On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:36:36 GMT, "J Fortuna"
wrote:

P.S.: Another thought:
"K Barrett" wrote in message
news:9npqd.110410$5K2.16436@attbi_s03...
If you looked in Wildcatt for previous AOS awards remember that
Wildcatt
doesn't include any of the awards from the Register of Awards (the
RA).
So
there's a whole mess o' previous awards that aren't listed.


Both Kath and Joanna have points. I am going to try for another
couple. Ever been the second to say something is beautiful?
Most people don't want to reinforce another's position. So most
judges will pass on a plant that has a high award or a reasonably
high award. They will think they are not going to score the
plant higher, so it is a waste of time to score it. Sometimes it
is a case of "that is such an old cross we should be looking for
something new and better." Few stop to ask if there is new and
if it is better. All that said...

Joanna's point that RHS and AOS judging is different. RHS
judging never looks at the flower (even in ribbon judging) until
the plant has pasted muster. If the plant is not in good shape
the flower can not be at it's best. I recently ribbon judged
with an RHS judge on our judging team. It was very interesting.

Kath said it took one judge to nominate something for scoring.
It also often takes one nay sayer to stop a judging. If one of
the senior judges says something very negative about a breeding
line, plant age, or style, often the process will stall. It is
after all an educated opinion of the condition of the flower
and/or plant on a specific day at a specific time in the bloom
cycle of the plant.


SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

Hi Gene,

This is not a case of who is right. Judging is all about metrics. A metric
is defined and plants are than compared to this metric and rated. There is
no reason to think different organizations will select the same metric.
Along those same lines, when I am considering plants to put in my
greenhouses I use a metric based on profit potential.

A few years back I had a two spike phal pulled from a show display, after
measurements and judge discussions it was passed on. After judging, the
head judge pulled me aside to discuss the plant. She told me the plant had
everything for an award except the flower size was a bit small. She
recommended that next year I cut off the second spike as soon as it started
to show with the hope that the plant would put the extra energy into the
remaining spike and maybe the flower size would cut mustard.

When selling plants, I get more money for a two spike plant than a one
spiker. Even at a higher price, the two spiker with its marginally smaller
flowers will sell first. With my metric for plants, the recommendation of
cutting off the second spike seemed silly, but when rating a plant by the
AOS metric it made perfect sense.

Around here we have a game. When AQ arrives we go to the color picture
section and based solely on the picture and the award granted, we pick
plants we think belong to judges. We are very good at it. I like to think
this is not a sign that the judging system is corrupt or broken, but instead
just shows that the judges are in tune to their metric and understand what
will be awarded by their metric.

When considering plants for your collection, in addition to the AOS judging
metrics I think the consumer's metric should also rate traits such as plant
vigor, bloom last time, number of bloomings a year, number of spikes
produced, time till first bloom for seedlings, conditions required and
personal preferences of flower colors, shapes and patterns.


Pat

All of what you say is pretty logical from where I am reading. The quoted
part below made me smile. What is fun is listening to one group of judges
talk about the awards given by other groups as they decide if the flower in
front of them is worth scoring. It seems each judging group develops a
somewhat different culture or metric.

It is too bad you can't take the same inflorescence to several area judgings
to see whose metric best agrees with your own. From where I am setting it
seems like the only thing they have to loose, if this were allowed, is their
divergent metrics.

If I say anymore about judging I'll just get myself all twisted up and be
useless for the rest of the day. Love the judges, hate the judgments.
....unless they are in my favor, of course.

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Hi Gene,
Around here we have a game. When AQ arrives we go to the color picture
section and based solely on the picture and the award granted, we pick
plants we think belong to judges. We are very good at it. I like to
think this is not a sign that the judging system is corrupt or broken, but
instead just shows that the judges are in tune to their metric and
understand what will be awarded by their metric.

When selling plants, I get more money for a two spike plant than a one
spiker. Even at a higher price, the two spiker with its marginally smaller
flowers will sell first. With my metric for plants, the recommendation of
cutting off the second spike seemed silly, but when rating a plant by the
AOS metric it made perfect sense.



Well, size is only ten points... For phals, floriferousness is also
ten points... So they should cancel out. Some points are more equal
than others, it seems.

Around here we have a game. When AQ arrives we go to the color picture
section and based solely on the picture and the award granted, we pick
plants we think belong to judges. We are very good at it. I like to think
this is not a sign that the judging system is corrupt or broken, but instead
just shows that the judges are in tune to their metric and understand what
will be awarded by their metric.


At least around here, most of the plants taken to a judging are
owned by judges... Can't award something we don't see. I know that I
don't take a plant to judging unless I think it is likely to get an
award. I've been burned that way several times - we have awarded plants
of the same cross that I have in my collection, my flowers are better
but not at judging... I hate that. Actually since my standards are so
high I don't take many plants to judging...

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
LittlefrogFarm is open - e-mail me for a list )

Pat,

I agree with you on the profit potential metrics. It would be great for you
to have lots of FCC certificates but it's customer demand that pays the
heating bill. You have to grow plants that people want to display in their
homes. Us crazy collectors don't buy enough to pay the bills.

Do you feel an FCC from the RHS is equal to an FCC from the AOS? Does one
award increase the value of the cross more than the other?

I see lots of awards for plants from different groups. Is there a ranking
of RHS awards are worth more than CSA, CSA worth more than HOS, etc?

I guess I've always been tuned to look for AOS awards as a measure of a
plant that has good potential. When I see these other awards from other
groups I don't really give them the credit they deserve and maybe I should.


Gene


"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Hi Gene,

This is not a case of who is right. Judging is all about metrics. A
metric
is defined and plants are than compared to this metric and rated. There
is
no reason to think different organizations will select the same metric.
Along those same lines, when I am considering plants to put in my
greenhouses I use a metric based on profit potential.

A few years back I had a two spike phal pulled from a show display, after
measurements and judge discussions it was passed on. After judging, the
head judge pulled me aside to discuss the plant. She told me the plant
had
everything for an award except the flower size was a bit small. She
recommended that next year I cut off the second spike as soon as it
started
to show with the hope that the plant would put the extra energy into the
remaining spike and maybe the flower size would cut mustard.

When selling plants, I get more money for a two spike plant than a one
spiker. Even at a higher price, the two spiker with its marginally
smaller
flowers will sell first. With my metric for plants, the recommendation of
cutting off the second spike seemed silly, but when rating a plant by the
AOS metric it made perfect sense.

Around here we have a game. When AQ arrives we go to the color picture
section and based solely on the picture and the award granted, we pick
plants we think belong to judges. We are very good at it. I like to
think
this is not a sign that the judging system is corrupt or broken, but
instead
just shows that the judges are in tune to their metric and understand what
will be awarded by their metric.

When considering plants for your collection, in addition to the AOS
judging
metrics I think the consumer's metric should also rate traits such as
plant
vigor, bloom last time, number of bloomings a year, number of spikes
produced, time till first bloom for seedlings, conditions required and
personal preferences of flower colors, shapes and patterns.


Pat

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:08:29 GMT, "Gene Schurg"
wrote:

Pat,

I agree with you on the profit potential metrics. It would be great for you
to have lots of FCC certificates but it's customer demand that pays the
heating bill.

I guess I've always been tuned to look for AOS awards as a measure of a
plant that has good potential. When I see these other awards from other
groups I don't really give them the credit they deserve and maybe I should.

Gene

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Hi Gene,

This is not a case of who is right. Judging is all about metrics. A
metric is defined and plants are than compared to this metric and rated.

There are really 3 judging points in an AOS judging. First the
plant as picked from a table of entries to be looked at closely.
Second the judges decide to score or pass on judging this
blooming of the plant. Third they each receive a score card on
which they write a numeric value for color, size, number of
flowers, shape and form of the dorsal, of the petals, of the
lip/pouch. The sum of all these individual points is averaged
over the team and we have our numeric score.

It is the first and second decision points that are often the
most difficult to cross. This is where the eye has to be caught
and the mind engaged favorably for the plant. Many judges are
more influenced by the 'size' of the flower or the different
color when they decide to score or not score a plant. When they
do score the plants these items have a much smaller influence.

As to Metrics - - Other than the RHS requiring a well grown plant
under a well grown flower, just by their judging style; I know of
none that suggests a lesser requirement for beautiful flowers
from one group or another. I would just remember that as someone
noted HCC's here sometimes are a dime a dozen. That the judging
is one groups (usually 5-7 people) opinion on a specific day of a
specific bloom spike.

If YOU like it, if YOU think it is as perfect an example of its
type, YOU should celebrate it and enjoy.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

Your first step may or may not happen. In the Atlanta center every plant
goes to a judging team for consideration.
-danny

There are really 3 judging points in an AOS judging. First the
plant as picked from a table of entries to be looked at closely.
Second the judges decide to score or pass on judging this
blooming of the plant. Third they each receive a score card on
which they write a numeric value for color, size, number of
flowers, shape and form of the dorsal, of the petals, of the
lip/pouch. The sum of all these individual points is averaged
over the team and we have our numeric score.

Gene,

I do not know much about the CSA and HOS awards, sorry. I have seen some
pretty weak BM & SM/WOC, but it could be they were just old awards. I have
seen plants with awards from orchid societies in Asia and expect it is time
to learn about these award systems.

As has already been said, AOS and RHS awards measure different things. I
think of RHS as sort of AOS award and AOS ribbon judging combined into one.
It is a special plant that can carry both awards.

As to which award raises the plant value more . . .I could get myself into
so much trouble here. I have made my living selling blooming plants for
over a decade now and I have found that an award does not really change a
plants value. I know this is not true for all orchid businesses, especially
those marketing non blooming plants. Before anyone calls me nuts, look at
the flask and plug offerings from the major cloning labs, very few of the
plants will be carrying awards and those which do have awards carry no
premium; look at the orchids for sale in the box stores or other major
outlets and try to find a price difference between awarded and nonawarded
plants; or even go to an orchid show and try to find a relationship between
price and award level of the blooming plants being offered.

I disagree with those that say an AOS award is a good measure for selecting
plants for ownership or breeding. The system does not consider factors
essential for making those measures. Instead I view the judging system as
the AOS means for tracking and documenting the current state of orchid
flowers. In a recent survey of judges, 23% of the judges said they would
not award a plant if an equal plant from the same cross had been awarded a
year before. The second plant is just as good as the first with or without
the award, AOS has documented the cross with the first award and it is time
to move on.

The state of orchid flowers moves fairly quickly. In many cases flower
quality that was awarded five years ago would not even be considered today.
An award without knowing the date of the award is pretty meaningless for
assessing the flower quality. A cross is most likely to be at least 4 years
old before a plant is mature enough to be awarded. If after the award it is
sent to the lab, it is another two years before clone flasks start to be
return. Compot, 2.5" pot, 4" pot - at least another 3 years before the
clones are blooming, nine years after the cross was first made. Buying
awarded clone might not always put the best quality flowers in your
collection when seedlings a couple of generations ahead of the clones are
also offered.

In all of this please do not get me wrong. I am always honored and a bit
humbled when granted an AOS award. I addition it is always very cool when a
plant you are currently breeding with or have already sent out for cloning
is pulled out of an exhibit and granted an award.

Pat

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
ink.net...
Pat,

I agree with you on the profit potential metrics. It would be great for
you
to have lots of FCC certificates but it's customer demand that pays the
heating bill. You have to grow plants that people want to display in
their
homes. Us crazy collectors don't buy enough to pay the bills.

Do you feel an FCC from the RHS is equal to an FCC from the AOS? Does
one
award increase the value of the cross more than the other?

I see lots of awards for plants from different groups. Is there a
ranking
of RHS awards are worth more than CSA, CSA worth more than HOS, etc?

I guess I've always been tuned to look for AOS awards as a measure of a
plant that has good potential. When I see these other awards from other
groups I don't really give them the credit they deserve and maybe I
should.


Gene

Pat,

All good points.

Nothing beats seeing a plant in bloom so you can judge for yourself if you
like it. No one wants to grow a flower and not enjoy it.

I hope all is well out in the valley.

Gene



"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Gene,

I do not know much about the CSA and HOS awards, sorry. I have seen some
pretty weak BM & SM/WOC, but it could be they were just old awards. I
have
seen plants with awards from orchid societies in Asia and expect it is
time
to learn about these award systems.

As has already been said, AOS and RHS awards measure different things. I
think of RHS as sort of AOS award and AOS ribbon judging combined into
one.
It is a special plant that can carry both awards.

As to which award raises the plant value more . . .I could get myself into
so much trouble here. I have made my living selling blooming plants for
over a decade now and I have found that an award does not really change a
plants value. I know this is not true for all orchid businesses,
especially
those marketing non blooming plants. Before anyone calls me nuts, look at
the flask and plug offerings from the major cloning labs, very few of the
plants will be carrying awards and those which do have awards carry no
premium; look at the orchids for sale in the box stores or other major
outlets and try to find a price difference between awarded and nonawarded
plants; or even go to an orchid show and try to find a relationship
between
price and award level of the blooming plants being offered.

I disagree with those that say an AOS award is a good measure for
selecting
plants for ownership or breeding. The system does not consider factors
essential for making those measures. Instead I view the judging system as
the AOS means for tracking and documenting the current state of orchid
flowers. In a recent survey of judges, 23% of the judges said they would
not award a plant if an equal plant from the same cross had been awarded a
year before. The second plant is just as good as the first with or
without
the award, AOS has documented the cross with the first award and it is
time
to move on.

The state of orchid flowers moves fairly quickly. In many cases flower
quality that was awarded five years ago would not even be considered
today.
An award without knowing the date of the award is pretty meaningless for
assessing the flower quality. A cross is most likely to be at least 4
years
old before a plant is mature enough to be awarded. If after the award it
is
sent to the lab, it is another two years before clone flasks start to be
return. Compot, 2.5" pot, 4" pot - at least another 3 years before the
clones are blooming, nine years after the cross was first made. Buying
awarded clone might not always put the best quality flowers in your
collection when seedlings a couple of generations ahead of the clones are
also offered.

In all of this please do not get me wrong. I am always honored and a bit
humbled when granted an AOS award. I addition it is always very cool when
a
plant you are currently breeding with or have already sent out for cloning
is pulled out of an exhibit and granted an award.

Pat

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
ink.net...
Pat,

I agree with you on the profit potential metrics. It would be great for
you
to have lots of FCC certificates but it's customer demand that pays the
heating bill. You have to grow plants that people want to display in
their
homes. Us crazy collectors don't buy enough to pay the bills.

Do you feel an FCC from the RHS is equal to an FCC from the AOS? Does
one
award increase the value of the cross more than the other?

I see lots of awards for plants from different groups. Is there a
ranking
of RHS awards are worth more than CSA, CSA worth more than HOS, etc?

I guess I've always been tuned to look for AOS awards as a measure of a
plant that has good potential. When I see these other awards from other
groups I don't really give them the credit they deserve and maybe I
should.


Gene

and I have found that an award does not really change a
plants value.

Not for clonable plants but for Paphs and Phrags the value definately goes up.
Depending on what the plant is newly awarded plants command a big premium. Some
whites seem to demand an tremendous premium some well over 2k, while others are
usually in the $250-500 range per growth.

In time the cost does come down somewhat unless the plant is a good breeder.

Prior to cloning most other awarded orchids also commanded premiums but with
the advent of the cloning process and production of thousands of identical
plants the prices came down to less than $25 for a mature plant and in some
cases under $10.

Yeah...Look at Paph rothchildianum.

An FCC awarded plant is outrageously expensive.

Gene




"TRAINMAN9" wrote in message
...
and I have found that an award does not really change a
plants value.

Not for clonable plants but for Paphs and Phrags the value definately goes
up.
Depending on what the plant is newly awarded plants command a big premium.
Some
whites seem to demand an tremendous premium some well over 2k, while
others are
usually in the $250-500 range per growth.

In time the cost does come down somewhat unless the plant is a good
breeder.

Prior to cloning most other awarded orchids also commanded premiums but
with
the advent of the cloning process and production of thousands of identical
plants the prices came down to less than $25 for a mature plant and in
some
cases under $10.

and I have found that an award does not really change a
plants value.

Not for clonable plants but for Paphs and Phrags the value definately goes up.
Depending on what the plant is newly awarded plants command a big premium. Some
whites seem to demand an tremendous premium some well over 2k, while others are
usually in the $250-500 range per growth.

In time the cost does come down somewhat unless the plant is a good breeder.

Prior to cloning most other awarded orchids also commanded premiums but with
the advent of the cloning process and production of thousands of identical
plants the prices came down to less than $25 for a mature plant and in some
cases under $10.

"Gene Schurg" wrote in
nk.net:

I have a Paphiopedilum F. C. Puddle 'Bodnant' FCC/RHS (Actaeus x
Astarte) division about to come into bloom. I noticed it was awarded
an FCC from the RHS but I don't seem to find any AOS awards for this
or any F. C. Puddle.

Why is this? Are the RHS awards easier to get than an AOS award? Or
was this awarded a long long time ago?

Good growing,
Gene


Gene, That is a classic plant, and was awarded years ago. It is still a
goody to have I'm sure. As for the award by AOS, it could be for several
reasons that it was not granted an AOS award, but this is not because
the RHS has lower standards. I think most of us regard the RHS (and JOS
and other organizations) as having equal standards. And, let's not let
AOS get too high on the horse either. I've spoken to commercial growers
who have expressed wonder why some plants ever got an AOS award. One
even cynically remarked that it was because of judges giving awards to
their friends' plants! ...But that was probably sour grapes talking, no?

Bob Dickow, Moscow Idaho


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Susan,

I'm not sure I understand your point. If a plant gets an FCC/RHS then AOS
judges will pass on scoring it?

If this is what you are saying then is an FCC/RHS as "valuable" as an
FCC/AOS? Somehow it doesn't seem that way.

Gene


"Susan Erickson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:36:36 GMT, "J Fortuna"
wrote:

P.S.: Another thought:
"K Barrett" wrote in message
news:9npqd.110410$5K2.16436@attbi_s03...
If you looked in Wildcatt for previous AOS awards remember that
Wildcatt
doesn't include any of the awards from the Register of Awards (the
RA).
So
there's a whole mess o' previous awards that aren't listed.


Both Kath and Joanna have points. I am going to try for another
couple. Ever been the second to say something is beautiful?
Most people don't want to reinforce another's position. So most
judges will pass on a plant that has a high award or a reasonably
high award. They will think they are not going to score the
plant higher, so it is a waste of time to score it. Sometimes it
is a case of "that is such an old cross we should be looking for
something new and better." Few stop to ask if there is new and
if it is better. All that said...

Joanna's point that RHS and AOS judging is different. RHS
judging never looks at the flower (even in ribbon judging) until
the plant has pasted muster. If the plant is not in good shape
the flower can not be at it's best. I recently ribbon judged
with an RHS judge on our judging team. It was very interesting.

Kath said it took one judge to nominate something for scoring.
It also often takes one nay sayer to stop a judging. If one of
the senior judges says something very negative about a breeding
line, plant age, or style, often the process will stall. It is
after all an educated opinion of the condition of the flower
and/or plant on a specific day at a specific time in the bloom
cycle of the plant.


SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

I don't know how often the AOS and other organizaitons award and FCC
to the same clone but it is not unheard of.
A quick search of my picture reference database found pictures for 11
different plants given FCC's by both the AOS and RHS. That doesn't
include plants which received FCC's from both organizations, but were
not labeled with both in the book or catalogue at the time of
publication of the picture.

The plants I found we

Angulocaste Tudor 'Bill Rinaman'
Brassolaeliacattleya. Norman's Bay 'Low'
Cymbidium Bourgondian 'Chateau' or 'Chateaux'
Doritaenopsis Red Coral 'Fuschia'
Laelia tenebrosa 'Walton Grange'
Paphiopedilum Winston Churchill 'Redoubtable'
Phragmipedium Memoria Dick Clements 'Jersey'
Sophrolaeliocattleya. Falcon 'Alexanderi'
Sophrolaeliocattleya. Falcon 'Westonbirt'
Vuylstekeara Cambria 'Plush'
Vuylstekeara Edna 'Stamperland'

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 01:53:32 GMT, "Gene Schurg"
wrote:

Susan,

I'm not sure I understand your point. If a plant gets an FCC/RHS then AOS
judges will pass on scoring it?

If this is what you are saying then is an FCC/RHS as "valuable" as an
FCC/AOS? Somehow it doesn't seem that way.

Gene


"Susan Erickson" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:36:36 GMT, "J Fortuna"
wrote:

P.S.: Another thought:
"K Barrett" wrote in message
news:9npqd.110410$5K2.16436@attbi_s03...
If you looked in Wildcatt for previous AOS awards remember that
Wildcatt
doesn't include any of the awards from the Register of Awards (the
RA).
So
there's a whole mess o' previous awards that aren't listed.


Both Kath and Joanna have points. I am going to try for another
couple. Ever been the second to say something is beautiful?
Most people don't want to reinforce another's position. So most
judges will pass on a plant that has a high award or a reasonably
high award. They will think they are not going to score the
plant higher, so it is a waste of time to score it. Sometimes it
is a case of "that is such an old cross we should be looking for
something new and better." Few stop to ask if there is new and
if it is better. All that said...

Joanna's point that RHS and AOS judging is different. RHS
judging never looks at the flower (even in ribbon judging) until
the plant has pasted muster. If the plant is not in good shape
the flower can not be at it's best. I recently ribbon judged
with an RHS judge on our judging team. It was very interesting.

Kath said it took one judge to nominate something for scoring.
It also often takes one nay sayer to stop a judging. If one of
the senior judges says something very negative about a breeding
line, plant age, or style, often the process will stall. It is
after all an educated opinion of the condition of the flower
and/or plant on a specific day at a specific time in the bloom
cycle of the plant.


SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php