# More Paphs in Flower right now



## Bolero (Oct 20, 2011)

Paphiopedilum Fumi's Delight - grows cold and should grow cold in my opinion (and warm in summer of course).

Not a bad first flowering seedling:













Unusual hybrid: sukhakulii x armeniacum and from this photo I think this plant is better than most from this hybrid. Although why they felt they needed to make it is beyond me...........












Norito Hasegawa HCC/AOC - obviously not awarded on this flowering but it's a huge flower and I can see why it would have gotten an award on a previous flowering, next time it will be better.


----------



## Ozpaph (Oct 20, 2011)

Lovely.
The suk hybrid is unusual. I wonder if it has a future in green complex breeding?


----------



## Shiva (Oct 20, 2011)

I like the first and the last most. Wonderful!


----------



## Mocchaccino (Oct 20, 2011)

Nice flowers and nice photos!~ I like primary hybrids so I can guess the parents


----------



## labskaus (Oct 20, 2011)

Your parvi hybrids are great!

That sukh cross is appalling and appealing at the same time. Something to keep for its weirdness. Shame it lost all the yellow from armeniacum.


----------



## paphreek (Oct 20, 2011)

Unusual color for a Norito Hasegawa.


----------



## Erythrone (Oct 20, 2011)

Very nice plants!!!

Unusual shape for Norito Hasegawa too??


----------



## monocotman (Oct 20, 2011)

*norito hasegawa?*

Beautiful parvi hybrids but I have to agree with the others. 
I thought Norito was usually much more yellow green than this awarded clone. Whatever it is , it is a stunner,

David


----------



## Marc (Oct 20, 2011)

I really like the subtle colours of the first one combined with it's strong contrasting staminoid shield.

The second one is also pretty and might even have some breeding potential? Could it be used to make an odd multi? I like how the armeniacum has decreased the size of the spots that normally come with sukh hybrids. Even the shape of it's pouch reminds me of a multi.


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 20, 2011)

Beautiful Fumi! It's one of my favorites. I'm always amazed at the size of flowers this hybrid puts out.

I also agree with what others have said about the "Norito," but I will just go ahead and say that isn't a Norito Hasegawa. It doesn't look exactly like micranthum x delenatii or micranthum x emersonii, but it definitely has micranthum in it. Maybe some parvi primary x micranthum?


----------



## John M (Oct 20, 2011)

Lovely! I like Parvi's a whole lot. I also really like the suk cross. I'm on dial-up, so, it takes awhile for photos to download and I got to read the comments first, before I saw the photos. I expected to see a butt-ugly suk cross; but, instead, I was pleasantly surprised. I like it. 

I agree with the others. That is not a Norito Hasegawa. There's no malipoense in there at all. The staminode sheild has no evidence of that dark chocolate on the lower half, which comes from malipoense. This looks to me to be another Fumi's Delight.....just made with a very dark micranthum and thus, producing a more pink offspring. Look at the staminode sheild. It's very close to the staminode shield of the Fumi's Delight pictured above it. The size, shape, colour and colour pattern are basically the same on both flowers.


----------



## emydura (Oct 20, 2011)

Some nice Paphs including the sukh cross. I agree with the others on the Norito. It clearly has micranthum in it. It is astonishing the judges wouldn't have recognised this.

David


----------



## peter.orchid (Oct 20, 2011)

The Norito Hasegawa looks like a big micranthum!


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 20, 2011)

Yes, Fumi is wonderful. But sukhakulii x armeniacum is interesting...


----------



## SlipperKing (Oct 20, 2011)

Yep, that's no NH most likely F'sD with more micranthum genes.


----------



## Brian Monk (Oct 20, 2011)

Fumi is great. suk cross is really good, considering, but it is weird. And probably not very fertile. Weird if that is a N.H.


----------



## Bolero (Oct 21, 2011)

Yeah the Norito Hasegawa I am starting to have doubts about. I actually think it's micranthum x armeniacum now.


----------



## quietaustralian (Oct 21, 2011)

I can't see a NH. I'm thinking Fumi's Delight. How big is the flower? Could it be a dull Liberty Taiwan? Not all LTs are as nice as John M's.

Mick


----------



## paphioboy (Oct 21, 2011)

I think suk x armeniacum is interesting. Perhaps with different parents, one could hope for nice bold spots on a bright yellow background?


----------



## quietaustralian (Oct 21, 2011)

Darren,

Did you tell the people that are bidding on the "Norito Hasegawa" that there is some discussion about the true id of the plant? Not everyone on eBay knows what they are doing.

Mick


----------



## biothanasis (Oct 21, 2011)

They are all very nice!


----------



## toddybear (Oct 21, 2011)

Well done!


----------



## emydura (Oct 21, 2011)

That awarded plant is a bit strange to say the least. Below is a link the awarded clone in question. The photo clearly is not a Norito Hasegawa. Almost looks like a micranthum. But the description sounds like Norito Hasegawa - yellow everywhere. SO what is going on? It seems more than just an incorrect photo. Darren's plant is clearly not a Norito Hasegawa.

http://www.orchidsaustralia.com.au/award_display.asp?award=3150

David


----------



## emydura (Oct 21, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> Darren,
> 
> Did you tell the people that are bidding on the "Norito Hasegawa" that there is some discussion about the true id of the plant? Not everyone on eBay knows what they are doing.
> 
> Mick



I saw that ebay link 

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190591016989

That is extremely poor and dishonest Darren. You posted that after you have been told here that it wasn't a Norito Hasegawa. Some poor sucker is going to think he is getting an awarded Norito Hasegawa. Won't they be dissappointed when they eventually find out. You have done this sort of thing before. I bit my tongue the first time. This goes to the heart of your integrity. There will be many people who will look at that photo and clearly see that it is not what you are trying to sell. They will question your ethics and honesty and decide not to touch your plants. I know I have. 

David


----------



## quietaustralian (Oct 21, 2011)

emydura said:


> That awarded plant is a bit strange to say the least. Below is a link the awarded clone in question. The photo clearly is not a Norito Hasegawa. Almost looks like a micranthum. But the description sounds like Norito Hasegawa - yellow everywhere. SO what is going on? It seems more than just an incorrect photo. Darren's plant is clearly not a Norito Hasegawa.
> 
> http://www.orchidsaustralia.com.au/award_display.asp?award=3150
> 
> David



That award photo is strange. I was comparing NH awards about 12 months ago and noticed that pic. I couple of months ago I mentioned it to the registrar of judging but I believe the person responsible for managing the AOC website was away at the time and I guess the message wasn't passed on.

Darren's plant is supposed to be a division or the awarded plant but It doesn't look like the incorrect award photo anyway.

Mick


----------



## emydura (Oct 21, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> That award photo is strange. I was comparing NH awards about 12 months ago and noticed that pic. I couple of months ago I mentioned it to the registrar of judging but I believe the person responsible for managing the AOC website was away at the time and I guess the message wasn't passed on.
> 
> Darren's plant is supposed to be a division or the awarded plant but It doesn't look like the incorrect award photo anyway.
> 
> Mick



It would appear that the actual plant judged was indeed a Norito Hasegawa. God knows how there are photos of two other clones masquarading as a Norito Hasegawa.

David


----------



## quietaustralian (Oct 22, 2011)

Norito Hasegawa HCC/AOC - obviously not awarded on this flowering but it's a huge flower and I can see why it would have gotten an award on a previous flowering, next time it will be better.










Bolero said:


> Yeah the Norito Hasegawa I am starting to have doubts about. I actually think it's micranthum x armeniacum now.





quietaustralian said:


> Darren,
> 
> Did you tell the people that are bidding on the "Norito Hasegawa" that there is some discussion about the true id of the plant? Not everyone on eBay knows what they are doing.
> 
> Mick





emydura said:


> That awarded plant is a bit strange to say the least. Below is a link the awarded clone in question. The photo clearly is not a Norito Hasegawa. Almost looks like a micranthum. But the description sounds like Norito Hasegawa - yellow everywhere. SO what is going on? It seems more than just an incorrect photo. Darren's plant is clearly not a Norito Hasegawa.
> 
> http://www.orchidsaustralia.com.au/award_display.asp?award=3150
> 
> David





emydura said:


> I saw that ebay link
> 
> http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190591016989
> 
> ...




Darren,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt about this issue as I thought you'd have the honesty to let people (bidders) know that there was some doubt
about the identification of the plant you auctioned on eBay. I now tend to agree with David's last comment.

Members of this forum often give a heads up about dodgy sellers on eBay. Do you fit that description?
You posted a pic of the plant on this forum, people commented that it was unlikely to be a NH, you indicated that you doubted the id
and then listed it on eBay as a NH. When asked a direct question about the id of the plant through eBay's system, you were less than forthcoming about
any doubt in id.

Everyone makes mistakes with the identification of plants, judges, registrars, growers and breeders but there is a difference when the mistake becomes deceit.
I would have thought an AOC judge would have more integrity in their dealings.

.


----------



## Bolero (Oct 26, 2011)

Well today I have learned I should come back and check all the responses to my posts. It appears my integrity and credibility is being questioned, perhaps by people who should look at themselves before posting slanderous and venemous comments such as the ones above.

Anyway, as I am now going to leave the forum (I have asked the admins to delete my profile if they can) I should state a few facts.

The flower is very yellow, yellow is everywhere and the yellow is very strong in every segment. The washed out colour probably comes from the fact the sun was to the side of the flower and shining through it. It blooms very yellow in person and I apologise if that wasn't clear to you, I should have taken the photo at a different angle.

If you look at the photo of the original flower which was awarded the markings in the segments are very similar and are greyed orange to greyed red in colour as stated in the description and the markings.

So we have a very yellow flower with the same marking colours as described in the original award.

After I posted my doubts after hearing some others here doubt the flower, I took it along for judging. At which point it won a ribbon at the club show and was confirmed by all judges to be Norito Hasegawa and a similar flower to the one that was originally awarded, albeit not as good a shape due to the dorsal reflexing slightly. A number of people with many decades experience confirmed that it is in fact Norito Hasegawa and it wouldn't have got a ribbon if it wasn't.

So I decided to sell a division of the plant, I need some space and have another piece of it left. So quietaustralian saw fit to contact the buyer on Ebay after it sold (must have checked my feedback) and let him know that not only was the plant not what I sold it as but it hasn't been awarded either.

Considering the plant was originally sold and bred by Nicky Zurcher many years ago and awarded by one of the best judges in the country I would have thought it would be beyond doubt. But I haven't had the genetics tested either. So looking at things now, after I had the panel examine the plant I should have come back and responded but I don't always come back and check my posts after the first few days and didn't think it mattered whether i came back to confirm the plant or not. Until now.

At the end of the day I could tell you I am highly ethical, I have served in the military, I work full time for the Federal Government and I have even facilitated lectures on ethics but then again none of you have to believe me and all of you will form your own opinions anyway.

To call me deceitful when talking about me like this, anonymously in a forum where you know there are no real repurcussions for you is pretty disgusting. I don't care if no one buys my plants, they are what I believe them to be. I wouldn't sell them if I didn't believe them to be correct at the time I put them on.

And remember quietaustralian, just because you believe you are right, it doesn't make me wrong. Unless you see the plant in person it's often hard to judge what you see from a photo online.

Now you can all argue the merits but I won't be weighing into this discussion any further and I hope the admins delete my profile from this site. As much fun as it's been with most of you I can't stay here when this cloud hangs over my character.

Very disappointed.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 26, 2011)

Not questioning your ethics. i believe both parvis are Fumi's Delight. Good luck, Eric.


----------



## Fabrice (Oct 26, 2011)

I hate the pouch for the 2nd one but the 2 others are very nice!


----------



## John M (Oct 26, 2011)

It is shocking that Bolero is defending the pictured flower as being Norito Hasegawa. That flower is absolutely *NOT* Norito Hasegawa. Perhaps a Norito Hasegawa was what was originally judged; but then in that case, someone has since mixed up the tags. We don't need to consider the delicate nuances caused by being backlit, or the photo being taken at the wrong angle; or even the fact that we are looking at a photo and not the real thing in person. 

It is clear to see: 

The pouch is the wrong shape for Norito Hasegawa. It does show strong micranthum influence, however.

The veining and background colour in the petals extends completely out to the tips and completely from top to bottom, as is typical for micranthum. Paph. malipoense, even highly coloured clones, are never so completely covered in veining right out to the tips and from top to bottom. The veining always fades on the margins.

The most glaring and obvious problem is the staminode. If you google Norito Hasegawa and look at the images, virtually every single flower shown has strong remnants of the dark chocolate colour on the lower half of the staminode. This is a clear indication of malipoense being a parent. The lack of this colour (as is the case in the pictured flower), indicates that malipoense is *NOT* a parent. This flower has virtually none of that. Not only is the staminode of this flower the wrong colour, it is also the wrong shape. If malipoense was a parent, the staminode would be much more square, not round. It also has the wrong colour pattern to be Norito Hasegawa. It does however, have the correct colour, the correct shape and the correct colour pattern to fit perfectly with the expected staminode of Fumi's Delight.

Bolero; of course, you say you won't be back; but, if you do read this, I'd like you to know that I will miss you. I've really enjoyed your posts and photos. 

However, you finish your last post with "very disappointed". Well, YES! I sure am! I would never have expected someone as experienced and (I thought), well regarded as you, to even consider defending such an obvious mislabelling, not to mention profiting from the sale of the plant in question while it continues to masquerade as something that it clearly is not. I do not believe that you do not know better.


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 26, 2011)

John M said:


> The most glaring and obvious problem is the staminode. If you google Norito Hasegawa and look at the images, virtually every single flower shown has strong remnants of the dark chocolate colour on the lower half of the staminode. This is a clear indication of malipoense being a parent. The lack of this colour (as is the case in the pictured flower), indicates that malipoense is *NOT* a parent. This flower has virtually none of that. Not only is the staminode of this flower the wrong colour, it is also the wrong shape. If malipoense was a parent, the staminode would be much more square, not round. It also has the wrong colour pattern to be Norito Hasegawa. It does however, have the correct colour, the correct shape and the correct colour pattern to fit perfectly with the expected staminode of Fumi's Delight.



This.

Use your eyes, Bolero! I don't care what any of those judges say, that's NOT a Norito Hasegawa. Hell, you could have Norito Hasegawa himself tell me that's a Norito Hasegawa and I'd still call him wrong. The obstinate refusal to admit the glaringly obvious mislabeling is honestly perplexing.

The judges are incorrect and you're incorrect. Bottom line.


----------



## SlipperKing (Oct 26, 2011)

Good rid-din's I say! I don't know how many times I've posted a flower with the wrong identity and had to back track with a humble apologize. NO BIG DEAL! Say sorry and the case is over. Then quickly run to the greehouse and change the tag!


----------



## quietaustralian (Oct 27, 2011)

@John M

Your description of Norito Hasegawa is very similar to the second bloom in this recent thread. http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22604

Mick


----------



## John M (Oct 27, 2011)

quietaustralian said:


> @John M
> 
> Your description of Norito Hasegawa is very similar to the second bloom in this recent thread. http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22604
> 
> Mick



Wow! Thank you for pointing that out. The mislabelling of the plant under discussion in this thread can't be more clear now. How can anyone say that these two flowers are the same thing? It's mind boggling. Especially, how can one person who owns both flowers insist that they are the same hybrid? A classic case of sticking one's head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the glaringly obvious.....but why? The money made by selling a division of this mislabelled plant is not equal to even a fraction of the value of one's personal reputation. It's important to make the distinction between knowledge and confidence.....and out of control ego. The latter can ruin a person. This whole situation is unbelievable. A person spends a lifetime building their reputation....and to so quickly destroy it with a few keystrokes is perplexing. Bull s**t is still bull s**t, no matter how it is served. .....And when one makes a mistake, it's far better to humbly change the menue, rather than pile on even more and insist that it's really a chocolate sundae. "Very disappointing" indeed!


----------



## Marc (Oct 27, 2011)

I've avoided commenting on the issue in this topic because I more or less missed it and hybrids arent my primary interest. 

The link posted by quietaustralian made me open my eyes and makes me wonder why bolero is getting so emotional. When I first saw the picture on the first page of this topic I though oh it's just another micranthum hybrid that I don't care about. The influence of micranthum is even to my beginners eye very obvious.

How someone can see a hybrid of malipoense x armeniacum in that flower is beyond my imagination.......

Still it's a shame to see a fellow forum user leave because of this.


----------



## John M (Oct 27, 2011)

Marc said:


> Still it's a shame to see a fellow forum user leave because of this.



I agree Marc. I liked Bolero and his threads and I truly will miss him. He's a fantastic Masdevallia grower and I REALLY enjoyed being inspired by the photos of his well grown, well bloomed plants....and I'd like to see more. I just wish he'd simply admitted an obvious mistake instead of insisting on treating us all like blind fools.


----------



## Roy (Oct 27, 2011)

Bolero has made a mistake, big or little doesn't matter, that is for him to live with. The biggest problem is that one of the posters to this thread has entered into the discussion *"outside"* of his forum. This member involved should have a good hard look at themselves. It leads one to believe they couldn't be trusted nor be called a good honest person in any way. This type of action is not something, I believe anyone could condone. This member is a person I have lost respect for and would not in anyway offer assistance to even if they were drowning. Its not their place to enter into private issues.


----------



## emydura (Oct 27, 2011)

Looking at the award details I was struggling to work out if it was just the awards photo was wrong as there was so much yellow in the description. It almost sounded like a Norito Hasegawa and I could barely detect any yellow in either Darren’s photo or the awards photo. But if you look at the length and width of the labellum, this demonstrates to me that the judges have incorrectly awarded the wrong plant rather than labels being mixed up. I checked a few awarded Norito Hasegawa’s and in all cases the labellum was as wide as it was long or even wider. The Fumi's Delight's had a much longer labellum than it was wide as in the award measurements of this plant. 

Award no: 3150 
Plant: Paph. Norito Hasegawa 'Highclere' 
Owner: Garrett G. 
Award: HCC/AOC 2003 (VIC) 
Points 79 
Date: 05/09/2003 
Description: Petals yellow-orange 21C, striped greyed red 181B. Dorsal sepal yellow 6C, striped greyed orange 181B. Ventral sepal yellow 6C. Labellum yellow 8D. One flower on 260mm stem. Maribyrnong OC Spring Show 
Parentage: (Paph. armeniacum x malipoense) 
Flower length: 94 
Flower width: 81 
Petals: 5244W 
Dorsal sepal: 44L36W 
Ventral sepals: 41L26W 
Labellum: 70L52W 

Darren’s defence of his fellow AOC judges is honourable if a little misplaced. I would always trust the opinions of the experienced growers on this forum over that of an AOC judge who doesn’t specialise in Paphs and sees them only occasionally at shows etc. People on this forum live and breathe Paphiopediulums. There isn’t a more obsessive group of growers than those who love slipper orchids. They can detect a misidentified plant a mile away without a moment’s thought. I think most judges I have spoken to would struggle to pick up a plant that was incorrectly labelled. As an example, I entered the two plants below in our show. On both times the plants were all but disqualified as the senior judge said they were incorrectly entered in the species section. He said the first one was a wardii hybrid. We are talking about senior judges with more than 20 years experience. All the junior judges just accepted his opinion without question. If they can’t identify some of the most commonly grown species then they are no hope of differentiating the hybrids. I’m not so much bagging judges but making the point that their word should not be treated as gospel.






The biggest issue here is the selling on of incorrectly labelled plants. By continuing to sell a plant as something it isn’t just compounds the original mistake. The next owner may get themselves into the same problem as Darren. It is disappointing to see Darren go. His Paph collection was just starting to mature and we were seeing more of his plants in flower. His Parvi’s in particular were excellent. The tragedy is, despite being mislabelled, this was a damn nice plant. The judges may have got the id wrong but they were still impressed enough to award it so it was obviously above average.

David


----------



## Roy (Oct 27, 2011)

David, I looked at the AOC pic and believe it to be wrong also. There was a few probs with the posting of award pics for some time as the responsible person was ill & the job was taken on by someone not aware of differences in pics to names or just stuffed them up. I don't believe Darren got the plant he bought, not excusing what eventuated. If the members of the forum call this a hanging offence, so be it, as has been mentioned, the loss of Darrens pics of his Paphs, Catts & Masdevallias is a loss to us all.


----------



## Roy (Oct 27, 2011)

David, I also note the Paphs you posted being rejected as species. There is a major problem with some growers/judges in thinking they know everything & won't be told. I've been a Judge for many years and the one thing I do is, if I don't know or am not sure of a plant flower against name is find someone who does or get a group decision on what to do. I've looked at many shows and show pics and I am yet to find everything to be correct in name against flower. The problem you faced was completely wrong and the Judges should have been made to rejudge the section. The Chairperson should have had the issue raised with them by other judges. The problem is there that many don't know what they are looking at either.


----------



## John M (Oct 28, 2011)

emydura said:


> On both times the plants were all but disqualified as the senior judge said they were incorrectly entered in the species section. He said the first one was a wardii hybrid. We are talking about senior judges with more than 20 years experience...... If they can’t identify some of the most commonly grown species then they are no hope of differentiating the hybrids. .......their word should not be treated as gospel.



Oh, that really bites! You were robbed of a fair judging by an ignorant ego. So sorry! Why can't people remember to leave the egos at home!? There's no shame in accepting the FACT that someone else might be more knowledgeable than you on a particular subject. I've had that sort of thing happen to me too and I've heard of it happening to other people. Some judges forget that the judging process SHOULD be a collaboration, not a dictation; because nobody can know everything about everything!

BTW: Nice sukhakulii!


----------



## quietaustralian (Oct 28, 2011)

@ Roy

The facts are:
At around 4.30pm Melbourne time Darren wrote in a post that he doubted that the plant was a NH.

At 7.30pm Melbourne time he listed the plant as a NH.

Out of interest, a couple of hours before the end of the auction I asked Darren a question about the plant via the eBay "Are you sure the plant is a [FONT=arial, sans-serif]Norito Hasegawa[/FONT]". Darren didn't indicate that there was any doubt. It's at this point I started to doubt his honesty.

I guess everyone is different but If I had any doubt about anything I was selling, I'd make full disclosure. Especially when given the opportunity to do so when questioned.

I don't distinguish between online and in person sales and personally don't go along with the buyer beware principal. 

Darren posted a very nice [FONT=arial, sans-serif]Norito Hasegawa[/FONT] on this forum recently so its beyond me how he could honestly list the plant being discussed as a NH. 

I don't see how Darren is a victim here. I recall that you took an issue from this forum offline (another issue involving a NH), does that make the owner of that plant and the judges victims, I think not.

Darren suggested during our discussion via pms that I had something against him, that certainly was not the case. There was some mention in this thread that Darren had listed dubious plants before but I'm unaware of this. Up to this point I had no reason to doubt him and would have bid on one of his recent auctions but was away at the time. Do I have anything against Darren? No. Would I buy from Darren in the future? No but that's of little consequence for either of us.​


----------



## Roy (Oct 28, 2011)

The issue with the previous malipoense / NH was justified, in fact, I was way behind in commenting on its doubt. There were many ahead of me. I had not seen the flower till it was posted here. I actually approached a senior member of the State judging panel over the issue. The feeling was that the owner was a too nice a person & respected to put the issue to. The judges were of great knowledge OR no-one had the cluster to tell them they were wrong. I left it there! No way would I contact the owner, NOT my place to do so. Whether Darren is a victum or not, the issue of raising it in a forum for all to see is dead set wrong, I have seen anywhere that you had been appointed ebay police. What is thought of someone should be kept to ones self. Some of the comments posted since the ebay posting was noted here could near be liable. I believe this or any forum is to try & guide members in culture, show off new orchids & correct names / ID flowers posted. Should the member choose to accept the information or not is not the forum/members problem. Again, as to telling all what was, is, has happened is in my opinion a low act, particularly when it has NO affect on a forum member ( potentially ) I'm sorry, thats just my opinion, some things should be left private.


----------

