Standard?

[Dingo 0]

on all of the sites I've been to about english budgies I have seen mutation pics, but never see a good standard, and it never seems to match what people are breeding(people breeding heavier birds instead of the large breasted slender bodied birds in drawn standards) so does anyone know of a site(preferably from the U.S., unless the standards dont vary from country to country) that has pictures of birds that meet the standard?

[Daz 0]

Dingo it is a funny thing. When breeders get close to the standard they change the standard. We are using a 2003 standard in Australia. I don't know what the Standard is in yours or other countries?

[Dingo 0]

are breeders also breeding to produce birds that look like they have french molt.. or is that what is called buff?

like this bird, I found this picture on a site Hath posted http://www.budgerigarsociety.com/images/ga...s/BIS_205-1.jpg

 

this is why I am confussed about the standard, the bird in the picture looks like what I would consider a poorly marked opaline.. am I wrong in thinking this bird is poorly marked?

is this the kind of bird you would expect to win BIS?

 

I'm not trying to censure anyone but rather understand.

[Rainbow 0]

Dingo, that bird is not an opaline. You may be able to find some good pictures here. I like the type 2 yellowface skyblue on the perch on the left, and the yellowface grey on the right on the main page. :)

 

I am by no means a judge, and do not even pretend to be up on what the standard is. Pictures of the standard look exaggerated to me, and there are probably no birds that are exact to it. None of them should look like they have french molt. Missing flight and tail feathers would be a definite penalty. To constructively critique the bird in the link Dingo posted, I am guessing this:

He does have great depth of mask, which makes him look a little funny when you are not used to seeing it. Maybe even when you are...His spots look to me to have been trimmed for shape, he could have had too many, or the feather could have been the wrong shape. It does also look like the feathers around his legs are too long, maybe that is buff? His back line could be a little straighter, his beak a little more tucked in, but the angle of the photograph has a lot to do with that. I think he could be a little straighter in his stance, and if he were the beak and the blow would would probably correct itself.

I would like to understand a bit better about the standards myself. I have read them, but it is easier for me to see and understand than just read and understand. Daz, hath, can either of you critique my critique?

[Daz 0]

Hi Dingo, Rainbow is correct that isn't a opaline. Here is a very good spot for information on standards PHT's Budgerigar World.

It discribes the differences in a good bird and a poor bird.

 

As I put and rainbow discussed there are no birds that have reached "The Standard". When they do, the powers to be change the standard to make it harder to reach. The other thing to remember is this. Do Beauty Queens use make up. Dam right they do. So do show budgies. Before you show a bird you must dress them.

 

The photo of the cock you put up has been dressed to look his best.

 

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a26/darrylw/CBS-4357.jpg

 

 

These are three of my birds that have been dressed.

Edited November 20, 2006 by daz

[Bea 0]

This might be a dumb question but what does "dressing" a budgie involve?