6d AUN GOL Ey iS) 
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. Theideaisa 
fascinating one to those who have not any practical knowl- 
edge of such things ; but nearly all skilled fanciers have long 
given it up. This may be called the ‘empirical’ method 
of making a seale, and I do, as Mr. Woodward remarks, 
consider that all such attempts ‘‘must be failures.’’? For 
their course must be somewhat as follows: Hither 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 value given 
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. Ifa really good and heayy 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’é 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 which 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 no¢ good, and whenever I came across a 
case of this kind I never hesitated to strike it out of the 
ealeulation 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; 
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 
if 
» 

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. Ido 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 zts 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 checking grossly erroneous awards, or for private 
study or guidance, they may be, 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 havean 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 whereit is wrong till you getitright. 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. 

+2 > 
BUFFALO POULTRY SHOW. 
LIST OF AWARDS. 
Tue 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—Ist special premium, W. H. Todd, Vermilion, Ohio- 
2d premium, George Furness, Auburn, INE 
3d premium, P. Williams, Taunton, Mass. 
