It’s certainly a male, age of which I’m unsure however, I’m thinking it might be a 2nd year bird?
Cheers
I’m not too hot on ageing (personally and avian 🤣) however, I had an all grey bird in the garden early September a few years back and I was assured that it was a 1st year bird (hatch year). This bird looks somewhat more advanced than that Simon?Why 2nd year and not 1st, Ken?
Sounds like juvenile or 1st-year male or adult female black redstart - if so, no useful lessons to be learnt there - their plumage sequences differ.I had an all grey bird in the garden early Sept
Certainly not a Black Redstart….Sounds like juvenile or 1st-year male or adult female black redstart - if so, no useful lessons to be learnt there - their plumage sequences differ.
Ah - not 'all grey' at all then.Certainly not a Black Redstart
when male Common Redstarts achieve “full” breeding plumage
What colour would you call this?Ah - not 'all grey' at all then.
I’m not too hot on ageing (personally and avian 🤣) however, I had an all grey bird in the garden early September a few years back and I was assured that it was a 1st year bird (hatch year). This bird looks somewhat more advanced than that Simon?
It’s ‘in the buff’ Ken! Well, underparts are. The upperparts, let’s go for grey/brown ( I wonder if Dulux are still recruiting for paint colour naming executives ).
To my eye Richard, the upperpart colour is a concolourous grey, unfortunately it didn’t profile itself for “the camera” but it did to my eyes.It’s ‘in the buff’ Ken! Well, underparts are. The upperparts, let’s go for grey/brown ( I wonder if Dulux are still recruiting for paint colour naming executives ).
Please don't suggest that people have said things that they haven't said. It's bad form and disrespectful.I never noted any buff to the upperparts ….try specsavers
Depends on the relationship that one has with the recipient….in your case it might be different.😮Please don't suggest that people have said things that they haven't said. It's bad form and disrespectful.
Richard, my understanding of “in the buff” refers to being naked? (don’t know if our non-English contributors would understand this?)So as we have an ‘International special relationship’ I can safely call you a dopey twerp for not reading my post carefully enough Ken: « It’s ‘in the buff’ Ken! Well, underparts are ». To spell it out without my attempted humour, on your bird the underparts look off white with buffish-brown flanks, upperparts grey/brown.
I think that the OP photos are of a 1st winter male, buffish fringed greater coverts and incomplete supercilium would suggest that.
Have a good Monday All.
Maybe, in the World-of-Ken, this is how one a) acknowledges that one has publicly misrepresented someone's words and b) apologizes for it.Richard, my understanding of “in the buff” refers to being naked? (don’t know if our non-English contributors would understand this?)
I was referring to the bird’s “uppers” not it’s “unders”.
Take the simplest explanation: that (as is common in black redstart) it was a 1-year-old breeding in immature plumage. No mystery.what looked like an immature male Redstart assisting an adult female with the feeding of juveniles