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

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

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

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

Why wouldn't you want to give the same level AOS award to the plant? That
would put the plant in the AOS judging system, so that it could be used for
future comparison when considering other awards for the species/grex. Are
the RHS awards looked at by AOS judges when they are scoring a plant? I
didn't think that was the case. If someone didn't put XX/RHS on the tag,
would you even know it was an RHS awarded plant when you were looking at it
on the judging table?

If someone brings a plant to a monthly judging session, then your "It would
cost them another $35 dollars" argument wouldn't apply at all. If an
exhibitor in a show doesn't want to pay $35, they can simply mark their
plant "Not for AOS Judging". I know many judges are reluctant to do
something like upgrading an 80 point AM/AOS to an 85 point AM/AOS because
they don't think there's any point, and I kinda agree with them there.
Witholding an award from a plant because it has an award from a judging
organization in another country doesn't make any sense at all.

-danny

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
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 )

Why wouldn't you want to give the same level AOS award to the plant? That
would put the plant in the AOS judging system, so that it could be used for
future comparison when considering other awards for the species/grex. Are
the RHS awards looked at by AOS judges when they are scoring a plant? I
didn't think that was the case. If someone didn't put XX/RHS on the tag,
would you even know it was an RHS awarded plant when you were looking at it
on the judging table?

If someone brings a plant to a monthly judging session, then your "It would
cost them another $35 dollars" argument wouldn't apply at all. If an
exhibitor in a show doesn't want to pay $35, they can simply mark their
plant "Not for AOS Judging". I know many judges are reluctant to do
something like upgrading an 80 point AM/AOS to an 85 point AM/AOS because
they don't think there's any point, and I kinda agree with them there.
Witholding an award from a plant because it has an award from a judging
organization in another country doesn't make any sense at all.

-danny

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
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 )

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

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.