First Place:  2

Entry number:  108

Exhibitor:  hhhhmom

State:  TX

Sheep name/number:  Lady

Breed:  Hampshire

In my top pair of heavier muscled and more stylish lambs that are more structurally desirable, I preferred the additional thickness through the lower 1/3 of the leg and the squarer hip of the Hampshire-influenced ewe.

Second Place:  3

Entry number:  124

Exhibitor:  Lambman87

State:  IN

Sheep name/number:  18743

Breed:  Suffolk

While 3 would appear to have a firmer handle across the top and is the nicest-fronted lamb in the class, he does not bring the muscle expression we see in 2 and is presented at a disadvantage in not being able to evaluate his top and rear from a similar angle to the other lambs.  Furthermore, in a class designated as a market class rather than a prospect class, I chose to go with the more market-ready finish we appear to have in our class winner.  

However, in an easy middle decision, the longer-sided leveler topped, heavier muscled 3 places over 4.  This pair is especially easy to place with the cleaner fronted 3 wether being better in terms of the loin edge and apparently smoother in the hip-loin juncture.

Third Place:  4

Entry number:  125

The lack of shape in the leg of 4 is truly disappointing.

In a bottom pair of lambs with poor muscling and structural problems, I chose 4 over 1.  4 appears to be longer-sided with a higher pin setting.

Fourth Place:  1

Entry number:  064

While 1 may show more muscle shape through the leg and over the top when from the side, I criticize him and placed him last for being the short-sided, roughest-topped lamb in the class.