Joanna do not think this is a such a simple addiction that there is some
number. After you regularly bloom phals for a couple years, you will start
grouping them as the phals and that only counts as one. You may have
already reached your number cause you have started grouping the keikies. I
bet you counted the first one. Do not forget Rob's first rule.

Pat

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:RTXwd.160$_62.22@trnddc01...
Claude,

The last 42, is that a flask (or a compot)?

Are you counting keikies? I did not count keikies that live with the
mother
plant as separate plants in my 31 plant count -- two of my pants currently
have a keikie, and I am really hoping that the phal equestris will decide
to
have one this time (it's close to the end of this blooming season, so I'm
watching it for signs of keikie).

Are you intending to keep all these plants when they mature, or are you
planning to give them away or exchange or something? I would think that if
they are the same hybrid or same species that 42 of them would be rather
much once they mature ... of course that assumes that they all will
mature,
what's the life-expectancy of phals in flask or in compot? I once read an
article somewhere that only a certain % of such plants are likely to
survive
and mature, but I don't know how current and how reliable that article
was.
I hope it was not right, since I would think that for someone who treats
each plant as an individual, watching the number dwindle would be
depressing. If that's what having a flask is like, I don't think I want
one
any time soon. Or do I have a misconception here based on that article?
Don't know who wrote it, and where I saw it, it's been a while, but this
much has staid with me.

Joanna

"Phalguy" wrote in message
...
Hello Joanna!

My collection consist of:

37 Phals
2 Oncidium
2 Paph
and 42 phals babies

Claude

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09...
| This post was inspired by Dave Gillingham's moving story in the Who We
Are
| thread (which by the way I continue to enjoy immensely, and am very
glad
to
| read each new post there).
|
| Dave's story makes me wonder what the cutoff point is for when a
collection
| becomes to large to rejoice over every individual plant's new leaf, new
| root, and new spike. My collection currently consists of 31 orchids,
and
I
| still watch every one carefully and rejoice over each activity of each
| plant.
|
| I know that Claude also does that, and I have the impression that
Claude's
| collection is somewhat larger than mine, though I'm not sure about
that.
I
| checked Claude's post in Who We Are as well as Claude's Web site, but I
did
| not see the total number of plants in your collection, Claude?
|
| Anyway, it appears that somewhere between 31 plants (my current number)
and
| about 200 (Dave's current number) one can no longer keep track of each
as
an
| individual and rejoice in each one. I wonder what the cutoff number is?
Of
| course, I know that this cutoff will vary somewhat based on the
individual's
| determination and the amount of time available to spend with plants and
| maybe some other variables, but: What is the largest number of orchids
in
a
| collection that a single human being can report keeping track of in an
| individualized way, rejoicing over each one's activity?
|
| This is not just a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And then
I
| will try not to exceed that number if at all possible. Well, probably
it
| will not be possible since I am an orchid addict and I feel the craving
for
| new orchids at most a month after the last orchid was bought. But I
might
| try to postpone the inevitable if I know that exceeding x amount will
lead
| to a dire consequence such as the de-indivualization of individual
orchids.
|
| Joanna
|
|

Pat,

No, I didn't count the first kiekie as a separate plant until it was
separated from the mother plant.

On the other hand I sometimes get the urge to count the total number of
leaves on all my Phals: 160 currently, for an average of 6.7 leaves per
Phal. Ok, maybe I am weird sometimes, why would anyone in her right mind
care about the average number of leaves on Phals? But I do.

Joanna

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Joanna do not think this is a such a simple addiction that there is some
number. After you regularly bloom phals for a couple years, you will
start
grouping them as the phals and that only counts as one. You may have
already reached your number cause you have started grouping the keikies.
I
bet you counted the first one. Do not forget Rob's first rule.

Pat

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:RTXwd.160$_62.22@trnddc01...
Claude,

The last 42, is that a flask (or a compot)?

Are you counting keikies? I did not count keikies that live with the
mother
plant as separate plants in my 31 plant count -- two of my pants
currently
have a keikie, and I am really hoping that the phal equestris will
decide
to
have one this time (it's close to the end of this blooming season, so
I'm
watching it for signs of keikie).

Are you intending to keep all these plants when they mature, or are you
planning to give them away or exchange or something? I would think that
if
they are the same hybrid or same species that 42 of them would be rather
much once they mature ... of course that assumes that they all will
mature,
what's the life-expectancy of phals in flask or in compot? I once read
an
article somewhere that only a certain % of such plants are likely to
survive
and mature, but I don't know how current and how reliable that article
was.
I hope it was not right, since I would think that for someone who treats
each plant as an individual, watching the number dwindle would be
depressing. If that's what having a flask is like, I don't think I want
one
any time soon. Or do I have a misconception here based on that article?
Don't know who wrote it, and where I saw it, it's been a while, but this
much has staid with me.

Joanna

"Phalguy" wrote in message
...
Hello Joanna!

My collection consist of:

37 Phals
2 Oncidium
2 Paph
and 42 phals babies

Claude

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09...
| This post was inspired by Dave Gillingham's moving story in the Who
We
Are
| thread (which by the way I continue to enjoy immensely, and am very
glad
to
| read each new post there).
|
| Dave's story makes me wonder what the cutoff point is for when a
collection
| becomes to large to rejoice over every individual plant's new leaf,
new
| root, and new spike. My collection currently consists of 31 orchids,
and
I
| still watch every one carefully and rejoice over each activity of
each
| plant.
|
| I know that Claude also does that, and I have the impression that
Claude's
| collection is somewhat larger than mine, though I'm not sure about
that.
I
| checked Claude's post in Who We Are as well as Claude's Web site, but
I
did
| not see the total number of plants in your collection, Claude?
|
| Anyway, it appears that somewhere between 31 plants (my current
number)
and
| about 200 (Dave's current number) one can no longer keep track of
each
as
an
| individual and rejoice in each one. I wonder what the cutoff number
is?
Of
| course, I know that this cutoff will vary somewhat based on the
individual's
| determination and the amount of time available to spend with plants
and
| maybe some other variables, but: What is the largest number of
orchids
in
a
| collection that a single human being can report keeping track of in
an
| individualized way, rejoicing over each one's activity?
|
| This is not just a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And
then
I
| will try not to exceed that number if at all possible. Well, probably
it
| will not be possible since I am an orchid addict and I feel the
craving
for
| new orchids at most a month after the last orchid was bought. But I
might
| try to postpone the inevitable if I know that exceeding x amount will
lead
| to a dire consequence such as the de-indivualization of individual
orchids.
|
| Joanna
|
|

For me, new plants will get a little more attention than those that
have been around for years. For example, I recently picked up several
Sarcochilus species that were bare-root and a little stressed. They get
a once over several times per week as I look for new roots and leaves.

Some of my older plants may only get looked at every couple weeks. This
time of year I look closely at my Phals at least weekly, checking for
new spikes. I think once the collection grew to over 100 plants, the
daily fussing over each plant stopped.

Dave

PS- In 'who we are' I said I have about 300 plants....I didn't count
each plant in a compot as an individual. If I did, I guess I would have
over 400 plants total.

I don't think you can put a number on how many,I think the more you have the
more you neglect some,so you tend not to over water & pamper them.like most
you start with a phal on the window sill.Then for some reason the windowsill
starts to shrink,so you start to think how you can keep them in a larger
area,whether it be greenhouse or house/flat.Then you can't stop thinking
about them!.Collecting them alone isn't enough for me I would love to one
day sell them as a business everyday,any of you guys out there that do got
any advise or do you make enough money for it to be the only income?

--
Thanks Keith,England,UK.
"Dave S" wrote in message
ups.com...
For me, new plants will get a little more attention than those that
have been around for years. For example, I recently picked up several
Sarcochilus species that were bare-root and a little stressed. They get
a once over several times per week as I look for new roots and leaves.

Some of my older plants may only get looked at every couple weeks. This
time of year I look closely at my Phals at least weekly, checking for
new spikes. I think once the collection grew to over 100 plants, the
daily fussing over each plant stopped.

Dave

PS- In 'who we are' I said I have about 300 plants....I didn't count
each plant in a compot as an individual. If I did, I guess I would have
over 400 plants total.

PS
Or are you loaded from selling them?

--
Thanks Keith,England,UK.
"keith ;-)" wrote in message
news:1103410296.fc8cc05de3d84625f8e72d3acc6a3f16@t eranews...
I don't think you can put a number on how many,I think the more you have
the
more you neglect some,so you tend not to over water & pamper them.like
most
you start with a phal on the window sill.Then for some reason the
windowsill
starts to shrink,so you start to think how you can keep them in a larger
area,whether it be greenhouse or house/flat.Then you can't stop thinking
about them!.Collecting them alone isn't enough for me I would love to one
day sell them as a business everyday,any of you guys out there that do got
any advise or do you make enough money for it to be the only income?

--
Thanks Keith,England,UK.
"Dave S" wrote in message
ups.com...
For me, new plants will get a little more attention than those that
have been around for years. For example, I recently picked up several
Sarcochilus species that were bare-root and a little stressed. They get
a once over several times per week as I look for new roots and leaves.

Some of my older plants may only get looked at every couple weeks. This
time of year I look closely at my Phals at least weekly, checking for
new spikes. I think once the collection grew to over 100 plants, the
daily fussing over each plant stopped.

Dave

PS- In 'who we are' I said I have about 300 plants....I didn't count
each plant in a compot as an individual. If I did, I guess I would have
over 400 plants total.

There was a time when I would have said 'Abandon all hope oh ye who enter
into the notion that you can make money selling orchids as a small vendor.'
Then the business changed and now I see the only hope for orchids as the
small, niche vendor. Maybe Pat, Al, Ray and Kenni can jump in here - since
I'm not a vendor - and correct me if I'm wrong.

In the 90s large commercial vendors found a way to sell orchids dirt cheap
to large stores and orchids became expendable plants. The use of name
labels - other than just 'phalaenopsis' or 'dendrobium' - is a liability to
them. Too much time/$ is consumed and too many workers needed to create and
keep the labels correct. Then there are those commercial businesses that
just use part of a name and call that identification 'good enough', giving
rise to Cambria orchids, Kaleidoscope phals and Emma White dendrobiums. I
don't think I'm alone in tsking over the boring plants for sale at most
stores. The same old phals: white, pink, spots. The same old dendobiums
(deep purple, stripes, blushed colors), the same old oncidiums: smells like
chocolate, tons of yellow flowers, small pink sprays etc. You can't compete
with these guys.

Small & Mid sized vendors do the same thing. They go to the large
wholesaler, find out what they can buy in bloom for a buck then turn it
around at the show and sell them for 15-20 dollars. Again, they are all
selling the same plants except these have proper tags on them. They have to
sell this common stock in order to make a living so they can buy/make the
orchids that They like.

This leaves me wondering what is going to happen.

I think it will become like Victorian times. Orchids are a side job. A
hobby. You make your money elsewhere. People who 'know' orchids will trade
or sell their divisions to other like minded hobbyists, probably at a
premium. People who 'know' orchids will continue to make crosses that
interested them and grow up select few of the crosses because bench space is
limited and expensive. Hobbyists will flask their orchids and make them
available to other hobbyists in their area. (or via folks like Troy Meyers)
..

Where does this leave you? I think it leaves you to buy the same old boring
plants at a wholesaler, take them to a show and hope like hell that you
chose to sell a bunch of plants different from whatever the other vendors
brought. Anything left over you dump because it costs too much money to
house the remainders. You keep your benchspace to grow up the few crosses
that interest you. You intersperse these amongst your commercial wares and
see if anyone buys them. You give a few talks at local societies explaining
why real orchids are different from orchids bought at DIY box stores and
hope to develope a clientell. You also have a good internet presence. This
means you become a slave to your email because the internet marketplace has
ADD. Customers expect immediate attention or else you're no good.

Ok I've spent enough time on this missive,

Good luck.

K Barrett

"keith ;-)" wrote in message
news:1103410296.fc8cc05de3d84625f8e72d3acc6a3f16@t eranews...
[snip]Collecting them alone isn't enough for me I would love to one
day sell them as a business everyday,any of you guys out there that do got
any advise or do you make enough money for it to be the only income?

--
Thanks Keith,England,UK.
"Dave S" wrote in message
ups.com...
For me, new plants will get a little more attention than those that
have been around for years. For example, I recently picked up several
Sarcochilus species that were bare-root and a little stressed. They get
a once over several times per week as I look for new roots and leaves.

Some of my older plants may only get looked at every couple weeks. This
time of year I look closely at my Phals at least weekly, checking for
new spikes. I think once the collection grew to over 100 plants, the
daily fussing over each plant stopped.

Dave

PS- In 'who we are' I said I have about 300 plants....I didn't count
each plant in a compot as an individual. If I did, I guess I would have
over 400 plants total.

Wow, some of you must be doing some things right. As a "small niche
vendor" and producer of Everything Orchid Management System since just
prior to 1998, we sell our program and flasks just to buy a few more
orchids. And, to all of you out there, I guess I want to wish you a
Happy Holiday Season.

.. . . Pam
Everything Orchid Management System
http://home.earthlink.net/~profpam/page3.html
Some flasks too. http://home.earthlink.net/~profpam/page3.html And,
yes, we moved due to the loss of our ISP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


K Barrett wrote:

There was a time when I would have said 'Abandon all hope oh ye who enter
into the notion that you can make money selling orchids as a small vendor.'
Then the business changed and now I see the only hope for orchids as the
small, niche vendor. Maybe Pat, Al, Ray and Kenni can jump in here - since
I'm not a vendor - and correct me if I'm wrong.

In the 90s large commercial vendors found a way to sell orchids dirt cheap
to large stores and orchids became expendable plants. The use of name
labels - other than just 'phalaenopsis' or 'dendrobium' - is a liability to
them. Too much time/$ is consumed and too many workers needed to create and
keep the labels correct. Then there are those commercial businesses that
just use part of a name and call that identification 'good enough', giving
rise to Cambria orchids, Kaleidoscope phals and Emma White dendrobiums. I
don't think I'm alone in tsking over the boring plants for sale at most
stores. The same old phals: white, pink, spots. The same old dendobiums
(deep purple, stripes, blushed colors), the same old oncidiums: smells like
chocolate, tons of yellow flowers, small pink sprays etc. You can't compete
with these guys.

Small & Mid sized vendors do the same thing. They go to the large
wholesaler, find out what they can buy in bloom for a buck then turn it
around at the show and sell them for 15-20 dollars. Again, they are all
selling the same plants except these have proper tags on them. They have to
sell this common stock in order to make a living so they can buy/make the
orchids that They like.

This leaves me wondering what is going to happen.

I think it will become like Victorian times. Orchids are a side job. A
hobby. You make your money elsewhere. People who 'know' orchids will trade
or sell their divisions to other like minded hobbyists, probably at a
premium. People who 'know' orchids will continue to make crosses that
interested them and grow up select few of the crosses because bench space is
limited and expensive. Hobbyists will flask their orchids and make them
available to other hobbyists in their area. (or via folks like Troy Meyers)
.

Where does this leave you? I think it leaves you to buy the same old boring
plants at a wholesaler, take them to a show and hope like hell that you
chose to sell a bunch of plants different from whatever the other vendors
brought. Anything left over you dump because it costs too much money to
house the remainders. You keep your benchspace to grow up the few crosses
that interest you. You intersperse these amongst your commercial wares and
see if anyone buys them. You give a few talks at local societies explaining
why real orchids are different from orchids bought at DIY box stores and
hope to develope a clientell. You also have a good internet presence. This
means you become a slave to your email because the internet marketplace has
ADD. Customers expect immediate attention or else you're no good.

Ok I've spent enough time on this missive,

Good luck.

K Barrett

"keith ;-)" wrote in message
news:1103410296.fc8cc05de3d84625f8e72d3acc6a3f16@ teranews...
[snip]Collecting them alone isn't enough for me I would love to one


day sell them as a business everyday,any of you guys out there that do got
any advise or do you make enough money for it to be the only income?

--
Thanks Keith,England,UK.
"Dave S" wrote in message
roups.com...


For me, new plants will get a little more attention than those that
have been around for years. For example, I recently picked up several
Sarcochilus species that were bare-root and a little stressed. They get
a once over several times per week as I look for new roots and leaves.

Some of my older plants may only get looked at every couple weeks. This
time of year I look closely at my Phals at least weekly, checking for
new spikes. I think once the collection grew to over 100 plants, the
daily fussing over each plant stopped.

Dave

PS- In 'who we are' I said I have about 300 plants....I didn't count
each plant in a compot as an individual. If I did, I guess I would have
over 400 plants total.

There was a time when I would have said 'Abandon all hope oh ye who enter
into the notion that you can make money selling orchids as a small vendor.'
Then the business changed and now I see the only hope for orchids as the
small, niche vendor. Maybe Pat, Al, Ray and Kenni can jump in here - since
I'm not a vendor - and correct me if I'm wrong.

In the 90s large commercial vendors found a way to sell orchids dirt cheap
to large stores and orchids became expendable plants. The use of name
labels - other than just 'phalaenopsis' or 'dendrobium' - is a liability to
them. Too much time/$ is consumed and too many workers needed to create and
keep the labels correct. Then there are those commercial businesses that
just use part of a name and call that identification 'good enough', giving
rise to Cambria orchids, Kaleidoscope phals and Emma White dendrobiums. I
don't think I'm alone in tsking over the boring plants for sale at most
stores. The same old phals: white, pink, spots. The same old dendobiums
(deep purple, stripes, blushed colors), the same old oncidiums: smells like
chocolate, tons of yellow flowers, small pink sprays etc. You can't compete
with these guys.

Small & Mid sized vendors do the same thing. They go to the large
wholesaler, find out what they can buy in bloom for a buck then turn it
around at the show and sell them for 15-20 dollars. Again, they are all
selling the same plants except these have proper tags on them. They have to
sell this common stock in order to make a living so they can buy/make the
orchids that They like.

This leaves me wondering what is going to happen.

I think it will become like Victorian times. Orchids are a side job. A
hobby. You make your money elsewhere. People who 'know' orchids will trade
or sell their divisions to other like minded hobbyists, probably at a
premium. People who 'know' orchids will continue to make crosses that
interested them and grow up select few of the crosses because bench space is
limited and expensive. Hobbyists will flask their orchids and make them
available to other hobbyists in their area. (or via folks like Troy Meyers)
..

Where does this leave you? I think it leaves you to buy the same old boring
plants at a wholesaler, take them to a show and hope like hell that you
chose to sell a bunch of plants different from whatever the other vendors
brought. Anything left over you dump because it costs too much money to
house the remainders. You keep your benchspace to grow up the few crosses
that interest you. You intersperse these amongst your commercial wares and
see if anyone buys them. You give a few talks at local societies explaining
why real orchids are different from orchids bought at DIY box stores and
hope to develope a clientell. You also have a good internet presence. This
means you become a slave to your email because the internet marketplace has
ADD. Customers expect immediate attention or else you're no good.

Ok I've spent enough time on this missive,

Good luck.

K Barrett

"keith ;-)" wrote in message
news:1103410296.fc8cc05de3d84625f8e72d3acc6a3f16@t eranews...
[snip]Collecting them alone isn't enough for me I would love to one
day sell them as a business everyday,any of you guys out there that do got
any advise or do you make enough money for it to be the only income?

--
Thanks Keith,England,UK.
"Dave S" wrote in message
ups.com...
For me, new plants will get a little more attention than those that
have been around for years. For example, I recently picked up several
Sarcochilus species that were bare-root and a little stressed. They get
a once over several times per week as I look for new roots and leaves.

Some of my older plants may only get looked at every couple weeks. This
time of year I look closely at my Phals at least weekly, checking for
new spikes. I think once the collection grew to over 100 plants, the
daily fussing over each plant stopped.

Dave

PS- In 'who we are' I said I have about 300 plants....I didn't count
each plant in a compot as an individual. If I did, I guess I would have
over 400 plants total.

6.7 is a great average, only a couple of mine have 6 leaves.
-danny

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:m0_wd.3573$rL3.2735@trnddc03...
Pat,

No, I didn't count the first kiekie as a separate plant until it was
separated from the mother plant.

On the other hand I sometimes get the urge to count the total number of
leaves on all my Phals: 160 currently, for an average of 6.7 leaves per
Phal. Ok, maybe I am weird sometimes, why would anyone in her right mind
care about the average number of leaves on Phals? But I do.

Joanna

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Joanna do not think this is a such a simple addiction that there is some
number. After you regularly bloom phals for a couple years, you will
start
grouping them as the phals and that only counts as one. You may have
already reached your number cause you have started grouping the keikies.
I
bet you counted the first one. Do not forget Rob's first rule.

Pat

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:RTXwd.160$_62.22@trnddc01...
Claude,

The last 42, is that a flask (or a compot)?

Are you counting keikies? I did not count keikies that live with the
mother
plant as separate plants in my 31 plant count -- two of my pants
currently
have a keikie, and I am really hoping that the phal equestris will
decide
to
have one this time (it's close to the end of this blooming season, so
I'm
watching it for signs of keikie).

Are you intending to keep all these plants when they mature, or are
you
planning to give them away or exchange or something? I would think
that
if
they are the same hybrid or same species that 42 of them would be
rather
much once they mature ... of course that assumes that they all will
mature,
what's the life-expectancy of phals in flask or in compot? I once read
an
article somewhere that only a certain % of such plants are likely to
survive
and mature, but I don't know how current and how reliable that article
was.
I hope it was not right, since I would think that for someone who
treats
each plant as an individual, watching the number dwindle would be
depressing. If that's what having a flask is like, I don't think I
want
one
any time soon. Or do I have a misconception here based on that
article?
Don't know who wrote it, and where I saw it, it's been a while, but
this
much has staid with me.

Joanna

"Phalguy" wrote in message
...
Hello Joanna!

My collection consist of:

37 Phals
2 Oncidium
2 Paph
and 42 phals babies

Claude

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09...
| This post was inspired by Dave Gillingham's moving story in the Who
We
Are
| thread (which by the way I continue to enjoy immensely, and am very
glad
to
| read each new post there).
|
| Dave's story makes me wonder what the cutoff point is for when a
collection
| becomes to large to rejoice over every individual plant's new leaf,
new
| root, and new spike. My collection currently consists of 31
orchids,
and
I
| still watch every one carefully and rejoice over each activity of
each
| plant.
|
| I know that Claude also does that, and I have the impression that
Claude's
| collection is somewhat larger than mine, though I'm not sure about
that.
I
| checked Claude's post in Who We Are as well as Claude's Web site,
but
I
did
| not see the total number of plants in your collection, Claude?
|
| Anyway, it appears that somewhere between 31 plants (my current
number)
and
| about 200 (Dave's current number) one can no longer keep track of
each
as
an
| individual and rejoice in each one. I wonder what the cutoff number
is?
Of
| course, I know that this cutoff will vary somewhat based on the
individual's
| determination and the amount of time available to spend with plants
and
| maybe some other variables, but: What is the largest number of
orchids
in
a
| collection that a single human being can report keeping track of in
an
| individualized way, rejoicing over each one's activity?
|
| This is not just a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And
then
I
| will try not to exceed that number if at all possible. Well,
probably
it
| will not be possible since I am an orchid addict and I feel the
craving
for
| new orchids at most a month after the last orchid was bought. But I
might
| try to postpone the inevitable if I know that exceeding x amount
will
lead
| to a dire consequence such as the de-indivualization of individual
orchids.
|
| Joanna
|
|

6.7 is a great average, only a couple of mine have 6 leaves.
-danny

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:m0_wd.3573$rL3.2735@trnddc03...
Pat,

No, I didn't count the first kiekie as a separate plant until it was
separated from the mother plant.

On the other hand I sometimes get the urge to count the total number of
leaves on all my Phals: 160 currently, for an average of 6.7 leaves per
Phal. Ok, maybe I am weird sometimes, why would anyone in her right mind
care about the average number of leaves on Phals? But I do.

Joanna

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Joanna do not think this is a such a simple addiction that there is some
number. After you regularly bloom phals for a couple years, you will
start
grouping them as the phals and that only counts as one. You may have
already reached your number cause you have started grouping the keikies.
I
bet you counted the first one. Do not forget Rob's first rule.

Pat

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:RTXwd.160$_62.22@trnddc01...
Claude,

The last 42, is that a flask (or a compot)?

Are you counting keikies? I did not count keikies that live with the
mother
plant as separate plants in my 31 plant count -- two of my pants
currently
have a keikie, and I am really hoping that the phal equestris will
decide
to
have one this time (it's close to the end of this blooming season, so
I'm
watching it for signs of keikie).

Are you intending to keep all these plants when they mature, or are
you
planning to give them away or exchange or something? I would think
that
if
they are the same hybrid or same species that 42 of them would be
rather
much once they mature ... of course that assumes that they all will
mature,
what's the life-expectancy of phals in flask or in compot? I once read
an
article somewhere that only a certain % of such plants are likely to
survive
and mature, but I don't know how current and how reliable that article
was.
I hope it was not right, since I would think that for someone who
treats
each plant as an individual, watching the number dwindle would be
depressing. If that's what having a flask is like, I don't think I
want
one
any time soon. Or do I have a misconception here based on that
article?
Don't know who wrote it, and where I saw it, it's been a while, but
this
much has staid with me.

Joanna

"Phalguy" wrote in message
...
Hello Joanna!

My collection consist of:

37 Phals
2 Oncidium
2 Paph
and 42 phals babies

Claude

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09...
| This post was inspired by Dave Gillingham's moving story in the Who
We
Are
| thread (which by the way I continue to enjoy immensely, and am very
glad
to
| read each new post there).
|
| Dave's story makes me wonder what the cutoff point is for when a
collection
| becomes to large to rejoice over every individual plant's new leaf,
new
| root, and new spike. My collection currently consists of 31
orchids,
and
I
| still watch every one carefully and rejoice over each activity of
each
| plant.
|
| I know that Claude also does that, and I have the impression that
Claude's
| collection is somewhat larger than mine, though I'm not sure about
that.
I
| checked Claude's post in Who We Are as well as Claude's Web site,
but
I
did
| not see the total number of plants in your collection, Claude?
|
| Anyway, it appears that somewhere between 31 plants (my current
number)
and
| about 200 (Dave's current number) one can no longer keep track of
each
as
an
| individual and rejoice in each one. I wonder what the cutoff number
is?
Of
| course, I know that this cutoff will vary somewhat based on the
individual's
| determination and the amount of time available to spend with plants
and
| maybe some other variables, but: What is the largest number of
orchids
in
a
| collection that a single human being can report keeping track of in
an
| individualized way, rejoicing over each one's activity?
|
| This is not just a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And
then
I
| will try not to exceed that number if at all possible. Well,
probably
it
| will not be possible since I am an orchid addict and I feel the
craving
for
| new orchids at most a month after the last orchid was bought. But I
might
| try to postpone the inevitable if I know that exceeding x amount
will
lead
| to a dire consequence such as the de-indivualization of individual
orchids.
|
| Joanna
|
|

Pat,

No, I didn't count the first kiekie as a separate plant until it was
separated from the mother plant.

On the other hand I sometimes get the urge to count the total number of
leaves on all my Phals: 160 currently, for an average of 6.7 leaves per
Phal. Ok, maybe I am weird sometimes, why would anyone in her right mind
care about the average number of leaves on Phals? But I do.

Joanna

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Joanna do not think this is a such a simple addiction that there is some
number. After you regularly bloom phals for a couple years, you will
start
grouping them as the phals and that only counts as one. You may have
already reached your number cause you have started grouping the keikies.
I
bet you counted the first one. Do not forget Rob's first rule.

Pat

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:RTXwd.160$_62.22@trnddc01...
Claude,

The last 42, is that a flask (or a compot)?

Are you counting keikies? I did not count keikies that live with the
mother
plant as separate plants in my 31 plant count -- two of my pants
currently
have a keikie, and I am really hoping that the phal equestris will
decide
to
have one this time (it's close to the end of this blooming season, so
I'm
watching it for signs of keikie).

Are you intending to keep all these plants when they mature, or are you
planning to give them away or exchange or something? I would think that
if
they are the same hybrid or same species that 42 of them would be rather
much once they mature ... of course that assumes that they all will
mature,
what's the life-expectancy of phals in flask or in compot? I once read
an
article somewhere that only a certain % of such plants are likely to
survive
and mature, but I don't know how current and how reliable that article
was.
I hope it was not right, since I would think that for someone who treats
each plant as an individual, watching the number dwindle would be
depressing. If that's what having a flask is like, I don't think I want
one
any time soon. Or do I have a misconception here based on that article?
Don't know who wrote it, and where I saw it, it's been a while, but this
much has staid with me.

Joanna

"Phalguy" wrote in message
...
Hello Joanna!

My collection consist of:

37 Phals
2 Oncidium
2 Paph
and 42 phals babies

Claude

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09...
| This post was inspired by Dave Gillingham's moving story in the Who
We
Are
| thread (which by the way I continue to enjoy immensely, and am very
glad
to
| read each new post there).
|
| Dave's story makes me wonder what the cutoff point is for when a
collection
| becomes to large to rejoice over every individual plant's new leaf,
new
| root, and new spike. My collection currently consists of 31 orchids,
and
I
| still watch every one carefully and rejoice over each activity of
each
| plant.
|
| I know that Claude also does that, and I have the impression that
Claude's
| collection is somewhat larger than mine, though I'm not sure about
that.
I
| checked Claude's post in Who We Are as well as Claude's Web site, but
I
did
| not see the total number of plants in your collection, Claude?
|
| Anyway, it appears that somewhere between 31 plants (my current
number)
and
| about 200 (Dave's current number) one can no longer keep track of
each
as
an
| individual and rejoice in each one. I wonder what the cutoff number
is?
Of
| course, I know that this cutoff will vary somewhat based on the
individual's
| determination and the amount of time available to spend with plants
and
| maybe some other variables, but: What is the largest number of
orchids
in
a
| collection that a single human being can report keeping track of in
an
| individualized way, rejoicing over each one's activity?
|
| This is not just a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And
then
I
| will try not to exceed that number if at all possible. Well, probably
it
| will not be possible since I am an orchid addict and I feel the
craving
for
| new orchids at most a month after the last orchid was bought. But I
might
| try to postpone the inevitable if I know that exceeding x amount will
lead
| to a dire consequence such as the de-indivualization of individual
orchids.
|
| Joanna
|
|

Pat,

No, I didn't count the first kiekie as a separate plant until it was
separated from the mother plant.

On the other hand I sometimes get the urge to count the total number of
leaves on all my Phals: 160 currently, for an average of 6.7 leaves per
Phal. Ok, maybe I am weird sometimes, why would anyone in her right mind
care about the average number of leaves on Phals? But I do.

Joanna

"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Joanna do not think this is a such a simple addiction that there is some
number. After you regularly bloom phals for a couple years, you will
start
grouping them as the phals and that only counts as one. You may have
already reached your number cause you have started grouping the keikies.
I
bet you counted the first one. Do not forget Rob's first rule.

Pat

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:RTXwd.160$_62.22@trnddc01...
Claude,

The last 42, is that a flask (or a compot)?

Are you counting keikies? I did not count keikies that live with the
mother
plant as separate plants in my 31 plant count -- two of my pants
currently
have a keikie, and I am really hoping that the phal equestris will
decide
to
have one this time (it's close to the end of this blooming season, so
I'm
watching it for signs of keikie).

Are you intending to keep all these plants when they mature, or are you
planning to give them away or exchange or something? I would think that
if
they are the same hybrid or same species that 42 of them would be rather
much once they mature ... of course that assumes that they all will
mature,
what's the life-expectancy of phals in flask or in compot? I once read
an
article somewhere that only a certain % of such plants are likely to
survive
and mature, but I don't know how current and how reliable that article
was.
I hope it was not right, since I would think that for someone who treats
each plant as an individual, watching the number dwindle would be
depressing. If that's what having a flask is like, I don't think I want
one
any time soon. Or do I have a misconception here based on that article?
Don't know who wrote it, and where I saw it, it's been a while, but this
much has staid with me.

Joanna

"Phalguy" wrote in message
...
Hello Joanna!

My collection consist of:

37 Phals
2 Oncidium
2 Paph
and 42 phals babies

Claude

"J Fortuna" wrote in message
news:43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09...
| This post was inspired by Dave Gillingham's moving story in the Who
We
Are
| thread (which by the way I continue to enjoy immensely, and am very
glad
to
| read each new post there).
|
| Dave's story makes me wonder what the cutoff point is for when a
collection
| becomes to large to rejoice over every individual plant's new leaf,
new
| root, and new spike. My collection currently consists of 31 orchids,
and
I
| still watch every one carefully and rejoice over each activity of
each
| plant.
|
| I know that Claude also does that, and I have the impression that
Claude's
| collection is somewhat larger than mine, though I'm not sure about
that.
I
| checked Claude's post in Who We Are as well as Claude's Web site, but
I
did
| not see the total number of plants in your collection, Claude?
|
| Anyway, it appears that somewhere between 31 plants (my current
number)
and
| about 200 (Dave's current number) one can no longer keep track of
each
as
an
| individual and rejoice in each one. I wonder what the cutoff number
is?
Of
| course, I know that this cutoff will vary somewhat based on the
individual's
| determination and the amount of time available to spend with plants
and
| maybe some other variables, but: What is the largest number of
orchids
in
a
| collection that a single human being can report keeping track of in
an
| individualized way, rejoicing over each one's activity?
|
| This is not just a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And
then
I
| will try not to exceed that number if at all possible. Well, probably
it
| will not be possible since I am an orchid addict and I feel the
craving
for
| new orchids at most a month after the last orchid was bought. But I
might
| try to postpone the inevitable if I know that exceeding x amount will
lead
| to a dire consequence such as the de-indivualization of individual
orchids.
|
| Joanna
|
|