam breeders how can we expect to find perfection in 
their various classes ? Wherever liberal prizes are offered 
there we find them muster well, and they are not the least 
attractive part of an exhibition; on the contrary, we always 
find the Bantam classes thronged with admirers. I was 
particularly struck at the last Birmingham Show with the 
attractive powers of the Game varieties, more especially 
the Duckwings. They seemed to elicit universal praise; and 
what variety is more deserving admiration ? The model of 
an English Game cock in miniature, strutting about as bold 
as a lion, he has confidence sufficient to encounter any 
13 
intruder upon his walk. The hens are models of Game 
both in colour and habits; they are tight, hard-feathered, 
wonderful mothers, very hardy, and lay as well as any other 
varieties. 
At present Game Bantams are scarce, and command a 
high price; but I hope before long to see classes for Duck¬ 
wing and Black-breasted Reds at our principal exhibitions— 
then they will be better represented. I have no wish to rank 
Game higher than others, but should, for one, like to see 
them placed on an equality with their neighbours. 
I was a little surprised at some of the remarks on the 
Laced varieties by the “ Wiltshire Poultry-keeper.” He 
says, “ Some Laced Bantams have merely the tip of the 
feather touched with black.” I do not call these laced; 
they are spangled. I have often noticed such a variety. 
The cock is very much like a Golden-spangled Hamburgh, 
with a broad double comb, spotted breast, and a beautiful 
flowing tail, having no resemblance to the square tail of the 
Laced breeds. The hens are a rich gold colour, each 
feather spangled with black, and not laced. 
The points in Black and White are well described, but I 
should like to have seen something said about the “ ear¬ 
lobe ” in Black Bantams. For my part I do not consider it 
a point in breed, but certainly think it adds very much to 
the beauty of a pen. I have seen birds with the red ear 
that would be difficult to beat, and do not think it right that 
other points of excellency should be sacrificed for this one. 
The colour of the legs should be black or slaty. I prefer the 
wings of both Black and White to be well up to the body, 
not drooping. 
I have no doubt fanciers will have different opinions, and 
should be very glad to see, through the medium of your 
valuable paper, an expression as to the requirements of 
each variety.—D andy. 
PIGEONS. 
(Continued from page 452.) 
Class 3, Variety 5.— HIGH-BRED FANCY SHORT¬ 
FACED TUMBLERS. 
The High-bred or Short-faced Tumblers are of all the 
foregoing varieties of colour, and may be met with of most 
of the markings belonging to the commoner sorts. Their 
principal difference consists in their delicate form, diminutive 
size, and the accuracy with which they approach the standard 
laid down by the gentlemen of the fancy. This standard 
relates to five points, namely, the head, the beak, the eye, 
the carriage or shape, and the feather, or colour and mark¬ 
ing. I will endeavour to condense the rules for these five 
properties. 
The head should be round, broad, and high, that is to say, 
having a full forehead, rising abruptly and rather overhang¬ 
ing the beak, so as to form an acute angle where the head 
and beak join, or, as the fanciers say, have a good stop—a 
similar fancy to that of the spaniel dog fanciers; and, if I 
am not misinformed, both fanciers resort occasionally to the 
practice of breaking the beak or nose when young to im¬ 
prove the stop ; but this often gives the birds an up-beaked 
look. The skin over the nostrils, or wattle, as the fanciers 
call it, must be very fine and narrow, so as to cause but little 
division between the beak and the feathers of the head, 
which should have the appearance of rising erect from the 
base of the tiny beak. Mr. J. M. Eaton says, “ And still 
further to add to the beauty and finish of the head, the 
feathers under the eye and about the lower jaw should be 
full and a little curved upwards, which is called ‘muffy.’” 
The beak of a superior Short-faced Tumbler should not 
exceed five-eighths of an inch, measured from the iris of the 
eye to the end of the quick of the beak, but the shorter 
the better, straight, and fine, and it has been compared to that 
of a goldfinch. Paring or cuffing the beak is resorted to by 
some dishonest persons; but it is generally easily to be de¬ 
tected by practised eyes, and spoils the appearance. If the 
young are reared by too coarse nurses they often have their 
beaks wrenched or twisted, which makes them unsightly or 
parrot-beaked. 
The eye should be of the brightest and clearest pearly 
