|
orchid collection size and individualized care question
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 |
I know in my case, with a collection of well over 1000 plants, the issue is
not about marveling over each new leaf or growth, but how frequently you can take the time to give each plant a thorough inspection. I still check each plant as I water, and when I see something worth noting, I make a special return trip more frequently to keep a closer eye on it. -- Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info! .. "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 |
I know in my case, with a collection of well over 1000 plants, the issue is
not about marveling over each new leaf or growth, but how frequently you can take the time to give each plant a thorough inspection. I still check each plant as I water, and when I see something worth noting, I make a special return trip more frequently to keep a closer eye on it. -- Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com Plants, Supplies, Books, Artwork, and Lots of Free Info! .. "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 |
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 | | |
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 | | |
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 | | |
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 | | |
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 | | |
Hello Joanna!
I bought a flask last month of this cross: Phal. Penang Girl X Phal. bellina The seller told me there were about 25 plants in my flask but I found 42! I`m plannig to keep some of them of course and I will sell the rest for a HIV/AIDS charity event next year . Claude "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 | | | | | | | | |
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 | | |
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 | | |
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 | | |
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. |
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 | | |
Joanna, my problem is how to limit the collection size. Each time I
bought "just one more" shelf, my intention was to stop there - just using the available shelf space to accommodate the plants comfortably. But there was always that little bit of extra space available - till overcrowding meant yet another shelf! Is it just weak will? I prefer to rationalise it as a serious love of orchids. I'm sure nearly all of us here suffer similarly. On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:22:56 GMT, "J Fortuna" wrote: 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 Dave Gillingham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To email me remove the .private from my email address. |
Joanna, my problem is how to limit the collection size. Each time I
bought "just one more" shelf, my intention was to stop there - just using the available shelf space to accommodate the plants comfortably. But there was always that little bit of extra space available - till overcrowding meant yet another shelf! Is it just weak will? I prefer to rationalise it as a serious love of orchids. I'm sure nearly all of us here suffer similarly. On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:22:56 GMT, "J Fortuna" wrote: 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 Dave Gillingham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To email me remove the .private from my email address. |
I have some 1500 orchids in the greenhouse...and I travel 5 days a week.
So I can not look at each one every day. What I do is use a set of red plant tags to mark where I am in picking up and looking at plants, so that they each get looked at regularly. (I start at one end of the bench and work across). I also use neon green tags to indicate plants that should have special care (new spike, loss of root mass, etc). I have about 40 plants with green tags right now (most are in that happy spike phase). I have an isolation bench for plants with problems so they do not infect others. Doug In article , Dave Gillingham wrote: Joanna, my problem is how to limit the collection size. Each time I bought "just one more" shelf, my intention was to stop there - just using the available shelf space to accommodate the plants comfortably. But there was always that little bit of extra space available - till overcrowding meant yet another shelf! Is it just weak will? I prefer to rationalise it as a serious love of orchids. I'm sure nearly all of us here suffer similarly. On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:22:56 GMT, "J Fortuna" wrote: 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 Dave Gillingham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To email me remove the .private from my email address. |
It's been interesting listening to the responses to this thread. You people
(me included) just can't stop, can you? I think Joe Kunisch said it best.... "You can get off alcohol, drugs, women, food, and cars, but once you're hooked on orchids, you're finished. You never get off orchids...never." Joe Kunisch, Bloomfield Orchids "Dave Gillingham" wrote in message ... Joanna, my problem is how to limit the collection size. Each time I bought "just one more" shelf, my intention was to stop there - just using the available shelf space to accommodate the plants comfortably. But there was always that little bit of extra space available - till overcrowding meant yet another shelf! Is it just weak will? I prefer to rationalise it as a serious love of orchids. I'm sure nearly all of us here suffer similarly. On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:22:56 GMT, "J Fortuna" wrote: 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 Dave Gillingham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To email me remove the .private from my email address. |
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:22:56 GMT, "J Fortuna"
wrote: 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 Joanna! i have been told that you cant stop! it's called ORCHIDITIST Ron |
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. |
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. |
When I had 30 plants, I knew each plant and its history without having
to read the tag or consult my database. Now I have more than 100 plants, and for most plants, I need to consult the tag. One out-of-bloom Phal looks pretty much like another, unless it's a Schilleriana. There are, however, some good things about having a lot of plants: (1) You aren't heartbroken when one dies because there are so many other left to fuss over. (2) If a plant doesn't bloom, it's not a big deal, and you don't feel like a failure--you can just put it aside and hope it does something next season. For example, my Bl. Yellow Bird didn't bloom at all last year, but right now, she has 15 blooms open, so I got all the delight without much of the "Why aren't you blooming?" anguish. (3) If you have a lot of plants, you ALWAYS have something in bloom that you can set on the dinner table or show off to guests. (4) If you have a lot of plants, you can trade plants with other orchid addicts and expand your collection, and during the process, you might find what orchid species or family is most ideally suited to your growing environment--and get rid of those that are not so ideally suited without guilt. I've thought about how wonderful it would be to have a greenhouse, but I'm not sure that I'd actually *enjoy* having 1000 plants any more than I enjoy having 130 plants. In summer, when I do a LOT of outdoor gardening, I'd probably feel stressed. So, time is a factor as well as joy. So, how many plants are enough? I think I probably have too many plants now, especially considering that the ones I have are getting larger and taking up more real estate. I'd like to cut back to about 80 plants, eliminating those plants that don't absolutely make my heart sing or that are not flourishing. Most of the Dedrobiums and Oncidiums could go, and about a third of the Phals--how many white phals does a person need? In article 43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09, J Fortuna wrote: 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 |
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:23:47 GMT, dd
wrote: So, how many plants are enough? I think I probably have too many plants now, especially considering that the ones I have are getting larger and taking up more real estate. I'd like to cut back to about 80 plants, eliminating those plants that don't absolutely make my heart sing or that are not flourishing. Most of the Dedrobiums and Oncidiums could go, and about a third of the Phals--how many white phals does a person need? That is the way I was feeling. I cut the big catts except for the pair I got from a my mentor and that had lived thru a bad freeze. Now I find I don't have the showy plant to share as often. It is hard to display ascda in a basket with 3' of root going every where. SuE http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/albums.php |
DeVona,
Thank you for all these good reasons to not dread the too large collection. Since I am an orchid addict, as already mentioned, I probably couldn't stop or slow down anyway, but it's good to now have more reasons for why that's a good thing. :-) A few reactions to your points: Since I have not had a single orchid die on me yet, I know that I am likely to be heartbroken (or at least pretty sad) when one does. I still remember being extremely disturbed over the first broken Phal spike, and now when a spike breaks I am just a bit annoyed. I have two plants that should have bloomed for me but did not, but I don't mind so much since they are not my favorites anyway (although come to think of it, maybe they are not among my favorites because they haven't rebloomed -- whatever is in bloom or spike and is doing better than expected tends to be a favorite). I already have enough plants to have "something" in bloom at all times, though if I had not acquired more plants I would have had only one orchid in bloom in June and July -- and surely one blooming orchid wouldn't be enough for me any more. Ah yes, the trading would be fun for me, although I am already actively promoting the habit in others by buying orchids as presents a lot, and introducing others to the hobby. It's fun, and none of the orchids that I buy for others "count", and still I get the enjoyment of acquiring the plant, and maybe having it around for at least a few hours or a few days before handing it over to the gift recipient. By the way I really liked your idea of the jungle home office in your Who We Are post. Sounds great! Joanna "dd" wrote in message ... When I had 30 plants, I knew each plant and its history without having to read the tag or consult my database. Now I have more than 100 plants, and for most plants, I need to consult the tag. One out-of-bloom Phal looks pretty much like another, unless it's a Schilleriana. There are, however, some good things about having a lot of plants: (1) You aren't heartbroken when one dies because there are so many other left to fuss over. (2) If a plant doesn't bloom, it's not a big deal, and you don't feel like a failure--you can just put it aside and hope it does something next season. For example, my Bl. Yellow Bird didn't bloom at all last year, but right now, she has 15 blooms open, so I got all the delight without much of the "Why aren't you blooming?" anguish. (3) If you have a lot of plants, you ALWAYS have something in bloom that you can set on the dinner table or show off to guests. (4) If you have a lot of plants, you can trade plants with other orchid addicts and expand your collection, and during the process, you might find what orchid species or family is most ideally suited to your growing environment--and get rid of those that are not so ideally suited without guilt. I've thought about how wonderful it would be to have a greenhouse, but I'm not sure that I'd actually *enjoy* having 1000 plants any more than I enjoy having 130 plants. In summer, when I do a LOT of outdoor gardening, I'd probably feel stressed. So, time is a factor as well as joy. So, how many plants are enough? I think I probably have too many plants now, especially considering that the ones I have are getting larger and taking up more real estate. I'd like to cut back to about 80 plants, eliminating those plants that don't absolutely make my heart sing or that are not flourishing. Most of the Dedrobiums and Oncidiums could go, and about a third of the Phals--how many white phals does a person need? In article 43Xwd.308$1U6.157@trnddc09, J Fortuna wrote: This post was inspired by Dave Gillingham's moving story in the Who We Are thread (which by the way I continue to enjoy immensely, and am very glad to read each new post there). Dave's story makes me wonder what the cutoff point is for when a collection becomes to large to rejoice over every individual plant's new leaf, new root, and new spike. My collection currently consists of 31 orchids, and I still watch every one carefully and rejoice over each activity of each plant. I know that Claude also does that, and I have the impression that Claude's collection is somewhat larger than mine, though I'm not sure about that. I checked Claude's post in Who We Are as well as Claude's Web site, but I did not see the total number of plants in your collection, Claude? Anyway, it appears that somewhere between 31 plants (my current number) and about 200 (Dave's current number) one can no longer keep track of each as an individual and rejoice in each one. I wonder what the cutoff number is? Of course, I know that this cutoff will vary somewhat based on the individual's determination and the amount of time available to spend with plants and maybe some other variables, but: What is the largest number of orchids in a collection that a single human being can report keeping track of in an individualized way, rejoicing over each one's activity? This is not just a rhetorical question. I really want to know. And then I will try not to exceed that number if at all possible. Well, probably it will not be possible since I am an orchid addict and I feel the craving for new orchids at most a month after the last orchid was bought. But I might try to postpone the inevitable if I know that exceeding x amount will lead to a dire consequence such as the de-indivualization of individual orchids. Joanna |
In article gDLxd.2347$_62.1395@trnddc01, J Fortuna
wrote: Ah yes, the trading would be fun for me, although I am already actively promoting the habit in others by buying orchids as presents a lot, and introducing others to the hobby. It's fun, and none of the orchids that I buy for others "count", and still I get the enjoyment of acquiring the plant, and maybe having it around for at least a few hours or a few days before handing it over to the gift recipient. I've also tried to share my hobby with friends. The funny thing is that those who become most interested in orchids are NOT gardeners. Someone I know who is a master gardener has blown them off as a bother. Similarly, some "houseplant people" are just not very interested. I'm not sure why that is. On the other hand, some non-plant people become captivated by orchids. These people are usually very intelligent (but not necessarily highly educated), detail oriented, analytical, and interested in the arts. Of course, when they get "turned on" to orchids, they will pester you to no end with questions but will resist joining an orchid society... |
DeVona,
Well, I'm definitely one of those non-plants people captivated by orchids. Detail-oriented (check), analytical (check), interested in the arts (well, not really), ... pester you to no end with questions, but will resist joining an orchid society (check, check). Joanna "dd" wrote in message ... snip On the other hand, some non-plant people become captivated by orchids. These people are usually very intelligent (but not necessarily highly educated), detail oriented, analytical, and interested in the arts. Of course, when they get "turned on" to orchids, they will pester you to no end with questions but will resist joining an orchid society... |
DeVona,
Well, I'm definitely one of those non-plants people captivated by orchids. Detail-oriented (check), analytical (check), interested in the arts (well, not really), ... pester you to no end with questions, but will resist joining an orchid society (check, check). Joanna "dd" wrote in message ... snip On the other hand, some non-plant people become captivated by orchids. These people are usually very intelligent (but not necessarily highly educated), detail oriented, analytical, and interested in the arts. Of course, when they get "turned on" to orchids, they will pester you to no end with questions but will resist joining an orchid society... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter