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.

Yeah...Look at Paph rothchildianum.

An FCC awarded plant is outrageously expensive.

Gene


Some of the older clones like Charles E. are more reasonable but the newer ones
are still pretty high. I wonder how much "Janet" or "Mt. Milas" go for?

I was just thinking about that today. Since I don't get AQ or wildcatt I
don't know how old an award is.

I do remember that Charles E. is an older award....So I guess from your
response that a new FCC on roth is worth more than a 10 year old FCC. Makes
sense to me.





"TRAINMAN9" wrote in message
...
Yeah...Look at Paph rothchildianum.

An FCC awarded plant is outrageously expensive.

Gene


Some of the older clones like Charles E. are more reasonable but the newer
ones
are still pretty high. I wonder how much "Janet" or "Mt. Milas" go for?

And look at how many FCCs Paph rothschildianum has. I think someone
mentioned that some judges think a plant has 'too many' awards and therefore
no longer consider a plant judging. Well, obviously not. Same could be
said for Paph armeniacum.

K Barrett

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
. net...
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.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:08:23 GMT, "K Barrett"
wrote:

And look at how many FCCs Paph rothschildianum has. I think someone
mentioned that some judges think a plant has 'too many' awards and therefore
no longer consider a plant judging. Well, obviously not. Same could be
said for Paph armeniacum.

K Barrett


Not saying it is true with either of these plants...
Sometimes the original awards and what is awarded today is so
different the originals would now be considered not worth looking
at. So as judges we need to compare and not count.

There is the argument that awards raise the price in a Paph... is
it fair to not raise the price for one competitor after you did
it for another?

But if every other plant has an award has the award lost its
power?

Still best to pick your own perfect bloom.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php

I've heard from several sources that when armeniacum was first shown to
judges the bright yellow color was like a strong drug that made them do
crazy things. They gave a bunch of FCCs to the early generations in culture
and now there are much better specimens that have several generations of
selection behind them. This is a good example of a buyer beware......if its
an early FCC and you pay a big price you are getting taken.

So if someone shows a really deserving specimen of armeniacum are they at a
disadvantage? I know it's all about measurements...yes, size counts! Does
the judging team score something thats 10% bigger than an FCC awarded 10
years ago as an AM (or lower)?

Gene



"K Barrett" wrote in message
news:Whlsd.509102$D%.320222@attbi_s51...
And look at how many FCCs Paph rothschildianum has. I think someone
mentioned that some judges think a plant has 'too many' awards and
therefore
no longer consider a plant judging. Well, obviously not. Same could be
said for Paph armeniacum.

K Barrett

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
. net...
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.