"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 =---

"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 =---

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.

FC Puddle has 3 AOS awards including one on 'Bodnant' - an AM of 80 points
granted in New York in November 1958.

As to RHS vs AOS ease of awards... wel they kinda sorta are different
animals.

The judging system - IIRC - in England is based on acclaimation. The judges
all agree that the flower is of a certain quality and grant the award. I
can't recall if the Judges score the flower, toss out the high and low and
average the remaining scores or not.

The AOS has a point scoring system. Only one judge is needed for a team to
judge a flower. Then a team judges the flower, the scores must all be
within 6 points of each other, the scores are averaged and results in the
pointed award.

I always thought it was a bit harder to get a RHS award. For one thing they
don't have the HCC so a flower must be of a certain calibre in order to even
be considered for judging. Plus the judges themselves are a class amongst
themselves. One becomes an RHS judge by acclaimation, too, when the other
RHS judges decide you know enough to judge.

Imagine the AOS system without the HCC award. There's be nothing to
print...*G*

K Barrett
"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
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,

Let me preface this by saying that while I know very little about orchid
judging, I studied comparative international relations and cultural studies,
and this response is based on this experience.

I would think that both of them can be "right", even when their conclusions
are very different.

Since the RHS is in Great Britain and the AOS is in the US, I would expect
cultural differences in aesthetic perception.

For example, the American judges might perceive larger flower size a plus,
whereas it's possible that in another culture the larger flower size might
be considered a disadvantage since the large flowers might be less
aesthetically appealing. So even if the judges were using strict criteria,
and no favoritism and no internal politics (a big if I assume), even then I
would expect differences in awards.

Since aesthetics is a huge part of judging orchids, I would think that an
orchid cannot be found "objectively" to be superior to another, unless one
is clearly in bad shape and the other is truly well grown. I expect that all
of the orchids brought to a show for judging are well grown and subjectively
considered superior to many others by at least one experienced grower (the
one who submits the plant for judging). The orchid that wins the highest
award can be described as considered superior by the judges in this culture
at this time (and the majority of contemporary orchid growers in this same
culture may or may not agree with these judges), but I would be surprised if
there were any single plant that could possibly get the highest award in all
cultures or in all time periods.

Joanna

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
k.net...
Thanks for the info about 'Bodant'. I didn't know it had an AM/AOS.

I find the whole judging thing interesting. When one organization
considers a plant with top honors another looks at it and gives it
something
less it makes you wonder who is right.

Good growing,
Gene





"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.

FC Puddle has 3 AOS awards including one on 'Bodnant' - an AM of 80
points
granted in New York in November 1958.

As to RHS vs AOS ease of awards... wel they kinda sorta are different
animals.

The judging system - IIRC - in England is based on acclaimation. The
judges
all agree that the flower is of a certain quality and grant the award.
I
can't recall if the Judges score the flower, toss out the high and low
and
average the remaining scores or not.

The AOS has a point scoring system. Only one judge is needed for a team
to
judge a flower. Then a team judges the flower, the scores must all be
within 6 points of each other, the scores are averaged and results in
the
pointed award.

I always thought it was a bit harder to get a RHS award. For one thing
they
don't have the HCC so a flower must be of a certain calibre in order to
even
be considered for judging. Plus the judges themselves are a class
amongst
themselves. One becomes an RHS judge by acclaimation, too, when the
other
RHS judges decide you know enough to judge.

Imagine the AOS system without the HCC award. There's be nothing to
print...*G*

K Barrett
"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
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

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 )

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

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

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

Bob,

First of all...great site you have. I use it often to check names of plants
and where to go to find a picture.

My point of this thread is that I would expect that a plant awarded an FCC
from the RHS (or other group) should also score very high by other
organizations. At least that is what I thought until this discussion. I
find it interesting that a search of your files only yielded a short list of
plants with FCCs from both organizations.

It appears that a plant with an FCC from AOS may not get equal consideration
by the RHS and vice versa.

Not that any of this really matters in the big scheme of things....just
interesting observation.

Good Growing,
Gene





"Bob Betts" wrote in message
...
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

Thanks for the complement. I am happy you (and hopefully others) find
it useful. The small project of indexing our own small collection of
orchid books (about 170 at last count) to help my wife find a picture
seems to have gotten out of hand over the last few years. I sometimes
wonder whether I should keep doing it since it takes a lot of time.
Comments like yours tell me it is worth continuing to do.

As far as the few hits go, I am sure there are a lot of reasons - not
the least of which is that FCC's are few and far between to begin
with.
Also, I have learned, from typing over 120,000 records, that even
though pretty clear guidelines or rules exist for typing the name of a
plant, they are often not followed, even by people and organizations
that should know better. Plants that have been awarded sometimes
appear in picture lables without the award designation, either because
the book was printed before the plant was awarded or the author and
publisher simply didn't put it in. Of the 120,212 records in the
database, only 1,976 of them have the string FCC in them and of course
that is not 1,976 different plants because pictures of some plants
appear many times (e.g. Blc. Malworth 'Orchidglade' appears 29 times
with the FCC designation but is in the database 35 times in total
including once with no award designation at all.

Also, when the plant is awarded by multiple organizations, the way it
is shown in the label may vary. A common way seems to be FCC/AOS-RHS
or FCC/RHS-AOS but I have also seen it printed as FCC/AOS, FCC/RHS and
the variations go on from there. The lack of consistancy makes it
difficult to find all the hits without doing multiple searches and
without being clairvoyant enough to guess all the search strings to
use.



On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:54:27 GMT, "Gene Schurg"
wrote:

Bob,

First of all...great site you have. I use it often to check names of plants
and where to go to find a picture.

My point of this thread is that I would expect that a plant awarded an FCC
from the RHS (or other group) should also score very high by other
organizations. At least that is what I thought until this discussion. I
find it interesting that a search of your files only yielded a short list of
plants with FCCs from both organizations.

It appears that a plant with an FCC from AOS may not get equal consideration
by the RHS and vice versa.

Not that any of this really matters in the big scheme of things....just
interesting observation.

Good Growing,
Gene





"Bob Betts" wrote in message
...
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

I don't think an award from a different organization would affect a plant's
chances of getting an AOS award. There are a couple very good reasons why
most clones wouldn't have awards from both organizations:

- AOS gives a lot more awards than any other organization. There are more
judges, more judging centers, more judging sessions (probably 500-600 a year
including shows?) with AOS. RHS doesn't give very many awards.

- The plant would probably have to be exhibited in both the U.S. and U.K. to
get AOS and RHS awards. (I'm not sure if RHS does any overseas shows, I know
AOS judges who have gone to some shows in Asia and South America).

Also, if a plant is given an award by one organization and then is shown to
a different organization 10 or 20 (or more) years later, the plant may not
measure up to the current standards any more.

-danny

Gene Schurg wrote:

My point of this thread is that I would expect that a plant awarded an FCC
from the RHS (or other group) should also score very high by other
organizations. At least that is what I thought until this discussion. I
find it interesting that a search of your files only yielded a short list of
plants with FCCs from both organizations.

It appears that a plant with an FCC from AOS may not get equal consideration
by the RHS and vice versa.


Hmmm. Ok, I'll give my personal opinion as a probationary AOS judge
here. They can kick me out if I'm wrong... *grin* In my opinion, it is
not worthwhile to give a plant the same quality award from the AOS and
the RHS simultaneously. The purpose of the award system is to
acknowledge superior plants for purposes of advancing the horticultural
desirability of orchids. In other words, plants with awards are more
desirable than plants without awards, and the award designation helps
the public select better plants, and helps the breeder select better
crosses. Probably most importantly, although it shouldn't be, it is a
system for financially rewarding the grower of the awarded plant.

What does all that mean? It means as a breeder and plantsman, I
know that Paph. Winston Churchill 'Redoubtable' FCC/RHS is a damn fine
specimen of paphly beauty. I don't even need to see the picture, and
pictures lie anyway. I can purchase this plant and be assured that it
is of high quality. I can breed with this plant and presume that the
progeny will have a higher probability of being 'successful' than if I
use the Winston Churchill "Joe Schmoe" clone that I picked up off the
raffle table (although "Indomitable" is a more successful parent, if I
recall correctly). Does it supercede my own aesthetic reasoning? It
shouldn't. If my "Joe Schmoe" clone is nicer in some respect (color,
shape, etc) than some FCC or AM plant, then it is my choice to use it, I
just can't be assured that the plant buying public will be as apt to
purchase my cross. Their loss, and mine, if I'm a commercial grower.

Anyway, an FCC/RHS or an FCC/AOS is pretty much the same in my
book. The plants would be equally valuable. I don't see much point in
giving an AOS award to an RHS awarded plant. It just makes the
exhibitor pay another 35 dollars. It is quite another thing to promote
an AM/RHS to an FCC/AOS (or vice versa, I suppose). That is a higher
ranked award, and makes the plant correspondingly more valuable. I am
in favor of promoting awards when that is merited. We just did that on
a Phrag a few weeks ago (78pt HCC/AOS promoted to something well over 80
points AM).

Random ramblings on my last day of work...

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 )