My reasoning for placing the descriptions:

[cuban]

I placed the four descriptions of the Nankin (color) on the site knowing that many of you might not have access to them. I believe they can be helpful, especially those written in antiquity, in guiding us to understand our own Std. and point us toward any future changes.

Concerning the British Std.: I think it needs to be kept in mind that this Std. is not much older than our own. Nankins were not listed in the British Std for many years. Thus, there Std. reflects their interpretation of the older material just like ours does. If you have a British Std and read through the type described and then see pictures of the Nankins being raised in Britian today, you will readily see the marked differences in their birds and ours: even though they came from the same original stock.
Consequently, I don't think we should look to the British Std as a guide, but instead as a comparison. I don't think they are any more right than we are. Besides, since we know that the Nankin existed in America by at least 1850, then we should have the right to breed them in any direction we desire; even if the birds we are dealing with now are a more recent importation. With that said, I do think their list of serious defects is insightful.
As a matter of fact, I find the British birds too New Hampshire-ish for my taste. Is this because they have bred their birds in a different direction from ourselves, or is it because our stock has had OEGB added to the mix??
My unsolicited opinion,
cuban

[Lordcluck]

As I posted in another thread, Nankins have always lived in the shadow of the flagship traditional true bantams here in the UK. The "yellow' bantam was never taken that seriously in exhibition terms,or so highly developed, so thats why you see such a variation in type.
I see no reason why the breed shouldnt be bred in the US to your own and different standard. After all, this has been done with other British breeds such as the OEG and Indian (cornish) game, and with other breeds like the Leghorn and the Minorca.

[Falling Tree Farm]

I would like to add to this that a breed is defined by its standard and since it is only the phenotype that is described, it is a limited definition.  What if one bred all the fight out of an Asil and it looked like a 'picture-perfect' Asil but it loved every chicken it met?  Would it be an Asil???  Howard

[nankin3]

Howard, I agree with you on this point a bird should be bred as close to the standard as possible without losing it's true idenity in the process. This can be seen with many breeds that go through a "fad" faze especially the the traditional dual purpose birds, no thought is given to what the original bird was like only that it look a certain a way or have certain tendencies.