Thank you Trainman, Rob, and Al for all your explanations. Appreciate it.

I found it especially interesting that it is not so much the leaf span but
the number of inflorescences. I guess it makes sense since we grow orchids
primarily for the flowers not the leaves. And it does make sense that one
has to have seen a lot of plants in the same species to be able to judge
whether that particular plant is impressive for that species. It also makes
sense that most people would not part with their specimen for any amount of
money -- if I ever had grown a specimen (which is unlikely in the
foreseeable future, given that I am still pretty close to being a beginner
though with aspirations to consider myself an intermediately-experienced
Phal grower on my very bold days. :-) And yes, I also agree that happy
people form their own opinions, on the other hand, if I were to form the
opinion that I am an expert on Phals and my collection consists entirely of
specimen plants, I would have to make fun of myself, I fear. ;-)

Joanna

"Al" wrote in message
...

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...

People
worry too much about what other idiots think. Happy people form their
own opinions.

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

I singled these two sentences out of these very intelligent replies
because,
well, they are true and because not only am I a happy idiot with opinions
all my own but I am drinking eggnog and you all probably aren't. (I left
the golden rules alone because people like to read them over and over
again
and because they are true too and not seen often enough.)

Describing a plant set in front of the judges as a specimen is only one
aspect of how you might hear the word used. Specimen "size" might mean
only
full grown, but it certainly implies more.

As has been pointed out, when one is set in front of you, you must know
something about the grex or species of the plant being described as a
specimen before you can truly know if it is really a specimen. It could
be
that the person describing it is very proud of what is only the largest or
longest owned plant in their multi genera collection even though you just
saw a huge one at a recent show that was a 1000 times bigger. In this
case
just nod and say "oooh, ah!"; don't snicker. It could be that it is the
only plant they have ever grown that has absolutely no blemishes at all on
the leaves and they are proud. And they should be. A blemish free plant
is
a feat unto itself.

When I hear the term to describe a plant I am not seeing, I picture a
plant
that has the following qualities: it has multiple leads or 'pups' (if it
is
monopodial), it is larger than average for it's grex or species. It is
clean and well grown with what looks like many years of vigorous growth
behind it (I might call a single growth Phal a specimen, but I would
require more eggnog.) Whatever else it is, it is well established in it's
pot or mount and capable of blooming on many more than just a few
inflorescences on the next flowering. It is not likely for sale at any
earthly price.

However, often you come across sentences in catalogs like, "a kiekie (or
back bulb) from our specimen plant" or "vigorous seedling in a 2.5" pot
capable of growing into a specimen plant" and in these sentences the term
is
more marketing ploy than anything else. There can be no guarantee that
any
plant will one day be a specimen plant, even if it is cut off the back of
the largest CCM specimen plant ever known to the orchid collecting world.

Bottom line: Caveat emptor y mas nog por favor....