There was an announcement on the APA Facebook page concerning the new Standard of Perfection. I asked if someone who had one purchased the new one to let me know if they corrected the female Ameraucana tail angle back to 40 degrees instead of the 45 degrees they had listed incorrectly in the 2010 edition. One of our members responded with a photo of the appropriate page. I was not at all surprised, but at the same time very disappointed, to see the correction had not been done as promised. I won't be wasting my money on a new Standard. The Peter Principle reigns supreme within the APA powers that be.
How disappointing!!!! They should be ashamed, but I have a feeling they are not. I am questioning the value of belonging to this organization. Other than the "requirement" to be an APA member for 5 years to be a part of new varieties being accepted (and we all know how THAT goes) what exactly is a good reason to belong? I'm coming up empty.....
here's the 2016 page which is the same as the 2010 page which is different from all the others. ::)
I've uploaded a version to the board which highlights the differences and on flickr the full page can
be viewed.
https://flic.kr/p/EYuVmz (https://flic.kr/p/EYuVmz)
Quote from: BrownEyes on March 10, 2016, 09:12:23 AM
here's the 2016 page which is the same as the 2010 page which is different from all the others. ::)
I've uploaded a version to the board which highlights the differences and on flickr the full page can
be viewed.
https://flic.kr/p/EYuVmz (https://flic.kr/p/EYuVmz)
How long did it take to get your new standard? Its been almost 2 weeks for me and nothing
Two weeks is too little. Give it at least 3. They are slow even in the off period.
I was wondering more about this. Given a margin of error, isn't this saying in reality that anything from 40 degrees to almost 50 is in the ballpark? I mean, no two judges can accurately both get 45, so isn't there a plus or minus margin of error?
Brownie.
I am assuming the new SOP is being printed in China, as was the previous edition. I will not purchase one until it is printed in the U.S. With what they charge for it as it is, I believe the additional charge for a book printed in the U.S. would not be a deterrent to anyone?
This a real shame and not very beneficial to anyone who is new to the breed and wants to set a goal of meeting a SOP when choosing breeders and mating them? If there is a range of acceptance, that should be stated as such (IMHO). If I had purchased that book and found errors, I would be livid.
Quote from: Ed Brockman on March 11, 2016, 02:24:30 PM
I am assuming the new SOP is being printed in China, as was the previous edition.
That assumption is correct Ed.
Being printed in China would explain why the back is coming unglued on my 2010 edition. I hate to say it but I agree with Gina. I am finding it hard to come up with reasons to keep a membership to it.
It's ok to agree with me Russ. It will be all right........ LOL ..... I hesitate to drop my APA membership ONLY because of developing new varieties.....and naming them.....hmmmmm. Maybe I should re-think my strategy? ???
You guys are cracking me up. Hating to agree with Gina really brought a smile to my face...just shy of laughing out loud.
I know Ed mentioned the books are printed in China and although I agree with him and buy north American made when possible, I think it is ironic that the last two Standards I bought were printed in China and the quality of the printing and book making appeared great while they had so many errors from lack of proofing back here in north America.
Russ, my book just sits on the shelf so I haven't had any problems with the glue.
FWIW, as I mentioned on the other SOP thread, I bought both the regular $60 SOP and a "Collector's Edition". The first regular one I bought literally fell apart in like the first 2wks. I complained and they did send me another but due to that the Collectors Edition is pretty much just been sitting in a box as I'm afraid to even open it!
Got mine in the mail a couple days ago. Its my first standard. Hopefully it serves me well for a while.
from john Monaco, the APA President....
Due to an unfortunate omission in the printing of the newly released Standard of Perfection two recently recognized varieties did not appear in that edition. The descriptions for the _Bearded Self Blue Silkie Bantam_ and the _Ginger Red Modern Game Bantam_ can be found on the website at www.amerpoultryassn.com. Both of these varieties have been accepted by the Association and can compete for any American Poultry Association awards or points. The Organization apologizes for this oversight.
Quote from: BrownEyes on April 18, 2016, 04:39:09 PM
from john Monaco, the APA President....
Due to an unfortunate omission in the printing of the newly released Standard of Perfection two recently recognized varieties did not appear in that edition. The descriptions for the _Bearded Self Blue Silkie Bantam_ and the _Ginger Red Modern Game Bantam_ can be found on the website at www.amerpoultryassn.com. Both of these varieties have been accepted by the Association and can compete for any American Poultry Association awards or points. The Organization apologizes for this oversight.
Some things never change. With the entrenched powers that be, I'm not sure it can ever be fixed. Too bad somebody doesn't take the bull by the horns and start afresh with a new organization. It would take a tremendous amount of start up work, and I am not up to it at this stage of life.
Mike G wrote "Some things never change."
[/size]
Absolutely, and the APA and Tevye would answer, hopefully not...for there is TRADITON!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw
This is an unfortunate, and quite frankly I believe an inexcusable, error and complete lack of attention to detail. I'd call it Dereliction of Duty. I say "inexcusable" because this is not the first time. The continual publishing of a fairly expensive book, as books go, that is supposed to be "The Standard" goes beyond negligence. I believe it's now entered the realm of incompetence.
I'm not the brightest bulb in the socket and if I can find numerous typographical and other errors without even looking for them, what the heck is the editor doing? Where is the QA/QC?????
If I were a breeder or member of the APA and the club for those TWO breeds that were an "unfortunate omission", I'd be livid. Makes me wonder how many of the errors, if any, I've pointed out were corrected in this edition. Seems to me that this sort of thing brings discredit upon the entire APA and that's being missed as well.
But hey, they've got another reason to publish another one now and sell a bunch more of 'em.
Quote from: Tailfeathers on April 18, 2016, 09:34:32 PM
This is an unfortunate, and quite frankly I believe an inexcusable, error and complete lack of attention to detail. I'd call it Dereliction of Duty. I say "inexcusable" because this is not the first time. The continual publishing of a fairly expensive book, as books go, that is supposed to be "The Standard" goes beyond negligence. I believe it's now entered the realm of incompetence.
I'm not the brightest bulb in the socket and if I can find numerous typographical and other errors without even looking for them, what the heck is the editor doing? Where is the QA/QC?????
If I were a breeder or member of the APA and the club for those TWO breeds that were an "unfortunate omission", I'd be livid. Makes me wonder how many of the errors, if any, I've pointed out were corrected in this edition. Seems to me that this sort of thing brings discredit upon the entire APA and that's being missed as well.
But hey, they've got another reason to publish another one now and sell a bunch more of 'em.
I second that ^^^^^^^^^^^
I want a copy so bad, but I will not pay $60 for something full of errors and omissions. Shame on APA
I know. Walker has worn his plum out and I'd love to get him the updated one but for that price I want quality that they simply don't deliver.