The 1910 Standard – Reliable Poultry Journal 1911

We had intended to make up a report telling how the 1910 “Misfit” Standard happened—giving facts so for as We know them—hut we should judge that we would better wait until all the facts have come out. Recent developments have caused us to take this interesting position. For example October 5th we were in Chicago on business and received the following telegram from Franklane L. Sewell, artist:

“Niles. Mich. Oct. 5, 1911. “Grant M_ Curtis, Chicago, 111.: “Interesting discovery . Concerns all Standard illustrations, Hope possible for you to stop at Niles at least one train. I’ll explain fully. Need your counsel. Letter following. Wire train to meet. F. L. SEWELL.”

The letter referred to in Mr., Sewell‘s telegram came to hand the next day— at Chicago—and read as follows:

“Niles, Mich.. Oct, 5, 1911.

“Dear Mr., Curtis: “Mr. Kimmey was here last Friday. He brought with him all the Plymouth Rock originals that I last made for Standard copy (1910 Standard of Perfection) BUT the original of the Barred Rock male.

“All Standard illustration copies, I learn, Were returned to A. P. A., except that of the male Barred Plymouth Rock. Naturally I knew A. P. A. would require the return of this original from the printers. It took me the longest of any to accomplish, Was one of the very best (see what Mr. Russell said of it at St. Louis on page 67. Proceedings of 1910 meeting). and I could not duplicate it for twice the amount, even if I had the time.

“On examination of the Dominique male illustration (in the 1910 Standard) in comparison with this, with Barred Rock male POINTED TO A REASON WHY the Barred Rock male copy could not be returned by the printers.

“I took the car for Morgan Park (home of Mr. Fred L. Kimmey, chairman of the committee of five on editing and publishing the 1910 Standard) yesterday morning and with Mr. Kimmey examined the originals, which had been sent by ex-President Bryant from Denver A, P. A. convention meeting,

‘I am sending enclosed an outline of the male ‘Dominique’ illustration in 1910 Standard to show you what, on close examination. became evident to Mr, and Mrs Kimmey and myself.

“First, the. original of the Barred Plymouth Ruck copy appeared on nearly all but the SHADED parts.

“Second. on the left side a long strip was added to make the larger tail of the Dominque possible.

“Third. the face and wattles and beak were finished over a piece that was posted on.

“Fourth, the comb was drawn on.

“Fifth, the shaded parts show the changes made.

“If you can possibly find time before you return from Chicago to spend an evening with Mr, Kimmey, I believe you would find this an interesting study. I wish you could see for yourself and verify all that appeared to Mr. Kimmey and myself.

“If any one doubts that this (American Dominique male in 1910 Standard) is actually faked on the original Barred Rock copy, ask Mr. Kimmeiy to wash off (a. very little) of my original where I have made the two X crosses on the neck or thigh. If a copy (of this Barred Rock male) was desired, you see a photo enlarged should have been made and saved A. P. A.’s expensive original copy.

“Mr. Kimmey says the printers were instructed to copy in wash drawing from the Dominiques in the old Standard in making Dominique pictures for the 1910 Standard) and that Mr. Campbell sent copy for the printers to use. This was done in the case of the female, by the printers, as per orders.

“Mr. Kimmey says that a meeting of the publishing committee is pretty sure to be called to meet at Boston; I trust nothing will persuade them from that point. then the committee can call in the printers and look into such matters as this-and other changes on outlines on other Standard illustration copy. I need your counsel on what course should be taken if the committee meets,

“Mr. Kimmey showed me what the printers term a ‘sworn statement’ in support of their claim that NOTHING was done to the drawings but the air brush work on the backgrounds.

“It (the sworn statement) is signed by a young lady who worked for the engravers and who no doubt did nothing at the air brush work on the copies— and that is all the sworn statement covers.

“The work on several of my originals— and others-shows plainly that a good deal of work was done by some artist after the air brush work, cutting. trimming, etc,, was done. Murray & Emery’s (the Boston printers) letters to me ATTEMPT TO HIDE THIS FACT.

“Mr. Kimmey says that W. Harry Smith (the name engraved on the Dominique and Buckeye illustrations in the 1910 Standard) was the artist employed by the printers. If you could see the air brushed or outlined drawings in my possession now you would be interested in connecting these pages, in the ‘history of Standard making.’

“Dear old kind-hearted Mr. Kimmey could not see all that went on way down east, Nor do I presume to doubt generous Colonel Bryant. He no doubt did the very best he could—as he saw it,

“I am glad after all that has transpired that truth finally does out. and that this attempt at a Dominique male picture has turned the search light upon a number of points in the illustration department that up to the present had appeared somewhat confusing. –

“I hope that our good friend. Mr. Kimmey. will yet live to help in the building of many good Standards for judging fancy fowls and that past experiences will prove helpful to those who may have the work in hand.

“I do hope on can see Mr. Kimmey and the Stanard ideals—also that you can spend a little time at Niles. if only an hour or two—better if you could rest a night with us. Meanwhile, as you have often so kindly written to me. don’t lose a. minute’s genuine rest. I feel a whole lot better since the truth has come out so plain.

“With sincere regards from all the Sewells. Faithfully yours, FRANKLANE L. SEWELL.”


Could Not Stop off at Niles

We wrote Mr. Sewell that we could not manage to stop off at Niles to see him, but invited him to come to Chicago for an interview it he desired to do so. Niles is about seventy-five miles from Chicago. Mr. Sewell did not make the trip—not at that time—but wrote us October 7 as follows:

“I hardly felt like imposing on your time at Chicago—unless you thought it best. Besides. your time might be more at liberty in Buffalo where I trust I can see you on the way to the committee meeting, if they meet in Boston or some other eastern point. After what I wrote you, you may see what to advise.”

Later in the month we learned that Chairman Kimmey had called a meeting of the editing and publication committee for Boston, Wednesday. October 25th, and on Monday, October 23rd. Mr. Sewell visited Chicago where we were again located on business. He brought with him the Plymouth Rock and Leghorn originals—the big sketches executed by him. from which the half tone plates were made that were used in printing the first edition of the 1910 Standard of Perfection. except the sketch of the Barred Plymouth Rock male—which sketch was still down east somewhere. probably in the hands of Murray & Emery, printers.

By far the worst-mutilated sketch in the possession of Mr Sewell at the time we saw him, October 23rd, was that of the White Plymouth Rock male. Mr. Sewell‘s beautiful art work on this sketch had not been merely altered and added to—it had been literally butchered. The person or so-called artist who did the work of alteration and addition was not even a good commercial artist, judging by his workmanship, let alone being a well posted or experienced poultry artist.

This White Rock picture was not right in the first place. was not in accordance with the instructions given Mr. Sewell at St. Louis—not as we understood those instructions; but the printer-artist in Boston bunglingly destroyed what merit the picture did possess. it is clear enough that in doing the air brush work on the back-ground—a really needless operation—the outlines of this sketch were obliterated through careless work and then someone had to be called in to replace the outlines. This accounts for the two feathers added to the tail— Leghorn feathers instead of Plymouth Rock feathers. No wonder Mr. Sewell was grieved—no wonder that he feels that a serious injustice was done him.

Other sketches shown to us by Mr. Sewell exhibited the same bungling handiwork. Combs had been changed in an attempt to restore lost outlines; beaks had been altered, notably the beaks of the Brown Leghorn male, Brown Leghorn female and Buff Cochin male: breast and other body outlines had been increased or decreased as much as a thirty-second of an inch—sometimes extended. in other cases contracted. These are serious liberties to take with finished art work. such as Franklane L. Sewell produces. Shadows had been destroyed. high lights changed, comb points sharpened and heavy, harsh lines were introduced repeatedly.


Charged $40.00 for Spoiling a $50.00 Sketch

The printers, Murray & Emery – Mr. Sewell informed us – collected for the art work of Harry W. Smith, the young man in their employ who did the American Dominique and the Buckeyes with the shoebutton orbs and strawberry comb.  For the American Dominiques they charged forty dollars per sketch – the price paid Artist Graham for his sketches of the parti-colored varieties.  In other words, they charged the association forty dollars for ruining Mr. Sewell’s fifty dollar Barred Plymouth Rock sketch.  They also charged forty dollars for working up the female American Dominique, using the line drawing picture from the 1905-1906 Standard as the basis for this operation.

What Messrs. Murray & Emery were paid for the freak pictures of Buckeyes, we do not know.  W. Harry Smith in making these pictures omitted to look at the Standard description for Buckeyes, otherwise he would have learned that Buckeyes have pea combs, not an imitation rose comb, shortened up until it looks like a mashed strawberry. Needless to say. these Buckeye pictures were not approved by the editing and publication committee—which committee, as such, did not see the Buckeye caricatures until the new Standard in complete form had been placed on sale.

The “sworn statement,” as submitted by the Boston printers, does not cover the case. It probably is true and correct so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough—not by about a mile. For example, it would be absurd-ridiculous —for any one to pretend to claim that Mr. Sewell‘s original sketch of the White Plymouth Rock male was not altered, was not added to, was not butchered. And of course this “sworn statement” omitted any reference to what was done to the original Sewell sketch of the Barred Plymouth Rock male by the printers or engravers in making up the American Dominique male sketch for which they charged the full price of an experienced poultry artist.

We wondered at the tenacity  of W. Harry Smith’s affixing his name -in bold letters to the American Dominiques and the shoebutton Buckeyes – – wondered who he was and how discovered.  But it is now plain to be seen that it was all for the best.  If this young man had not signed his name someone might have thought that a poultry artist had drawn these wonderful pictures – – or perhaps Johnnie Robinson would have tried to fix the blame on the editor of R.P.J.  [ed.  This last little quip by the editor of the Reliable Poultry Journal editor may be lost on most all except poultry historians as it is a dig at John H. Robinson,  editor of the competing Farm Poultry]


Committee to Meet in Boston, Wednesday, October 25th—President Hicks to be Present

As before stated, Chairman Kimmey has called a meeting of the committee of five to be held in Boston October 23th, at which time it is to be hoped this Standard matter can be cleaned up. once and for all. so far as satisfactory illustrations are concerned, in order that a second edition of 25,000 copies can be gotten out at the earliest date practicable, as per motion adopted at the Denver convention. August 7-9).

President Hicks has been writing to Chairman Kimmey and other members of this committee. urging rapid work. He was aware that the sale of Standards has been going on steadily and was informed by Secretary Campbell that the present supply would soon be gone-— probably would not last longer than December 1st. Undoubtedly the present supply of Standards will be exhausted by the first of the new year. And the demand for Standards is very heavy during the months of January, February, March and April of each season.

At first Mr. Hicks did not consider that it was his duty to meet with the committee, feeling that his responsibility ended with due notice to the committee that there was no time to be lost in carrying out the provisions the motion introduced by Mr. Hicks at the Denver convention, which motion was as follows;

“I will make a motion that the 1910 editing and publication committee consisting of Fred L, Kimmey, chairman; C. M. Bryant, D, A. Nichols. F, L. Sewell and W. C. Denny be instructed to get out as soon as  possible a second edition  of twenty-five thousand copies of the 1910 Standard of Perfection: that the chairman be authorized to call the committee together during the present session of the association for the purpose of beginning and, if possible, completing, (preparations for) the work; that this committee shall have the same authority that it originally had and shall do all that it can to complete arrangements with the object of getting out a new edition of the Standard as soon as possible.”

Later, President Hicks decided that he would attend the committee meeting —and all who are interested in the matter will be glad that he, is to do so.


What Mr. Sewell is Willing to do—and is Doing

Mr. Sewell has made a new sketch of a White Rock male and as soon as the defaced and altered original sketches of other Plymouth Rocks and of the Leghorns, as made by  Mr. Sewell have been shown to the members of the committee of five in session at Boston. also to President Hicks, Mr. Sewell will change and correct these sketches—in fact all sketches made by him for the 1910 Standard—making them satisfactory to the other members of the committee of five on editing and publication. and he will do this without expense to the American Poultry Association.

Fortunately for the, association, .M Sewell has a large photograph of his Barred Plymouth Rock male sketch—a photograph that can be touched up and changed here and there so it will reproduce the original, or practically so, and this photograph can then be used in making half—tones for publication in the second edition of the 1910 Standard.  By this process the association will be at small loss on account of the destruction by the printers of the original Barred Rock male. sketch. Furthermore, valuable time can be saved in this way. It required eight and one-half days of hard. steady work on the part of Mr. Sewell to make the original Barred Rock male sketch—which will give our readers some idea of the amount of time he put into his art work for the 1910 Standard.

Let it be understood, in justice to the facts,“ that if the printers and engravers had not touched, in the way of alteration or restoration, anyone of the artists’ sketches delivered to them, we would still have had a “misfit” 1910 Standard, though it would not have been so glaring, so offensive. The art work, at least so far as finish is concerned, would have been satisfactory, but we still would have had a  White Rock male in ‘a crouched position. a Barred Rock female with much too long a body as compared with the other pictures of females of this variety: we still would have had it Silver Wyandotte female with her, tail carried much too high and her legs placed on wrong; still would have had that “big-headed” American Dominique male and those startling Buckeyes.

Letters have been received from Mr. Schilling. now ini Europe, stating that he wiil cheerfully make changes in any pictures he furnished for the 1910 Standard, provided someone in authority will tell him just what is wanted. Mr Burgess wrote a letter to“ us at the time of the A. P. A. convention in  August, addressing it to Denver,,  but this letter was not delivered to us at Denver. It was returned to Quincy, Ill. on account of the “return notice” on the R.P.J. envelope and was forwarded thence to Buffalo.  In this letter Mr. Burgess said he would willingly make changes in the illustrations prepared by him for the 1910 Standard, if he knew what changes were wanted. On receiving Mr. Burgess’ letter some time after the close of the convention, we immediately forwarded a copy of it to Mr. Kimmey.  In his capacity as chairman of the committee on editing and publication.


Latest Word From Mr. Burgess—Oct. 20th Was Still Waiting to Hear From Somebody

October 241th, the date. on which this article was prepared, we received a letter from Mr. Burgess-forwarded to Chicago from Buffalo, reading as follows:

Union Grove. Wis” Oct, 20th, 1911. .

“Dear Mr. Curtis—

“As yet I have heard nothing from the committee as to what work was wanted done on the Standard. Our, winter’s work will soon be at hand and there will be no time for Standard work then.

“I wrote to Mr Kimmey. but had no reply. I for one, want to have my pictures satisfactory in every way, as far as can be expected and to please every one.

“I have moved into my new study and gallery that I have had built on the north side of my house. Things now are so much more convenient and in better shape for my work.

“Hoping to hear from you at your early convenience, I beg to remain, ‘ Yours truly, – I. W. BURGESS.”

The fact that Mr. Burgess, as one of the artists who furnished illustrations for the first edition of the 1911) Standard, had not heard anything from the committee on editing and publication at as late. a date as October 20th, seems quite surprising when considered in connection with the wording of the Hicks motion that was adopted at Denver-in which motion reiterates the provision that no time was to be lost in getting out. a second edition of twenty-five thousand copies, etc.

It appears that the committee, when      it met at Denver, following the adoption of the Hicks motion that called for the publication of a second edition of twenty-five thousand copies of a corrected Standard, decided ‘or felt that“: did not wish to use the sketches that were offered to it, representing “suggested Standard shape outlines,” as recommended or endorsed by a large minority of leading poultry specialists and foremost judges. Perhaps the committee considered that it did not have authority’ to use these sketches. On the other hand, it; may be that a majority on the committee felt that they did not care to recognize them. These sketches- had not been published—they had been reserved for the use and benefit of the A. P. A., provided its officers or any proper committee wished to make such use of them. Under existing conditions the owners of the sketches will of course be at liberty to use them in such manner as they may choose.

At the meeting of the committee held at Denver. Wm. C. Denny, member of the committee, submitted some written suggestions that had been made up by him, by Mr. Sewell and‘by the editor of R. P. J.—this work being done on Thursday, August 10th, the day on which the visiting members of the association took the Moffatt Road trip. These suggestions covered changes— corrections—that in the opinion of Messrs. Denny. Sewell and Curtis, needed to be made in the illustrations of the “Misfit” Standard so that the book would be a true guide for the use of poultry breeders and poultry judges.

The committee considered these suggestions, at least to some extent, and instructed Messrs. Denny and Sewell to make up a report of what they believed ought ‘to be done in correcting the defective illustrations in the 1910 Standard, first edition. Unfortunately Mr, Denny lost the suggestions that had been made up at Denver and that were submitted to the committee. These suggestions were written on yellow wrapping paper—the kind that is used in doing up laundry bundles. The chances are that the maid who cleaned up Mr. Denny’s room at the hotel in Denver threw away these irregular pieces of brown paper, thinking that they had been merely scribbled on and were worthless. On the contrary, they represented several hours of careful, painstaking work.

On learning that these Denver-made suggestions had been lost, Mr. Denny in formed Mr. Kimmey of the fact and told him he would prepare additional suggestions—which we understand was done. From Denver Mr. Kimmey made a trip with his grandson to the Pacific Coast, to Portland, Oregon. It was our understanding that at the first opportunity he had written to the other artists —those not at Denver—and asked them what they would do in the way of correcting any defects in their original sketches. as used in making half-tones that were published in the first edition of the 1910 Standard.

As is known to readers of R. P. J., Mr. Schilling is in Europe. He left for Germany last May or early June to spend five or six months as an art student in his native land. He is expected to return about November 15th. Prior to the Denver meeting, the sketches made by Mr. Schilling that were under criticism had been sent to him in Germany and he agreed to make corrections in these sketches, doing so just as soon as someone in authority would tell him what changes to make.

We do not know whether or not these instructions have yet been sent to Mr. Schilling. As a matter of course they would have to be sent by someone who had the right to tell him what to do. If these instructions could have been for warded to Mr. Schilling at the close of the Denver meeting, his corrected sketches Would have been in America by this time, ready for use in making new halt-tones for the second edition of the 1910 Standard of Perfection.


Our Reply to Mr. Sewell’s Telegram and Letter of October 5th

Following is our reply in full to Mr. Sewell’s telegram and letter to as of October 5th:—

October 5th:— Buffalo. N. Y.. October 12th, 1911. Mr, Franklane L Sewell, Niles, Michigan

Dear Mr, Sewell:

While at Chicago 1 did not attempt to reply to your letter of the 5th inst.. wherein you told of the work of W. Harry Smith, an employee of the Boston engravers—in ruining your splendid sketch of the Barred Plymouth Rock male, doing this to help make a male Dominique for the first edition of the 1910 Standard. Up to the time I left Chicago Monday afternoon, the 9th inst., I thought perhaps you would come to Chicago, as per your telegram and my reply thereto.

However, on returning to Buffalo Tuesday of this week I found your letter of the 7th inst., in which you state that you hardly felt like imposing upon my time in Chicago, unless I thought it best for you to make the trip. Am to be in Buffalo the rest of this week and hope to return to Chicago next Monday evening, the 16th inst., in which case I shall be there the balance of next week. At any time you wish to see me I shall be only too glad to give you any suggestions, or advice that I can in connection with your work for the American Poultry Association as a member of the committee of five on editing and publication,

Must state. however, that I am not well informed as regards what this committee did at Denver, except that Mr, Denny told me after I got back to Buffalo that the committee held a meeting between eleven P. M, and one-thirty A. M. at Denver just previous to Mr. Kimmey’s start for the Pacitic Coast; that he (Mr. Denny) presented to the committee the notes that you and Mr. Denny and I had prepared. embodying our suggestions of what ought to be done as regards improving a considerable number of the important illustrations in the first edition of the 1910 Standard and in obtaining a few new pictures. the latter to include Buckeyes and American Dominiques.

Mr., Denny seemed in doubt just what to do; therefore. 1 took it upon myself to advise him to write Mr., Kimmey and recommend that a meeting of the committee be called at an early date, so that there could be a definite and perfectly clear understanding of what was to be done by the committee and by the artists, Yesterday at luncheon Mr.Denny told me that he had not heard from Mr. Kimmey since the latter’s return from the Pacific Coast-a trip that was begun at Denver after the close of the A.P.A. Convention.

Have had two letters from President Hicks and am taking the liberty of attaching hereto copies of both these letters. also copies of my replies to President Hicks. Mr. Hicks has not consented to my sending you these letters, but 1 do not believe he will object. However. treat the contents as confidential. unless you should obtain his permission to do otherwise.

While you do not state in either of your letters—letters of the 5th and 7th inst., respectively, what counsel or advice it is that you refer to. am of the opinion that you had in mind the question of what you ought to charge the American Poultry Association for additional work you do for it, toward improving the Standard of Perfection, 1910 edition. and for new pictures you may be called on to make, including. for example a new Barred Plymouth Rock male sketch; also what should be done as regards your time. now that the busy season is at hand.

As regards the first matter I must leave that entirely to your personal Judgment and choice. Your former contract was made with the general revision committee of 1909. without any suggestion from me and of course every cent that was paid you by the association you retained as your own property doing so because I insisted upon having it that way, first to last.

You are acquainted with my view as regards what you and the other artists should do in connection with the defective pictures in the 1910 Standard. So far as the artists’ work was incomplete. on account of the pictures never having ‘been submitted to the editing and publication committee for final approval, I believe said pictures should now be completed by the artists, and without cost to e association. provided—as a matter of course—that the sketches are in the same condition they were when they left the hands of the artists. If these sketches shave been altered. defaced or injured through no fault of the artists. then it will be optional with you and the other artists as to whether or not you wish to make charge for the necessary work to restore the sketches to their original condition and then change them, provided ‘the committee on editing and publication wants them changed so they w ll conform more nearly to the motions adopted at the St. Louis Convention, etc.

My view is that the association has the right to have these sketches completed, beginning where the artists left of when the sketches were delivered to (ax-President Bryant—or to Chairman Kimmey, 1 do not know which—because it was clearly understood that the pictures at the prices agreed to be paid for were to be satisfactory to the Association. The editing and publication committee should have made. sure that they were satisfactory. This was not done. therefore. I think that in some cases the art work was not finished. was not completed as per the letter and spirit of the contract. This was not the fault of the artists. as I understand the matter. but the sketches should have been made satisfactory at the prices paid for them.

As regards your time and services. my position is exactly what it has been during the last six or eight years. While, we are not to blame for the short-comings of others. whatever they may be. it still remains our duty. on broad lines. to make any reasonable financial sacrifice in the interests of the poultry fraternity— now as heretofore. [ do not know what work you have in hand nor what promises or contracts you have made. All that I have in mind are the two oil paintings; one that you were to make for D. W Young, the other for Owen Farms. Whether or not you have signed contracts to make these pictures I do not know. Recently I wrote Mr. Lawrence Jackson that we could not send you to his plant to do the photographing he intended to have you do—writing him to this effect in view of your work for the A. P. A_ in connection with the corrected edition of the 1910 Standard. I also wrote Mr, Owen of Owen Farms that you could not be spared to visit his place —and sometime ago i wrote John S. Martin substantially the same thing,

Previous to the Denver meeting I had hoped that the Association would arrange to have the art work on the second edition of the 1910 Standard finished up without a day’s delay, so that within sixty to ninety days after the close of the convention—and ahead of the December Poultry Shows, your work and that of Mr. Schilling could be completed; also the work of Mr. Burgess. Of course. 1 know nothing about the arrangements of Graham or of Mr. Smith, the Boston man. However. it appears that two months have slipped away—highly valuable time that should have been put in on the art work.

At present I am in this position. I do not want to appear to shift the responsibility upon your shoulders; on the other hand I do not want to instruct you to do this, that or the other thing.  Have never assumed that attitude toward you and am not going to begin now. I know what your feeling is toward the regular year after year exhibitors at the New York, Boston and Chicago shows, and I know how disappointed you will be if you should have to give up these three shows. Especially the New York and Boston, doing so on account of art work for the American Poultry Association-art work that should have been gotten out of the way before these show days arrived.

Will say. however. that I wish to have you do just what you think is right and fair, regarding your time and services during the next sixty to ninety days— and probably it will take you that long to do the work expected of you by Chairman Kimmey and his associates, taking into account the necessary delays connected- with committee work, etc. In other words. you are entirely free from any obligations to R.P. J. Pub, Co.. as your employer—thus leaving you in a position to do with your time and services this fall and winter what you desire to do-what you believe is right and for the best.

If I knew what the committee of five intends to do or is prepared to authorize, I could write you more definitely. I have no idea what their intentions are—that is, how much of your work they will re quire,‘ 1 do not know whether they will want your services for two weeks or two months. Was sorry to learn of the ruination of your fine sketch of the Plymouth Rock male; first, because of the loss to the Association; second. because of the additional art work it meant for you, provided the committee decides to have you replace this sketch.

All told it is a sorry situation. I can see no other method of handling it with expedition and fairness. but for President Hicks to take hold and give the matter his best personal attention. It appears that differences of opinion exist among the members of the committee on editing and publication – though how serious may be, I do not know. Yet in the case of this kind someone who is in authority  – like President Hicks – should take vigorous hold and direct matters toward some definite objective point.

in conclusion, whatever you decide to do please be perfectly comfortable in your mind as regards the attitude toward you of the Reliable Poultry Journal Publishing Company and its President.  We shall not be displeased at any arrangements you make that is just to you and to the Association.  It isn’t a question of dealing justly with us.  We are willing to waive our rights, whatever they may be, thus leaving you entirely free to make whatever arrangements with the editing and publications committee, with the finance committee or with President Hicks that you may see fit.

If the committee meets in Boston or at any other point east of Buffalo, shall be glad to have you call to see me if you so desire, or if the committee does not meet this week and you should wish to come to Chicago next week I shall be glad to meet you, or to confer with you and Mr. Kimmey, provided Mr. Kimmey so desires. Any services I can render the committee or the Association will be rendered cheerfully, as heretofore.

With personal regards and best wishes.  Very truly yours.  GRANT M. CURTIS


We owe Artist Burgess an apology— and hereby make it, unreservedly.

Desiring to handle the “Misfit” Standard question in an impartial manner and aiming to place the facts, AS SUCH, before the readers of It. P, J., we used the following language in November issue, page 1119:

“Let it be understood. in justice to the facts, that if the printers and engravers had not touched, in the way of alteration or restoration. any one of the artist’s sketches delivered to them, we would still have had a ‘misl’it’ 1910 Stand ard, though It would not have been so glaring, so offensive_ The art work. at least so far as the finish is concerned. would have been satisfactory, but we still would have had a Silver Wyandotte female with her tail carried much too high and her legs placed on wrong. etc.”

At the time we dictated those words we did not know, did not even suspect that some bungling know-nothing, so far as the standard points of fine fowls are concerned. had been permitted to cut this Silver Wyandotte sketch out of the original mounting given it by Artist Burgess and then to remount the bird with her tail tilted up at a ridiculous angle and with her legs so far out of place that they looked like a deformity.

It now develops that Mr. Burgess was in no way to blame for this Silver Wyandotte freak—hence our apology. It is learned further that every one of Mr. Burgess’ 1910 Standard sketches was tampered with, excepting the White Wyandotte male—a statement that is proved by the fact that Mr. Burgess was required to pay for the so-called “art work.” the total amount being de ducted arbitrarily from the price at which to had agreed (at Chicago, April, 1909) to make the sketches.

And it is now learned. beyond the question of a doubt, that the sketches of the three other artists. Messrs. Sewell, Schilling and Graham, also were tampered with, were altered. disfigured and mutilated in a similar manner—and by equally ignorant hands. The facts follow.


The Committee Meeting at Boston, October 25th

Those who read the report in November R. P. J., page 1117, entitled “More About the Misfit Standard,” will recall that on Monday, October 23rd, Artist Sewell called to see us in Chicago—where we were at work—and displayed the original Plymouth Rock and Leghorn sketches, as made by him for the 1910 Standard, except the Barred Rock male sketch, which sketch had been ruined by the printers at Boston, or by W. Harry Smith (a young man employed either by the printers or by C. M. Bryant, then president of the American Poultry Association) in preparing sketches of the American Dominiques, as published in the 1910 Standard, This Barred Rock sketch, for reasons that now are plain enough, had not been returned to Mr. Sewell.

At that time, October 23rd, Mr. Sewell was on the way to Boston. Mass., to attend a meeting of the Editing and Publication Committee of A. P. A., which committee had charge of getting out the first edition of the 1910 Standard, and now is entrusted with the work or getting out a new edition of 25,000 copies. The meeting was called at Bos ton by Fred. L. Kimmey, Chairman. Reese V. Hicks, new president of the association, was in attendance. So were Committeemen Chas. M. Bryant, David A. Nichols. Wm. C. Denny and Frank lane L. Sewell. Artists Burgess and Graham were not present—had not been invited. Artist Schilling was then in Europe, arriving home November 15th.

Following the Boston meeting, under date November 4th, Mr. Sewell wrote us about the meeting and enclosed some “notes” which he thought ought to be published. Wishing to make sure that what he had said in these “notes” was correct. so far as they concerned his references to the sketches of the other poultry artists, Mr. Sewell asked us to write to Messrs. Burgess and Graham and have them confirm what he had writ ten. provided it was true. to the best of their knowledge and belief.


Mr. Sewell Asks That Other Artists Be Written To

In his letter to us of November 4th Mr. Sewell said:

“I am sending you notes of some length that to me seem proper to open up before the A, P_ A, and poultrymen who read R. P. J. because it is far from desirable, in the interests of poultry progress and of A. P. A. success, that such gross carelessness in handling A. P. A. Standard publication should occur again. The more I look over those ideals the more outrageous it proves to be. and I certainly could not be induced to under take any of it again if I knew the drawings were to be so tampered with.

“1 have not the slightest doubt that all I have written is correct, nor do I believe any of the committee doubted it, but to make ABSOLUTELY SURE that the artists, BURGESS AND GRAHAM, will back up the same observation regarding their pictures BEING CUT OUT and remounted—also their names signed by the artist who made the new back ground on which their study of the bird was mounted, will you, personally, get a. letter from each of them confirming the observation that I have described, before it is published—if you think it advisable to put it into print.

“I have been Just as easy as I could on the eastern end of it, my only object being the hope that A, P. A. will not again fall into hands that will treat its property and publication so insensibly.


R.P.J. Asks Artists For Facts—So Far As Known to Them

November 9th we mailed a copy of Mr. Sewell’s “notes” to each of the other three poultry artists, Messrs. Burgess, Graham and Schilling, calling attention to Mr. Sewell’s request. as made in the second paragraph of his letter to us of November 4th—above quoted. In our letter to the three artists we said— this quotation being from our letter to Mr. Burgess, the other two letters being substantially the same:

“In R. P. J. for November you will find an article by the undersigned, entitled ‘More About the Misfit  Standard.‘ In DECEMBER R. P. J. I wish to print Mr. Sewell’s notes; also the above quotation from his letter and should like to print a letter from you on the subject also letters from Messrs Schilling and Graham. Am writing Messrs. Schilling and Graham today the same kind of a letter that this one is—making the same request.

“As part of the December article, which I think might well be entitled ‘The Artists Now Have Their Inning.’ I think favorably of reprinting the letters written some time ago by Messrs. Schilling and Graham, so that the public may know that they had observed some time ago these defects and alterations in their art work, What I wish to do and all I wish to do in this connection is to place the FACTS, the actual truth before the interested public, hence this request for your assistance in the matter.”


Mr. Sewell’a Notes—And They Make “Interesting Reading”

Following are the “notes” written by Mr. Sewell and enclosed by him with his letter to us of November 4th:

“Since the Revision Committee recommended, and the Association decided. that the progress of the times called for half-tone pictures to illustrate the ideals in the Standard of Perfection, members of the Editing and Publishing committee have made certain observations, during their experience of publishing the book. that should point toward ways and methods of procedure and execution and avoid some of the mistakes and short comings that entered into the pictorial records in the first edition of .the 1910 Standard.

“There were two principal reasons why a number of the illustrations, as published, were not entirely satisfactory either to the artists who made the original ideal pictures for reproduction or to members of the American Poultry Association, who were experts on the breeds represented,

“First, on account of limited time. the artists’ ideal studies for the standard illustrations, could not be submitted and receive due criticism and correction before publication, This was brought out and discussed at length during the last annual convention of the Association at Denver.

“A subsequent reason that had not been entirely uncovered up to the time of that meeting, was that the printers in charge of bringing out the book did not consider, evidently, the subjects of the illustrations in hand to be of sufficient importance to require trained poultry artists to execute the work upon pictures, where new backgrounds were desired and in consequence of the way these air-brushed back grounds were put on. retouching over the outlines became necessary in many of the illustrations, and this was allowed to be done by artists entirely ignorant of poultry illustration, as required in ideal standard work.

“On the first appearance of the new Standard it became evident that a. number of the pictures had been more or less tampered with—enough to take from them the exact detail—in parts of their outlines. To what extent this had occurred was not a matter of immediate investigation excepting in one case—the White Plymouth Rock male. When Mr. Bryant and myself on Monday. following the last Boston show, went to see my original for this picture. I could see that the work of another band had materially changed it. At that time the printers claimed that their artist had worked only upon the hack-ground,

“Later. on March 9th, after further inquiry, the printers wrote-‘Our artist only worked on background of drawing— bird was not touched in drawing.’

“On March 20, the printers further wrote me; ‘Replying to your recent letter, we can give you no further information than already given. The firm of engravers who made the cuts employ their own artists, who work on their premises, and they have sworn that no work was done on the picture except to air-brush the background.‘

“On March 21, the printers wrote me: ‘As regards work on original picture. we can only refer you to a sworn statement sent to Mr. Bryant shortly after your visit to our office, in which the engravers state that no work was done on picture, except in air-brushing the back ground.’

“March 25th, the printers again wrote: ‘Regarding the drawings (note that in this letter they wrote drawings). we can positively state that while these pictures were on our premises they were not tampered with in any manner. In fact were not handled except by one or two of our office employees who have no interest in hens uncooked.’

“At the meeting at Denver this motion was passed, August 10, 1011: ‘Mr. Sewell shall be allowed to take any of his pictures he wishes to change with out expense to the Association, All artists shall be allowed to take any of their pictures and be allowed to change without expense to the Association.’

“This came out of the fact that it was recognized that many of the artists‘ ideals would need certain restoration after the work placed upon them at Boston, in order that they might be re produced with outlines as originally sent out by them—and that the artists desired to make such restoration, where possible.


“Barred Plymouth Rock Male Ideal Missing—What the Sworn Statement Covered.

“When the originals of the Plymouth Rocks and Leghorns were placed in my hands for improvement I was informed that the Barred Plymouth Rock male ideal had not been returned from the printers.

An examination of those originals showed that outlines on several of them gave clear evidence of having been tampered with. that the method of putting on the air-brushed background had made it necessary to retouch considerably many of the outlines and that this work had not been done by any one familiar with Standard poultry illustration.

“As soon as possible I went to investigate with Mr. Kimmey, the remainder of the originals, also returning to him the Plymouth Rock and Leghorn pictures for his further examination.

“On request, I was first shown by Mr. Kimmey. the ‘sworn statement,‘ sent by the engravers to Mr. Bryant, who in turn sent it to Mr. Kimmey. Chairman of the Publishing Committee,

“This Sworn Statement, referred to the above, in letter from the printers was in fact. a letter signed b a young lady who was in the employ of the engravers. and to whose hands the engravers had entrusted only the air-brushing of the backgrounds of the pictures. That all it referred to, and as much sworn to—and it did not refer to any artists’ work that was afterward employed upon the pictures to make the outlines and the backgrounds join together. not to mention any attempt toward making subjects and backgrounds harmonize.

“Besides work on different pictures in the effort to make outlines and backgrounds join, which showed clumsy execution. some of the pictures had been removed from their mounts and actually cut out of their backgrounds, Then the birds had been remounted and new backgrounds worked on and the original artists names were signed on the new backgrounds. This was done in the case of two artists’ work.

“What the motive of the sworn statement could have been. we have not undertaken to reveal.


“The Original Barred Plymouth Rock Male Ideal Faked Over in Order to Produce a New Ideal Dominique Male.”

“In examining the different originals, I pointed out to Mr. Kimmey, while we had the original copy for the Dominique male under consideration. that this was in fact the missing Barred Plymouth Rock male original that the printers had failed to return; that after patching upon it a Dominique head, attaching to the rear side a strip of paper large enough to admit of the larger tall, the Dominique comb, wings and tail. besides some minor changes, including the lengthening of the saddle hackles. had been ‘faked’ upon this original drawing of the Barred Plymouth Rock male ideal, and this ‘original’ production was signed by the artist who ‘faked’ up this composite Plymouth Rock-Dominique creation.

“The meeting of the Editing and Publishing committee, not long after these facts became known, was held in Boston. All the artists’ original ideal pictures for the 1910 Standard were brought to this meeting Previous to the meeting, Mr._ Bryant was shown the faked-up ‘Dominique’ male ideal and the work was carefully examined by President Hicks, Mr._ Kimmey and Mr. Bryant. The printers were sent for by telephone —and they were represented by Mr. A. N. Murray, President of the company.

“On Mr._ Murray’s arrival at the room in Copley Square Hotel. he exclaimed: ‘I have found your Plymouth. Rock drawing. It’s there in that Dominique picture’-or words to that effect.

“Mr., Murray was good enough to promptly offer to reimburse the treasury of the American Poultry Association for the loss of their original ideal of the Barred Plymouth Rock male, Mr., W. Harry Smith, who made the Plymouth Rock-Dominique picture. to represent a Dominique ideal, is also to ‘be allowed’ to make over another Dominique ideal male ‘without expense to the Association.’

“The 25,000 printed copies of the 1910 Standard are so nearly sold out that an immediate new edition is demanded.

“All artists who worked upon the last. issue are to have the liberty to make desired improvements upon their own work and will have until November 25th to make these restorations and improvements.

“A number of changes will be made in the Glossary, with some added illustrations in this section of the book, “Several text corrections as voted upon by the Association at Denver, will be made, such as color of back in Dark Cornish female and color of Bronze Turkeys,

“Illustrations, such as a ‘split comb’ and an absolutely disqualified lopping rose comb, are to be added to the Glossary.

“It was voted that in the Glossary, the word ‘defect’ shall be changed to ‘disqualification’ where it was used under pictures that illustrate defects that actually are disqualifications, such as under the illustrations of a side sprig on a single comb, as on page 24,

“A 26,000 issue of each of the five pages of ‘feathers, illustrating standard colors from actual feathers in natural tints, is to be printed for the new edition,

“On inquiry. I explained that at the present season it would be impossible for me to spend the time necessary to duplicate the ideal drawing of the Barred Plymouth Rock. This ideal was criticized and approved at St, Louis. The main point at present desired, would be to have it slightly reduced in size,

“The White Plymouth Rock male I have remodeled.

“The Barred Plymouth Rock female will be changed to conform closer to that of the White Plymouth Rock female that was approved at St. Louis,

“The Buff Plymouth Rock female also to be restored and changed,

“The Buff Plymouth Rock male is to be remodelled like the new White male to conform to the Barred male.

“The White Leghorn males. Single Comb and Rose Comb, are to be remodelled to conform to the Brown and Buff males, .

“The comb and beak also the fluff of the Butt Cochin male are to be restored.

“Mr., W, Harry Smith is to make a new drawing for a half-tone of the Dominique male, as on the original order, which was to be a copy of the Dominique male in the 1905 edition of the Standard and he is to correct the feet of the female,


Silver Wyandotte Female Sketch Mutilated

“When Mr. Burgess’ Wyandotte illustration came up for consideration at Boston and the reason for the picture of the Silver Laced female standing incorrectly was sought, it was discovered that this was one of the pictures where liberty was taken to cut the bird out from its original background and air brush a new background around it.

“Comparison of this worked—up production with a photograph of it by Mr, Burgess, in possession of Mr. Kimmey, showed that in the original the bird stood well upon its feet. while in the work of the Boston artist, as it appears in the Standard, the bird is not balanced—evidently through no fault of Mr. Burgess, and it was plainly seen that a great injustice had been worked on Mr. Burgess’ originaL


“Over the tail of the Silver Laced Wyandotte male also can be seen lines placed there in an attempt to connect the background and outlines, “Any one can appreciate how the soft, fluffy outlines of a fowl would be distorted or lost in cutting around them WITH SPISSORS and why an artist, untrained in depicting ideal standard fowls, could not do the subjects Justice.

“Since the earnest movement in 1901 to improve the Standard, Reliable Poultry Journal has done everything in its power to encourage the book which this Journal has considered of great vital importance to the growth of the poultry industry, and Reliable Poultry Journal Publishing Company has had to sacrifice its own interests in many ways when it contributed the work of its artists while engaged upon illustrations for the Standard, This sacrifice still continues while the present Standard ideals are being improved.

“Having worked upon the publishing committee as well as upon the illustrations of the 1905 and 1910 Standards and having experienced the delays and difficulties in getting out a. book of such technical character, and knowing that the need of more time has appealed to others directly connected with the work as well as myself, we are forced to say that three years is none too long in which to build a new revision of the Standard of Perfection. as it is now published,

“Each artist should know, at least three seasons in advance of Publication, what breed ideals he is to furnish—

“First, in order that he may prove that he is studying in harmony with the progress of the breed,

“Second, that he may fully acquaint himself with the fanciers’ ideals— deals that they, as breeders, are proposing to develop

“Third, he should submit his work. through the Editing and Publishing committee. to the members of the American Poultry Association and to those who are the best experts on the breeds, who should constitute a committee of approval for the ideal illustrations.

“The illustrations should be first submitted only in outline and after the outlines are approved or criticized and corrected until satisfactory, it would then be safe for the artist to proceed to complete the finished ideal in detail, showing all the shadings and markings of the plumage—this finished drawing to be finally approved or criticized and corrected by the committee of experts for approval of ideal illustrations.

“The artists desire to know, and should know that the breeders and judges are satisfied with their outline deals, before undertaking to proceed with the complete detailed pictures of the varieties,

“Progress, to become reasonably established and of breeding value, must be gradual and for this reason specialist breeders and Judges throughout America who are members of the American Poultry Association should have the opportunity to criticise the prospective Standard ideals—of contributing their views and opinions to the artists whom they know are interested also in a breed’s genuine improvement.

“Considering that the standard ideals are to become nationally recognized as authentic, the wider an more nationally representative approval that can sustain them. the greater will they be valued the world over and the truer will it be recognized that there is ‘reason’ in American poultry ideals and genuine value in American Standard-bred races of fowls,

“Illustrations in the Standard wield too much influence in the selection of breeding stock, placing of awards at show and deciding purchasers when buying—are of far too great importance to be safely handled by any but trained poultry experts, whose work with Standard-bred poultry and its breeders makes them intimate with the coveted fashions in the breeds and with the technique in delineating them, thus qualifying the artist for producing work that can be come authentic,

“Besides this. engravers and printers should be sought to handle the reproduction of these illustrations who possess the requisite artful treatment to bring out the best possible effects.

“Faithfully yours, “FRANKLANE L. SEWELL”


The Three Artists Replied—And Following is What They Said

As before stated, a copy of these “notes” was mailed by us, on request of Mr. Sewell, to the other artists (he named Messrs. Burgess and Graham) and in due course We received their replies. Said replies are published here with, in the order they came to hand:


Letter From I. W. Burgess, With a Copy of Printers’ Bill

“Union Grove, Wis.. Nov, 13, 1911.

“Dear Mr. Curtis:— “Received your letter of November 9th in regard to the much abused Standard drawings, Mr. Sewell sent me a special  delivery letter to come to his studio at Niles, Mich., so I started November 3rd. Mr. Sewell said in his letter that he had important things to tell me and that some of my drawings had been much abused,

“I had realized this to a certain degree a long time ago and had noticed that the Dominique male in some parts was identically the same as Mr. Sewell’s original Barred Plymouth Rock male.

“I also noticed my drawing of the Silver Wyandotte female—that it was tipped too far forward, giving it a different appearance in outline to the rest of the Wyandotte family, This was caused by another artist or another hand actually cutting the model from its original background and remounting it on another background, which had been fixed up to suit his own taste, not regarding the outline of any importance, as it appears.

“Another Standard drawing which I made was dealt with in the same manner, This was the Silver Gray Dorking male. It was cut from its original background and remounted upon another artist’s background,

“Another serious thing concerning the models or Standard drawings was this: The artist, whoever he was, in using the air-brush, slopped the white paint or gray, whichever it might be, This smutty color we can see at any rate and the delicate shading of the feathers, especially in dark shadows, have etched out a gray and muddy color—together with the poor half-tones.

“The Silver Wyandotte female shows very distinctly in the fluff where work of this kind had been done, causing a ground work nearly destroyed the picture as regards restoration_ I have plenty of proof that there was none of my Standard drawings cut out when they left my hands for Murray & Emery Priming Company. Boston, Mass.

“Here is the list of charges I received from Murray & Emery Printing Company for their retouching of back grounds, This retouching did great damage and the blame is on the artist who did it. This is the list the printing company billed me. Please note that all birds in the list were retouched, except the White Wyandotte male:

“I paid $66.35 for having my drawings dealt with as though they were nothing of more importance than drawings of common barnyard fowls, All this alteration work was done after we worked hard over our drawings—then we get the blame for the sloppy work. It‘s something like a person being accused of wrong doing and taken to jail when perfectly innocent, because it was another hand that did the work,

“The American Poultry Association cannot expect to have much done on these drawings sent for restoration, as I did not know until November 3rd or somewhere near that time what I had to do or what they expected of me.

“It’s almost impossible to restore the Silver Wyandotte. without a new picture—also the Silver Gray Dorking male. I will do my best to restore these two drawings. but it is doubtful if I can, as we only have until the 25th of November.

“The R. P. J, certainly has been liberal with the American Poultry Association, giving up our time and simply handing- it to the A, P, A. It means a great deal for R. P. J.. especially to give away time to have these pictures restored after being nearly ruined by some other artist or artists. I believe the American Poultry Association and the poultry public will feel better toward the artists when the real truth is known about the Standard drawings.

“I remain, “Yours truly. “I. W, BURGESS.”


Artist Graham’s Reply—Also What He Wrote Last May

Following is Artist Graham‘s reply to our letter and request of November 9th:

“550 West 168th St., “New York City, N. Y. “November 15, 191

“Dear Mr, Curtis:— “Your letter of the 9th was duly received. It is about time someone said a word for the artists. During the past summer the ills of the new Standard have been generously discussed and most deliberate attempts made to place the burden of blame on the several artists.

“All the critics seemed to forget that these pictures had been accepted from the several artists by the Editing and Publication committee and forwarded to Boston for plating and publication, If these pictures were so palpably incorrect it seems to me that it was the business of the Editing and Publication committee to find this out before accepting them.  After accepting the pictures and proceeding to publish them in the new Standard. the entire responsibility was upon the shoulders of the Editing and Publication committee, and the A. P. A. should hold them responsible for all errors. both in illustration and text. It is absolutely unfair and unjust to require the artists to make good the Editing and Publication committee’s blunders, without cost.

“In regard to the few pictures which I made for the Standard, I want to say that they were returned to me for revision on October 21st, 1910, two and a. half months after the St. Louis meeting and there was not a scrap of instructions for changing them. I want to say here that it took continual writing and telegraphing from the close of the St. Louis meeting in order to get these pictures returned.

“They were then revised according to instructions given personally by Mr. Kimmey who recalled to the best of his ability, the criticisms of the meeting. After revision they were forwarded to the Murray & Emery Co, in Boston, November 2nd, With ,them went a request that proofs be submitted to me for approval before publication, No proofs of any kind were ever submitted to me, yet I understand that proofs were passed on by all the other artists. The first proofs that I saw was the edition of the Standard and at that time (in the Boston show) I claimed that the pictures had been tampered with since leaving me. That this claim is true I now know, for I have them in my possession at the present moment. Every one with the exception of the Silver Duckwing male had been cut out and remounted and an air-brush back ground worked in and a bungling attempt made to imitate my signature,


“As Mr. Sewell has said of Mr. Burgess’ work which suffered in the same way, ‘It is unreasonable to hand back this fragment of the original and expect of him the next to impossible task of restoring it to its former finish.‘ I say it is adding insult to injury, The artists who have had their work thus mutilated have been injured by the publication of these gross misrepresentations of their work,

“When the Editing and Publication committee hands back the mutilated pictures with the request that they be altered or. if this is impossible. new pictures shall be made without cost to the A. P. A., it is about as impudent a request as can be imagined,


“As it is a physical impossibility to restore these cut and mutilated pictures to any semblance of their original form and it is manifestly unfair to require new pictures to be made without cost and it is out of reason to expect any one to either repair or to make new drawings when no instructions are given. I HAVE DECLINED T0 UNDERTAKE THE WORK.

“Let the repairs be either made by or paid for by those who ruined the original drawings.

“I consider that outrageous and un warranted liberties have been taken with our pictures and about the biggest piece of impudence is the stealing of Mr, Sewell’s ideal Barred Rock male drawing. converting it into the male Dominique illustration and the collection of $40.00 from the A. P. A. under the pretense that a new drawing had been made by Mr. Smith,

“The best you can say for it is that it answers to obtaining money under false pretenses

“I agree with Mr. Sewell that I certainly could not be induced to undertake any of this work again if I knew that the drawings were to be so tampered with. And further—I would require absolute assurance that no hand but mine would alter or change these drawings in any way,

“I also agree that each artist should know fully three seasons ahead the breeds he will be required to illustrate. that he may get in close touch with breeds, judges and others with information relating to improvement of each breed, study their ideals and requirements and make the pictures in plenty of time, so that the last authority on the subject may inspect them and offer his opinion, I heartily approve of the manner of procedure, as outlined by Mr. Sewell and steps should be taken at once by the A, P, A, along these lines.

“I have advocated, in an article published in the July National Poultry Magazine, that each of the Specialty clubs join the A, P A. as a club member and that the illustrations and text relating to their respective varieties be submitted to and approved by a properly designated committee from each club. The responsibility of its correctness would then rest on the breeders of each variety, This would also divide up the immense Standard revision work among a comparatively large number of men instead of over-working a few, as at present, There is no doubt that it would then be done more thoroughly, if not better,

“With this arrangement and the early allotment to the artists of the breeds and varieties they will be required to illustrate and with assured non-interference with the finished drawings by bungling commercial artists, there is no reason why the next Standard should not approach perfection.

“Yours very truly, “LOUIS PAUL GRAHAM.

“P.S.-“I approve your suggestion of {publishing my letter of May 17th, 1911.”


What Mr. Graham Had to Say on This Subject Last May

Following is quoted a letter written by Artist Graham, May 17, 1911, to the American Poultry World, Buffalo, N. Y., which letter was used in the form of an editorial, and we are publishing the editorial complete, heading, letter and comment:


A.P.W. feels called upon to publish the following letter entire, It is from Louis P Graham, one of the artists who furnished ideal illustrations for the first edition of the 1910 Standard, and the charge that he makes is of a serious nature:

“New York City, May 17. 1911. “American Poultry World. Buffalo, N. Y,

“Gentlemen-Your’ criticisms in the AMERICAN POULTRY WORLD for May of the Standard illustrations have been carefully read, I want to take exception to a couple, namely. the Game heads and Japanese shape. Right here 1 am going to make a complaint that has NOT been made before except verbally to C. M, Bryant at the Boston Show, Someone had a lot of art work done on the background of all my pictures and in doing it changed the outlines enough in places to spoil the originals, ‘

“The Red Pile female suffered in this respect. Look at the illustration in your Standard and you will see my original outline of the head,  back of comb and over eye almost a sixteenth of an inch lower than present top of head shows. This you will admit makes the apparent difference which you have noted in your article,

“Also note my signature on Silver Duckwing male; then compare the rest. That on the Duckwing male is THE ONLY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE LEFT INTACT. The rest have been painted over and a bungling attempt made to put them on again,

“My original pictures showed a lot of straw scattered around like that which appears on the Silver Duckwing male below my signature and the bird‘s feet, Can you see any of it on the others? A crude attempt has been made to paint straw in them, but in the original it was JUST AS IT WAS PHOTOGRAPHED.

“Those little whirlwinds on each side of the birds are also additions, which haven’t pleased me much. Then too, the artist (?) has slapped a lot of white on the feet of the Japanese male, which has changed them from their original photographic feet to wooden ones,

“AND THEY CHARGED ME $23.25 FOR THUS SPOILING THE PICTURE! So you see I KNOW that they were tampered with, Therefore I disclaim the responsibility for the criticism which you have launched excepting in the case of the Japanese female, In this I followed the original instructions. which were retouched and idealized PHOTOGRAHPS 0F LIVING SPECIMENS.

“This Japanese Bantam hen was a Madison Square Garden blue ribbon and SPECIAL winner. I took her photograph and IDEALIZED it, but by no stretch of imagination could I see a tail that towered half her height ABOVE her head, The mistake is NOT in the present picture. but in the 1905 picture, You nor anybody else ever saw a tail that nearly approached that picture in 1905 Standard, and I’ll go further—that. ever excelled by the slightest the tall as pictured in the present Standard illustration,

“Yours sincerely. “LOUIS PAUL GRAHAM.”

Mr. Sewell has stated in the public print that the grossly bungling work shown in the two extra sickle feathers added to the tail of the White Plymouth Rock male picture in the 1910 Standard is not of his doing—and no doubt Mr., Sewell knows whereof he speaks, Now we have Artist Graham reporting, in detail, that numerous “liberties” were taken with his illustrations for the new Standard—also that some one referred to as “they” charged him $23.25 “for thus spoiling the pictures.” We repeat. that in justice to the artists and for the information of the interested public. the statement made by Artist. Sewell and the charges made by Artist Graham call for an explanation. The explanation asked for was not forthcoming. Singularly enough, the statement made by Artist Sewell and the charges made by Artist Graham above referred to, did not bring forth any explanation—either from C. M. Bryant, at that time president of the American Poultry Association, and in personal charge of looking after the printing and binding of the first edition of the 1910 Standard, or from the Mur ray & Emery Company, the Boston publishing house that had the contract for printing and binding the books and whose artist or artists did the bungling work complained of by Messrs. Sewell and Graham.


Letter From Artist Schilling, Giving His Views

“Rochester. N, Y.. Nov, 20. 1911.

“Dear Mr. Curtis:—

“Your letter of recent date, with copy of Mr., Sewell’s notes on improvement of the Standard illustrations, has been received and carefully noted. I am pleased to learn that some active investigation has been going on during my absence abroad, and I hope the truth and bare facts will be laid before the public so that the persons who are to blame for such gross negligence in handling and tampering with the Standard illustrations will be held responsible to the fullest extent,

“My letter to Mr. Drevenstedt, under date of March 29, 1911, which was intended for publication, but which did not appear in print until August issue of American Poultry World. Buffalo, N. Y.. explains decidedly my views of the situation as it appeared to me directly after the first copies of the Standard came before the public, “I noticed at that time. and so stated in my letter, copy of which is attached hereto, that the engravers had made a big failure in reproducing the ideal illustrations, Poor workmanship was so very evident that my suspicions were aroused even then, that the pictures had been tampered with, but I could hardly make myself believe that any artist, unfamiliar with work of this character, would be so bold or would attempt so unreasonable and unjust an act, as to alter the work of another artist,

“As I recall it now, the first thing to kindle the great fire of criticism against the artists and their work was the bungling attempt at art work on Mr. Sewell’s White Plymouth Rock male, This caused an outpour of comments, with the result that almost every illustration in the book has been covered with abuse and criticisms, the greatest portion of which was caused by the tampering and remodeling which took place after the pictures had been accepted and passed upon by the committee and handed over to the engravers.

“At this time I wish to explain to the interested public another cause for the late delivery of the pictures to the engravers.

“During the meeting of the Revision Committee of 1910, which was held at the Lexington Hotel. Chicago, it was voted to pay the artists certain prices per picture and the committee made the allotment of pictures, ordering samples to be brought to the next annual meeting, held the following August at Niagara Fails,

“Here the action of the committee on revision, which had met at Chicago, April of that year, was passed upon and upheld and a new committee was appointed to complete the work. Mr. C_ M, Bryant, then president of the Association. committee,

“Up to that time the work—or my part of it—had proceeded without delay, but Mr, Bryant, in his capacity of president and chairman of the new committee, objected to some of the work and action of the 1910 Revision Committee and decided to change the allotment of the pictures to the various artists. also to reduce the prices to be paid for the pictures, also to call in bids from artists all over the country, they to bid on making these ideal Standard poultry illustrations,

“The result was, I refused point blank to proceed with the work until I was assured that the prices agreed upon at the Chicago revision meeting were to be paid to me. My Work of making Standard illustrations was then at a standstill until I was given assurance five or six months later that I would receive the prices originally agreed upon. I felt justified in taking this position on strictly business principles, regardless of the fact that these pictures have cost me more than I received for them from the Association.

“I shall not attempt to explain why these pictures are worth more than ordinary illustrations of individual specimens. because I believe most people blessed with an average amount of intelligence can realize this very easily, but for the special benefit of John H. Robinson, editor of Farm-Poultry, whom I do not consider in the above class, I intend to treat this subject separately in a future issue of American Poultry World, replying to one of his insane editorial articles, which appeared in Farm-Poultry.

“But to return to the cause of the delay and waste of time and money in getting out the 1910 Standard illustrations. It is plainly evident that Mr. Bryant was directly responsible for several months of this delay. After much important time had been lost it could not be recalled and the result was, we had to hurry our work, which course we all know never brings the best results.

“There are pictures in the 1910 Standard—made by me—which do not suit me now and the did not fully satisfy me at the time, and I am sure they would have been improved if I had had more time to spend on them, These pictures I shall alter and correct, as best I can under present conditions, but I want to go on record now as saying that should the American Poultry Association desire any Standard illustrations of me in the future to illustrate the Standard of Perfection, I cannot, in justice to myself, agree to furnish any at the prices recently paid.

“The situation, to be frank about it, has reached a stage when ‘patience ceases to be a virtue’ and I believe you can well realize that any man‘s patience is taxed to the utmost when his honesty and character are attacked, as has been the case against the artists in the poultry press, or certain portions of it, since the work began of illustrating the new Standard,

“Very truly yours, “A. 0. SCHILLING.”