More Pictures & Articles
Home Page

Page 2

Page 3

Photo4 Page

Photo5 Page

Photo6 Page
A article by Tom Monson on Breeding Rollers and Eye Color and Other Things
Hi, Glenn: Eye color has little (probably no) effect on rolling or flying. Nevertheless, I try to avoid mating pearl-eyed birds together. Unless the birds have lots of good color in their irises, successive generations of mating pearl-eyed birds together often produces birds with diminishing color and texture in their eyes until pigeons are produced with colorless, white “fish eyes.” My experience with these pigeons with colorless white irises is that they are uniformly useless. I always prefer a heavily-graveled iris over a flat iris, a rich-colored iris over a flat-colored iris. The kind of gravelly, colored irises I prefer seem to be more frequently produced by mating orange-eyed birds to pearl-eyed birds. Even when inbreeding, I try to keep the eye colors and plumage colors”stirred up.” I like a variety of colors/patterns in my kits so it’s easier to distinguish one bird from another. That doesn’t mean I’ll breed from a pigeon solely by reason of the color of its eyes or plumage; it means that I prefer to keep the colors stirred up in my matings. Bill Pensom, Roy Smith, and Ollie Harris commented that many of their best stock pairs bred offspring of widely diverse colors and patterns. Maybe it is just coincidence, but I’m persuaded there’s something to it, so I consider these features when pairing my birds. For most dominant color/pattern genetic traits, I prefer heterozygotes over homozygotes. I avoid mating two spreads together because so many of the offspring will be spread, some of them homozygous spread. I like to know whether a pigeon is barred, check, or T-pattern under the spread; this can’t be determined in the case of homozygous spreads, because all of their young will likewise be spread. I’m familiar with several families of good birds) in which spread is prevalent. I believe the presence of spread often coincides with increased rolling frequency. For example, if I have two full brothers who resemble each other in type, but one is red check and the other is lavender, I may proceed on the assumption that the red check might be slightly more frequent if it were lavender, or assume that the lavender might be somewhat less frequent if it were a check. This assumption is sometimes helpful in projecting the breeding tendencies of pigeons in a closely-bred family of rollers. Similarly, I prefer to mate ash-red to blue, bar to check or T-pattern. For whatever reason, many of my better pigeons carry one gene for recessive red. These pigeons usually turn out to be more frequent performers than their siblings carrying no recessive red, and more reliably stable than any siblings that are pure recessive red. I rarely pair two recessive reds together. I rarely mate ash-red to tortoiseshell grizzle, because ash-red grizzles usually turn out to be problem birds in my strain. I would be pleased if all my pigeons carried at least one gene for smokey, not because of appearance but because I think smokey tends to enhance frequency, sometimes duration/depth, in a preponderance of rollers I’ve seen which are homozygous for this recessive gene. In my experience, good-spinning blue bars often turn out to be the smokey or slate blue bars. These are all matters of personal preference. I don’t believe any color, pattern, or modifier gene itself directly affects the rolling reflex. Instead, I suspect that pigeons possessing certain genes tend to be somewhat weakened so that they are less resistant to true rolling than their siblings who lack these genes. I prefer pigeons whose expression projects strong character and awareness. However, such pigeons are often the sort that rolls well, but seldom, meaning that they are resistant to the rolling reflex. In consequence, any possible genetic features that may weaken this resistance have the effect of increasing average frequency. Intensive inbreeding likewise can produce pigeons of strong character that have less resistance to rolling than their less-inbred ancestors. As an alternative, one can pursue pigeons of weak character, thereby producing good frequency in the absence of these genetic factors. In that case, the challenge is to avoid roll downs and poor kitting pigeons by avoiding close breeding and by selecting for red and dark check self’s carrying no spread, no smokey, no recessive red, and no grizzle. Pigeons of weak character can roll just as well as those of strong character, but they’re less impressive when you see them in the loft, and they’re prone to problems with rolling down, early landing, and poor kitting. On the plus side, they don’t have to be starved down to produce frequent performance. Instead, they have to be fed up to avoid accidents. These are all only tendencies—they’re not iron-clad rules that can be relied upon across the spectrum of all pigeons in one’s loft. Every pigeon is an individual possessed of its own unique combination of strengths and frailties. In closely-bred families these tendencies begin to evidence themselves across the board. Tom Monson. --
BREEDING BIRMINGHAM ROLLERS A REAL CHALLENGE by Bruce Cooper (1966)
Competition flying has been popularized all over the country by both national and local roller clubs. This, in my opinion, is a definite advantage to the Roller hobby. However there are two points of view on this subject and both have merit. The major Roller clubs that sponsor kit flies feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The group for the fly’s list as some of the benefits that can be derived are first, the competition flies cause the various competitors to direct more attention toward the attainment of the complete Roller Pigeon. One that will spin with the kit and rejoin it immediately without flying off by itself for a time; birds that fly and spin as a unit instead of the easier to attain group of individuals that roll a few at a time. Second, competition causes more visitations than any other segment of the hobby. You can't help but learn from seeing a group of birds and men in action and without a good reason for visiting, lots of people never would. Your fellow man is your only teacher, there is no other. Many people need a goal for which to strive, bringing up a good kit for the big fly provides the incentive. The fellow who doesn't push for recognition but breeds the true spinner and is discovered--this is an added asset. All of this being true, each side of an argument should be looked at. The first things always mentioned by those against the competition fly are these: It will cause fanciers to breed Tumblers instead of Rollers; less importance will be attached to the real high velocity spinner and lesser birds will be kept. All this could happen if other possible safeguards were not watched. First, very few men will pat anyone on the back for producing a kit of Tumblers and real short workers--a pat on the back is all 99 percent of us are really looking for. The real clincher to eliminate the Tumbler man from your flies is, if you have the problem and only then, do the following: Change your rules of competition to allow many points for good quality, deep spinning kits. Now you might say that this will be hard to judge. Well, it might seem so at first, but it is a lot easier than judging in a show coop and we all seem to be experts at that. We, in our area, have not had the problem of a Tumbler flyer yet and I doubt if we ever do because he would be ridiculed to the point where he probably wouldn't think we were nice people to associate with. In large areas where the close knit group of fanciers isn't possible, rules might have to be changed. It is my opinion that anyone who flies’s Birmingham Rollers and refuses to enter competition; if one is possible in his area, is missing the biggest thrill in Rollers. Some can talk a good fly but not all can actually do it. How else can you get an audience of 10-20 people to watch your kit fly? When the day arrives that as much importance is placed on winning kit competition as in showing, we'll all win. With the entire visiting Roller fanciers do, there seems to me to be some things that should be mentioned. First and worst is the fellow who asks you to fly your kit, and then only looks up a few minutes before wandering off to visit with someone. It never fails; you turn to your visiting friend and say "Boy, did you see that?" And he'll be looking at a crow chasing a blackbird or smiling at your wife. If he doesn't want to watch or doesn't have the time, he should say so. However, don’t expect anyone to spend 30 minutes to hours watching non-performers. If your kit is young or just plain lousy, after a short time take your friend off the hook and suggest a cup of coffee or a look at your hopes for the future. When visiting, comment on the good points of a kit. Remember, yours don't always fly perfect; it just seems to be the best we see that we remember the longest. Offer a friend a chair on which to sit to watch. Most important of all, don't expect a visit unless you in turn repay the call. For your own good, let a fancier know in advance you are coming. It will save you wasted trips and him the inconvenience of re-arranging his plans. Probably the worst mistake we all make is in assuming that everyone wants to handle and hear the pedigree on every bird you own. Some fellows will, and then they will ask and let you know, so show'em and tell'em. Now that I have listed all my faults, I’ll delve into a subject that is nearest and dearest to my heart. Just what is a true Birmingham Roller champion spinner? This is my opinion and not necessarily up for debate. The true champion is one that spins so fast as to appear to be a blur. A hole can barely be seen at the axis, as it is small. The bird must roll at least 25ft, (that is the length of a telephone pole from the wire to the ground) and more is that much better. He must be able to roll an average of once per minute and more often if the kit is really working. The high velocity is the hardest part to attain. The world is full of excellent rollers that will roll frequently in a kit and have the endurance to fly. The real sticker is to get the bird with the high velocity of spin. My interpretation of a high velocity of spin is not speed as it drops, but the speed that it whirls around--this is what I call velocity of spin. The faster the better and of course the higher the velocity. I would ten times rather have a bird that spins ten feet with high velocity than one that comes down thirty-five feet in a good smooth roll. But is lacking the extra velocity of the true champion. The true champion is a mighty scarce item, if you own one you are fortunate. Of course, you might think you own one, only to find out that in his second year he is a rolldown. If you have a good kit of deep spinners that will do 20 full turns and a good many part turns in a forty minute fly, you have the world by the tail. By this I don't mean to imply that this is the very best a good kit can do. Just that when they reach this level you have something to show that anyone will enjoy seeing and go away convinced you have some good Birmingham’s. Over the years many fine articles have appeared in the A.P.J. describing the ways and means of establishing a fine loft of Birmingham’s. With no intention on the part of the authors. I am sure, one great mis-interpretation has occurred, that is to breed a group of Rollers and have them perform in the ideal manner in which everyone describes is not in the least bit easy. It has been told and retold of the basic steps that are necessary to establish a good flying kit. But the ugly truth is this: All the work and time you are capable of is needed to attain your goal. Fail to heed any of the warnings old-timers give, such as improper feeding, flying in too much wind, failing to pull out a bird that is turning the kit in tight circle, etc., and you are doomed to have a kit that isn't doing as much as it is capable of doing. You would see more people flying kits the year around if this was not true. Most fanciers by late fall have dreamed up a dozen reasons why they can't fly their kit any longer. More times than not they are just disgusted with their lack of ability and would rather not fly at all than fly a poor kit. This is wrong. Birds must be flown to see what they will eventually do. Don't feel bad because they are not all champions. Go visiting and you'll soon find out that few are flying a real good kit of deep spinners. The biggest sin is the lack of information for the novice of what he should expect a group of birds to do. You frequently meet one who has purchased several birds from a well known fancier and are told this story, "The birds I bought from so and so are no good, all I produce is bums". A little questioning and you discover he has used improper training methods, from improper loft facilities. If these young experts had used the same amount of energy toward proper Roller handling that they expended complaining how they "got took" they would have a lot more to show for it. The main difference between good stock birds and poor ones is in the percentage of good birds they will produce. Even poor birds can be handled to produce a fair kit of rollers. The very best stock will produce some bums. The Champion spinners and good Rollers in the hands of a poor kit handler will make a very poor showing; Rollers must be treated like Rollers in order to get the full potential from them. You can fly a good kit without separate kit lofts but it is at least twice as difficult. If you don't make it easy for yourself to fly your birds, it will be that much sooner that you will think up the reason why you can't fly our birds until next year. Only the Brooklyn Dodgers ever made a success of "wait till next year". There is a certain amount of luck included in everything but far less than most people claim. Why does one man consistently win in shows or make good business deals or fly a good kit? The reason is simple, some people try harder than others. The Birmingham Roller in its complete form is not easy---it is a challenge. If you want something that can be brought to a quick success, don't pick them, stick to an easy sport. However, if the things that don't come easy interest you, by all means join in the fun. All it takes is the interest to keep at it and the rest will follow.

A Very old article on Feeding your Kit Birds
FEEDING OF ROLLERS FOR KIT FLYING BY Hans Roettenbacker (1963) The feeding of Rollers for kit flying is similar to the feeding of other sporting breeds except that you don’t need the special mixes used on Tipplers or the special racing mixes for Homers. Tipplers and Homers don’t need these special mixes either. Their stamina and instinct is a matter of breeding, not feeding. You can’t make a good bird out of a poor one just by feeding it better. Good birds are hatched not made. Rollers are fed so that they may live, reproduce and keep active. Very little feed is required if they are to reproduce. Some fanciers feed cafeteria style during breeding season; others feed generously twice a day. Either method is OK. It is in deciding the degree of activity we want in the birds that we become particular about the quantity of grain each bird gets. The feed is a body builder and a fuel some of it is always assimilated by the bird to make new tissue and to replace degenerated tissue. The remainder as fuel is burned in supporting the bird’s temperature (107 degrees F normal), other bodily functions and physical activity. So what ever you feed a bird it always has to be enough to at least enable the bird to replace degenerated tissue, maintain normal body temperature, keep the digestive and other systems operating and still leave something over to burn on physical activity. How does one measure the amount of feed that will do this for any given bird? You’ve heard about the tablespoon per day being the correct measured ration. Well, that may be the right ration for one bird out of every ten. It may be too much for some birds, too little for others. Most often it is not enough for young birds. Youngsters need more because they are building a lot of new tissue more so than old birds. Old bird kits can get fat on a feed ration that will only keep youngsters in good condition. Like any other characteristic, a bird’s particular eating habits are inherited. You will notice, in any kit, that some birds always manage to eat faster and stow more feed in five minutes than the other birds in the kit. Some always start on the large grains first, others on the small grains. If you were paying attention when their ancestors were young kit birds, you will remember that the ancestors of the fast heavy eaters were also fast heavy eaters. The same thing applies to the light or light eating runs quite constantly in families. This presents a problem when such families are mixed into one young kit. Some always get a little too much, others get shorted. This makes it difficult to control the kit uniformly with the feed can. The heavy eaters will stay up longer and will be stubborn about coming down. The ones that barely get enough will be short fliers and too eager in their response to the feed can rattle. The normal eaters fluctuate between the two extremes. It is best to have two or three kit coops so that you can divide the birds by their eating ability rather than by their sex or stage of performance. The only real control you have over the rascals besides the ability to understand the bird’s lies in the feed can. And you can’t utilize that control properly if the situation gets out of hand as soon as you toss the feed on the coop floor. The fast heavy eaters will get out of control in one direction and the light eaters will go in the opposite direction. Either way you’re defeated. There is no standard quantity of feed per bird per day. You have to play the kit feeding by ear. Even if you had a kit wherein the crop content of any individual bird, after feeding, was identical to the crop content of every other bird in the kit you would be up the creek, if you assumed, that you had the feeding solved and therefore proceeded to feed the same amount every day. The birds change every few days and so does their food requirement. For example, at age six weeks they should get more that at age ten weeks and again more at age sixteen weeks than at twenty four weeks. But this is no hard and fast rule. The ration should develop slightly from day to day to keep pace with the bird’s physical development, activity and even changes in weather. You have to decide upon the quantity of feed to give the kit on the day before you feed them. In other words, right after you feed them today; decide how much they will get tomorrow. Then get ready to revise it if the birds or weather changes tomorrow. After you’ve watched them perform today, feed them in and then go in the coop and feel them. If they are heavy and have a very full crop, cut down on the ration for the whole kit by 1/6 (based on six handfuls for a kit of 25 birds, feed five handfuls the next day) If they flew too long, took their time about going in the coop after they landed, were slow to clean up all the feed and if some left on the floor, drank and perched while there was still feed on the floor, cut down another half handful. You may have to increase the ration again slightly in another week or so if the birds show undesirable results from the lean ration. And so it goes, up and down from day to day. The idea is to balance the feed with the weather, the feel of the birds and the kits behavior. You will get so you can anticipate the birds (most of the time) and feeding the proper quantity will become automatic. There isn’t any other way to feed the critters and still get the best out of them and there’s no short cut to the right way. As to the kind of feed: Any commercial mix is alright, including pellets. Homemade mixes are O.K. too, if they provide some peas, also provide your birds with good grit.
More Info On Bill Pensom From Tom Monson
1. Pensom had many more subfamilies in his loft besides the 514’s and the Smiths. His whites were a family of their own; he had a recessive red family (a couple of pairs); he had a tortoiseshell line that was mostly based on the Pensom’s he picked up from Stan Plona, and he had a separate badge line that was made up of birds from England, chiefly through Ken Payne’s contacts. This was prior to 1965. As you know, when Pensom visited England in 1965, he renewed friendships with many fanciers who wanted to give him free choice from their lofts. When he returned, he imported a number of rollers from the following English fanciers: A. Wilf Portman, Bromsgrove, the black badge hen who became a real asset in future breeding; McCully got her or her offspring from the sale at Pensom’s death; I saw a number of her descendants at Kiser’s and Borges’ place in the late 1970s. B. O.D. Harris, Harborne, several pair of 1965 young birds and a couple of yearling 1964-bred birds (to my recollection). C. Bill Barrett, Bromsgrove, at least one pair, maybe one more, hen or cock. Barrett’s birds were heavily based upon the pigeons of Jim Skidmore of Blackheath. D. Bert Goode, Harborne, one bird? I find no record of any imports from Bert Goode, but I read somewhere in the last few weeks that there may have been a Goode pigeon in the bunch. 2. Why did Pensom bring in these pigeons? This is an often-misunderstood issue. Herb Sparkes once suggested that Pensom had concluded that his dark check self line was infrequent by reason of being all dark check and red check self’s, and they needed an outcross of softer-colored pigeons, which Herb called “party-colored” (pied) pigeons, such as odd sides, saddles, baldheads, etc. I think this is only a fraction of the story. What must be understood about Bill’s roller breeding is that he knew better than anyone that there was a variety of different “types” of roller that could spin properly. Some were larger than others, some were broader-chested, some were compact and short-coupled, and each type had its own unique character and expression that differentiated it from the other types. The best of the old Black Country rollers were represented not by just one type, but by several types. Among them were pigeons from at least the following Black Country lines: A. The Bill Richards (Harborne) pigeons—comparatively small, consisting mostly of check self’s, w/w’s and w/f’s with a few recessive red w/c/t’s. Richards’ pigeons were noted for their velocity and frequency, not for their depth of roll. B. The Harry Bellfield (Cradley Heath) “breed” (strain), which included many larger pigeons, and lots of grizzles. The Bellfields were deeper-rolling pigeons that were more on the hot side. C. The Joe Thompson (Harborne) pigeons were much like Smiths of the 1960s: a few spangles, lots of ash-red mealies and red checks, in w/w’s and badges. D. Albert Wyers (Stourbridge) had developed a family of whites and red-ticked pigeons that produced their share of champions. E. Elija Tomkins (the Lye, Stourbridge) developed his “patched breed,” consisting of red checked saddles and bellnecks and birds with uneven patches of color on their white background or uneven patches of white on their colored background, much like some racing homer pieds. Some of Clyde Davis’ pigeons probably look similar to the Tomkins birds. F. Ben Homer (Cradley Heath) had his own strain of spread blacks, lavenders, and grizzles that were closely-related to the Bellfield pigeons. G. Jim Skidmore (Blackheath) bred a family closely-related to Pensom’s and Bellfield’s, which was most easily recognized by a unique head shape with a prominent frontal but not necessarily large or rounded head. It was more of an angular head. H. Alf Roper (residence unknown, perhaps Defford, Worcestershire) had a few excellent pigeons, including some dark check self’s related to the Richards breed. Roper’s 46.945, reputed granddam of the 514 Hen, was obtained by Pensom from Roper. And surely there were other types which were unique to their own families. I must emphasize that “type” is relative: In the most general sense, all Birmingham Rollers fall into one general “type,” as contrasted with other breed “types.” Within the Birmingham Roller breed, there are multiple “types.” To fanciers intimately familiar with rollers, a variety of “types” or “sub-types” may be recognized. What must be understood is that Pensom’s desire was not simply to create one particular “type” of roller to exclude all others. He was fully aware that there were a variety of similar types (or sub-types) that could perform well, but that each gene pool had its own strengths and frailties. To choose one gene pool to the exclusion of all others was inviting trouble, because the close breeding within one particular strain or individualized “type” would invite problems (such as the 514 birds infrequency) that would require an outcross from some other line or ”type.” Moreover, it must always be remembered that Bill Pensom considered himself to be the repository of the best pigeons of each of these varying types. He wanted to retain these types for himself and for posterity. Bill lived in an era in which few American fanciers and only a handful of English fanciers knew how to cultivate rollers to their highest potential. My personal belief is that he wanted to preserve these types, as if they were an “endangered species,” so that they would not disappear from the roller fancy. Bill was only 60 years old when he imported these 1965 imports from England; he had no intention of dying in three years. He likely supposed that he had at least another 20 years to make something of these different bloodlines. When Pensom visited England in 1965, he was most impressed by the Ollie Harris pigeons, which were noted for excellent velocity, relatively early development, and extreme depth. Bill brought these back to Canoga Park and crossed them on many of his pigeons. He didn’t cross them strictly on his 514 pigeons as some have supposed. He also crossed some of them onto his hot stuff, such as the Red Headed Hen line. Howard McCully told me that Bill wanted to spend a few years upgrading the Harris pigeons to a point where he could come up with an ideal pigeon to infuse into this other lines. My opinion is that these pigeons were a little different in some respects from Bill’s, and he needed a couple of years to figure them out. I believe many of his early matings with the Harris pigeons were experimental matings to see how well they bred, how prepotent (or not) they might be, and how the offspring performed and behaved in Bill’s kits in California. So it appears from the records that Bill bred the Harris pigeons onto some of his Smith birds and some other lines, to see what they could produce. (To my knowledge, the O.D. Harris pigeons were closely-related to the Joe Thompson strain.) Bill is reputed to have played around with the Barrett’s he imported, breeding them for one year, then being somewhat disappointed with them. So he settled the one pair of Barrett’s, and flew them with his kits. To his surprise, the Barrett’s were excellent spinners, so he re-mated them in different ways the next year to try and get something better than they had produced the previous season. 3. It is mistaken to suppose that Pensom didn’t have plenty of “hot” lines in his own loft to which he could have crossed the 514 line. Jim Gillespie of Boise, Idaho, purchased numerous pigeons from Pensom from about 1964 to 1968. He and visitors to his loft in the early 1970s will attest that there were many very hot pigeons bred from the original Pensom pigeons, including bumpers and roll downs in a percentage as high as 15 to 20 percent. 4. It is equally mistaken to suppose that Bill did not cross the 514 line onto his Smiths or other lines. He did cross them here and there. What he was afraid of was the dissipation of their unique capacity for high velocity rolling. Pensom tried to intensify this capacity through a few matings of granddam-grandson, dam-son, and sire-daughter. When he did so, he began to notice the first signs of infrequency. Only LATER was this problem intensified, by McCully, Sparkes, McRae, and Borges and Kiser, by reason of their breeding of these pigeons, largely within their own line. It cannot be denied that Herb Sparkes also has bred many incredibly high-velocity spinners from these pigeons. Unfortunately, the tendency to breed a higher percentage of seldom rollers (and fast-flying rollers) seemed also to become relatively “fixed” in the line. I believe Pensom could have bred and crossed the 514’s in such a way as to retain their impressive velocity while minimizing their less desirable tendencies. Indeed, Cornell Norwood based his strain upon a number of 514-blooded birds, principally 60.119, and developed a family of very hot, even dangerous dark checks. McCully was always in love with the 514 dark check family, and that’s what 90% of his pigeons were. Thinking he might need a future cross, Howard chose the Wilf Portman Hen line and a couple of ash-red Smith birds. McCully was essentially a pedigree breeder. Like Smith, Hilton, and to a lesser extent, Plona, McCully often relied on Pensom to choose the matings for his pigeons. More than a dozen Southern California fanciers did likewise. When McCully lived in Portland, he appears to have mated his pigeons largely according to pedigree. When he moved to Canoga Park, Howard invited Pensom to mate his pigeons for him. Pensom visited Smith and Plona about every three years and suggested matings to them. They didn’t necessarily follow Pensom’s suggestions to the letter, but they paid close attention to his recommendations. After all, Smith’s original pigeons had all come from Pensom, either directly or via Al Walker or Ray Perkins. In 1966 or 67, Pensom visited Smith and Plona for the last time. Smith’s health was failing; he was having difficulty looking after his pigeons, and wanted Pensom to take whatever he had an interest in. Pensom shipped a box of a dozen birds when he left New York; the birds hadn’t arrived when Pensom arrived home in California. Pensom later received a post card notice from the airline, saying that the birds had all been killed through an accident at the airport in Chicago. Pensom was severely depressed to receive the news. Howard lamented the loss of a red check Smith hen Pensom had selected for him, one which Pensom described as being shaped “like a little ball.” Smith later sent a shipment of birds to replace those which had been killed. 5. Pensom often engaged in selected inbreeding matings. He was not afraid of inbreeding, where he thought it might be useful. However, most of his matings were of distantly-related pigeons. He was always looking for stunningly outstanding pigeons, for which he would select mates that seemed to suit them because they bore similar characteristics, often based upon the “type” or “strain” of Black Country roller they seemed to favor. Bill was neither a confirmed in breeder nor a confirmed outcrosser. You could say that he was a line breeder because all his pigeons descended from a few common lines of Black Country ancestry. It is commonplace nowadays for fanciers to see some particular series of matings and declare that Pensom adhered to one or another specific pedigree method of breeding. That’s just coincidence, in my opinion. The main thing I want to emphasize is that it is mistaken to suppose that Pensom “needed” any of these Smith birds, Harris birds, Barrett birds, or the Portman Hen, because his own line of birds was in need of some kind of an infusion of blood. When Pensom saw an excellent roller that appealed to him, nothing could stop him from getting his hands on it, so he could try it out. He was always trying to find a pigeon with a few super genes. In that sense, he was both an astute roller breeder and a “collector” of rollers. The fact that all these rollers were related or descended from pigeons related to his own is often overlooked by roller fanciers who see how many pigeons Pensom used for stock that had been bred by others. Pensom often picked up outstanding pigeons from Smith, bred them for a year, and then farmed them out to others so he could retrieve them if the offspring turned out to be champion spinners. He treated lofts like Hilton’s, McCully’s, Lopez’s, Lehmeyer’s, Whitney’s, and others as ”satellite” lofts where he would loan or give these men pigeons that Pensom had no space to breed; Pensom would suggest the matings and then visit the men a couple of times a year to see how the birds were doing. If a particular pigeon bred from his stock caught his eye, Pensom would take it home in return for another pigeon that would be useful to their breeding program. Smith and Plona were a little different. Smith decided about 1954 to close his loft to new introductions, despite Pensom’s offers to give him useful pigeons. Smith continued to share with Pensom any pigeon Pensom wanted to try out. Similarly, Plona didn’t want any pigeons that did not descend directly from Smith’s loft. Cheerio, Tom Monson.