# Paph. fairrieanum 'Vinh Huy Nguyen' FCC/AOS



## tim (Feb 17, 2017)

This just got awarded in Southern California...thoughts?

Paph. fairrieanum 'Vinh Huy Nguyen' FCC/AOS


----------



## John M (Feb 17, 2017)

It's small; but, size is only 10% of a score for Paphs, isn't it? Even so, it's miniature size is VERY pleasing. The plant is miniature too and the stem is not super long and weak. The flower is the most beautiful fairieanum that I've ever seen! While very different from other fairieanums, that's the whole point of an FCC, isn't it? It's different and IMO, all in a better way, other than the small size. So, it lost points on size; but, the rest is perfect. I want it!!!


----------



## Don I (Feb 17, 2017)

That is first class. I didn't know they even existed like that. So compact.
Don


----------



## Chicago Chad (Feb 17, 2017)

so dope! :drool:


----------



## cattmad (Feb 17, 2017)

I love the deep colour, saying small is an understatement. I don't think it's FCC


----------



## fibre (Feb 17, 2017)

This is interesting. The flower looks quite good, but the leaves look week to me. IMO it looks like a week first time blooming plant and not like a true miniature.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Feb 17, 2017)

It would be interesting to see if the growth habit and size changes over time, and flower form too. How much is due to suppressed growth? As it is, the flower is huge relative to the plant though tiny in absolute terms. The color is very nice and the form is superb. It certainly deserves recognition if it is a true dwarf, and the awards system needs to have an appropriate way to award dwarf/teacup plants, but I imagine there are some AOS judges whose heads will explode when they see this.


----------



## troy (Feb 17, 2017)

I like it!! It does resemble a first time blooming


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 17, 2017)

Lovely flower. Congratulations!


----------



## NYEric (Feb 17, 2017)

Interesting.


----------



## emydura (Feb 17, 2017)

It is nice but an FCC? Based on some of the recent FCC's I have seen the AOS awards system has lost credibility.


----------



## abax (Feb 17, 2017)

The intense red around the dorsal and the petals is very
lovely. The shape is very nice too. Most AOS judges are
not knowledgable about Paphs. is my opinion, but I love
the flower anyway.


----------



## Secundino (Feb 18, 2017)

The flower is very lovely but I don't understand the award. For me this flower is far away from what a 'normal' _fairieanum_ should look like.


----------



## Justin (Feb 18, 2017)

Wow...


----------



## gonewild (Feb 18, 2017)

I think it should be submitted to a drug test.


----------



## NYEric (Feb 18, 2017)

Secundino said:


> The flower is very lovely but I don't understand the award. For me this flower is far away from what a 'normal' _fairieanum_ should look like.


Bingo! We have a winner!


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 18, 2017)

It looks polyploid. Some history about the plant would be interesting.
FCC..........................!!!!
'Inexperience' is no excuse with the internet and OrchidsPlus.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 18, 2017)

Ozpaph said:


> It looks polyploid. Some history about the plant would be interesting.



Drug test. Chemically altered.


----------



## Don I (Feb 18, 2017)

I don't know anything about breeding, but I thought maybe the flower looked like that because it was a miniature. I don't think the villosum I had awarded really looks like a species villosum either. I saw a charleswothii on the forum a while ago that didn't look much like a species charlesworthii, but that's what happens when people start selecting for something that will end getting called Fat Boy
Don


----------



## tim (Feb 18, 2017)

Thanks for your comments. It's not mine, and I wasn't there for judging. As a judge I'm not really permitted to comment. I'm just interested in what everyone has to say about it.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 18, 2017)

tim said:


> I'm just interested in what everyone has to say about it.



If it really is naturally genetically dwarf then I think it is fantastic and deserving the award. If growth regulators were used to control size then it is just pretty.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Feb 18, 2017)

Secundino said:


> The flower is very lovely but I don't understand the award. For me this flower is far away from what a 'normal' _fairieanum_ should look like.



"Normal" flowers don't get awarded.


----------



## John M (Feb 18, 2017)

Secundino said:


> The flower is very lovely but I don't understand the award. For me this flower is far away from what a 'normal' _fairieanum_ should look like.



However, consider that a "normal" fairieanum is not an FCC quality fairieanum. Any FCC should be, by definition, "abnormal"; but, in a very good way, as in this case.

If this flower had a natural spread of 20 cm, you'd all be going bonkers about how great it is and how the 90 point FCC is a low score. The only thing "wrong" with this flower is the size; but, the size is very much in proportion to the plant, which gives an overall VERY pleasing effect. Plus, it did not get a perfect score, it lost 10 points and only got 90 points in total, just squeeking in as an FCC. Virtually everything else about this flower is perfect. The colour, form, substance, etc., is WONDERFUL....if only it was larger. So, it got recognised for all it's VERY good features and it lost points on size. This is, to me, the nicest fairieanum I've ever seen. I hope it's used to produce more just like this one so that we all can own something as nice.


----------



## Secundino (Feb 18, 2017)

Yes, I knew that the word 'normal' would imply that response ... perhaps I should have taken 'specific' - in the sense that this flower is away from the 'specific _fairieanum_-look'. Whatever that may be. For me this '_fairieanum_-look' is wavy, curly, playful (?), with strong contrast between dark and light and violet and green. Hairy, and a bit snobbish... To me, size in flowers does not make a better flower.


----------



## Hugorchids (Feb 18, 2017)

It looks like it only has one growth? Are there any other pictures of the plant? Having just one growth with a bloom is not enough to deem it as a dwarf/miniature.


----------



## paphioland (Feb 19, 2017)

Is this a joke???


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 19, 2017)

no one is laughing


----------



## John M (Feb 19, 2017)

Really? You guys dislike it that much? Okay....maybe an FCC was a bit generous; but, whatever it's worth is really not for anyone to decide from a couple 2 dimensional photographs. I just know that it's got very nice markings and colour intensity. It's a nice, sturdy looking flower with a much more rounded shape with proportionally wider segments than a "normal" fairieanum, which to me, makes it a lot more pleasing. Regardless of the smaller size, which I happen to like anyway, I find it to be gorgeous and worthy of some sort of award recognition. After all, when judging flowers for a quality award, that's all that's supposed to be judged...the flowers, not the foliage. Once you dismiss the plant size and it's perceived health and you just look at the flower, other than being small, it's quite exceptional. I know a lot of people always want to see big flowers, bigger than previous awarded ones, if they're to be considered for an award; but, the judging rule book doesn't support that. Size is just a part of the whole score.

So, I'm interested.....those of you who think this should not have been awarded, could you please explain in more detail why you feel that way. I'm always willing to change my mind if someone comes up with a compelling and logical reason for it. Thanks!


----------



## PaphMadMan (Feb 19, 2017)

Haters gotta hate, John. I'd say it is exceptional in part because it is dwarf, and the flower is actually huge compared to the tiny plant. And the form and color certainly are exceptional too. Unless it proves to be hormonally manipulated I don't think the haters have made their case at all.


----------



## Fabrice (Feb 19, 2017)

About AOS credibility, I don't want to be unpleasant but it's not the 1st time an award is questionable... we even saw in the past hybrids judged as species. So, all is possible and AOS is not a reference for me.

This bloom is clearly specific and original. But not really in my taste, FCC or not.

And in my opinion, it will be anyway the first time and last time it blooms. Yellowish leaves, a little dehydrated, doesn't seem to have new growth. Not good for future, particularly on a miniature like that.

But it will be still and forever an FCC!:clap:


----------



## John M (Feb 19, 2017)

I must admit, I'd much rather see the stem a bit longer and the plant looking more robust. If this plant was mine, I'd probably not have had the chance to see the exceptional flower because I'd have nipped the bud off long ago in an effort to encourage the plant to do some more growing and getting stronger. Still, a cut flower is supposed to be just as good for judging as a flowering plant; so, the plant is not supposed to be part of the point score. Only the flower is supposed to be pointed....and again, other than size, this flower is fantastic.


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 19, 2017)

'Haters' is very unfair and derogatory. No one has be nasty or spiteful. Opinions, I believe, have been politely noted. 

From a down-under perspective this is unlikely to have even received an HCC. It is not an FCC flower (anywhere, IMHO) Yes, nice markings and shape but is small with no stem length. Here it might get an 'award of distinction' ie not a quality award.
An FCC is the highest award possible. It says that every thing about the flower is 'remarkable'. You cant discount the two 'major faults' and still get an FCC; not here anyway.
It was posted to generate this debate. Hence Tim's 'no comment', which speaks volumes.

I hope we can express opinions in an adult fashion and generate discussion without mud-slinging.


----------



## cattmad (Feb 19, 2017)

John M said:


> I must admit, I'd much rather see the stem a bit longer and the plant looking more robust. If this plant was mine, I'd probably not have had the chance to see the exceptional flower because I'd have nipped the bud off long ago in an effort to encourage the plant to do some more growing and getting stronger. Still, a cut flower is supposed to be just as good for judging as a flowering plant; so, the plant is not supposed to be part of the point score. Only the flower is supposed to be pointed....and again, other than size, this flower is fantastic.



herin lies my problem John, if you took that flower off the plant and put it up for award surely it would not get a second look, the DS is about half the current size of what the likes of OZ are breeding from so ither than very nice form and colour it is clearly inferior. 

To say its exceptional for a dwarf form is yet to be proven given it is quite a poorly looking single growth plant that to me looks to have yet to have matured properly. If it was a multi-growth plant with multiple flowers this point would be totally invalid.

Why are we labelling people haters for expressing an opinion.


----------



## cattmad (Feb 19, 2017)

John M said:


> I must admit, I'd much rather see the stem a bit longer and the plant looking more robust. If this plant was mine, I'd probably not have had the chance to see the exceptional flower because I'd have nipped the bud off long ago in an effort to encourage the plant to do some more growing and getting stronger. Still, a cut flower is supposed to be just as good for judging as a flowering plant; so, the plant is not supposed to be part of the point score. Only the flower is supposed to be pointed....and again, other than size, this flower is fantastic.



herin lies my problem John, if you took that flower off the plant and put it up for award surely it would not get a second look, the DS is about half the current size of what the likes of OZ are breeding from so other than very nice form and colour it is clearly inferior. 

To say its exceptional for a dwarf form is yet to be proven given it is quite a poorly looking single growth plant that to me looks to have yet to have matured properly. If it was a multi-growth plant with multiple flowers this point would be totally invalid.

Why are we labelling people haters for expressing an opinion.


----------



## MorandiWine (Feb 19, 2017)

This is an incredible step forward in my opinion! Surely an FFC is an indication of some forward thinking of this group of judges who can recognize that a plant like this opens the doors to a whole new group of slippers. So many people have been working on making miniature plants with a fee successes and certainly a great deal of misses. A truly dwarf plant, especially a species highly used in hybridization, would be invaluable to breeders. 

If this plant was "normal sized" it would still still likely score high, perhaps not FCC but awardable. 

All that being said, this is very exciting and kudos to the grower AND the judges for recognizing the uniqueness and potential this plant will bring to the industry. 

Tyler

Ps. I want a division Tim!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John M (Feb 20, 2017)

Ozpaph, the term "Haters gonna hate" is used loosely....at least in North America. It really doesn't have a nasty or spiteful overtone. It's just a way of saying and resigning oneself to the fact that there will always be oposing opinions.....that you will never have everyone fall in behind you and support your opinion.

So, does stem length get pointed separately? Or, does the stem merely need to be long enough to not interfere with the flower being presented and once that is seen to have been accomplished, that statistic does not come into play any longer? It can only lose points on stem length if stem length is a characteristic that is scored. 

I tend to disagree that "It [an FCC], says that every thing about the flower is 'remarkable'". Everything but size could be remarkable and the point score should reflect all that...the good and the bad......and if the average still reaches 90 points, then it is still an FCC quality flower. Theoretically, a plant could get a core of 0 for size and still get an FCC, if it gets a perfect score on everything else. I doubt this flower got much of a score for size; but, the other characteristics scored high enough to put it up to 90 points....= FCC.


----------



## chrismende (Feb 20, 2017)

The AOS judging system needs a new category for miniatures bred to be miniatures or individual cultivars valued specifically for small size vs. "larger than previously judged" dorsals or NS. Since many breeders are seriously looking for small cultivars to breed teacup Paphs, in particular, this characteristic needs to be judged as a quality unto itself. When will it occur?


----------



## Secundino (Feb 20, 2017)

Yep - it's own category, for dwarf breeding. If it was breeding at all. But than - it wouldn't be _fairieanum_ any more.

No wonder that hate spreads as easily in north America.
This thread wasn't a joke, it's a test.


----------



## fibre (Feb 20, 2017)

All justing systems aside, IMO we can't estimate the quality of this cultivar. It seems to be a week first time blooming plant. Will the leaves stay smallish when the plant will be in a more healthy condition? Will the flower be more balanced next time? (IMO the pouch is to big, petals and dorsal are to small). I wouldn't use it for miniature breeding yet. But I'm very curious to see its next flower!


----------



## Ozpaph (Feb 20, 2017)

John M said:


> Ozpaph, the term "Haters gonna hate" is used loosely....at least in North America. It really doesn't have a nasty or spiteful overtone. It's just a way of saying and resigning oneself to the fact that there will always be oposing opinions.....that you will never have everyone fall in behind you and support your opinion.
> 
> So, does stem length get pointed separately? Or, does the stem merely need to be long enough to not interfere with the flower being presented and once that is seen to have been accomplished, that statistic does not come into play any longer? It can only lose points on stem length if stem length is a characteristic that is scored.
> 
> I tend to disagree that "It [an FCC], says that every thing about the flower is 'remarkable'". Everything but size could be remarkable and the point score should reflect all that...the good and the bad......and if the average still reaches 90 points, then it is still an FCC quality flower. Theoretically, a plant could get a core of 0 for size and still get an FCC, if it gets a perfect score on everything else. I doubt this flower got much of a score for size; but, the other characteristics scored high enough to put it up to 90 points....= FCC.



Thanks John. Hate is a strong word with very negative connotations. I choose not to use it casually.
Unless there is dissent from the other Aussies, that flower and plant would not be awarded here. To get an FCC here it has to be exceptional in every way. No exceptions. The stem and size would be major detractors, which I understand would 'disqualify' the flower. 'Size + stem habit + arrangement' are 33.3 points here. Shape =33.3. Colour + texture=33.3.
I dont argue that it doesn't have 'value'. It may be a true miniature and useful for breeding etc etc Lets see it bloom again.


----------



## emydura (Feb 20, 2017)

Ozpaph said:


> Thanks John. Hate is a strong word with very negative connotations. I choose not to use it casually.
> Unless there is dissent from the other Aussies, that flower and plant would not be awarded here. To get an FCC here it has to be exceptional in every way. No exceptions. The stem and size would be major detractors, which I understand would 'disqualify' the flower. 'Size + stem habit + arrangement' are 33.3 points here. Shape =33.3. Colour + texture=33.3.
> I dont argue that it doesn't have 'value'. It may be a true miniature and useful for breeding etc etc Lets see it bloom again.



I agree with everything you say Stephen. If my daughter uses the word 'hate', I'll have a stern word with her. It is way too strong a word to use in a conversation such as this.

It definitely wouldn't get an FCC here. It does seem much harder to get an FCC award in Australia then the US despite the fact that 85 points will get you an FCC here. They are only handed out sparingly in this country. In some years you will not see a single orchid get an FCC award in Australia. To me to be deserved of an FCC award means that the flower is better than anything that has been awarded before. Not the same but better. It has to take the species or hybrid to a new level. I see too many AOS FCC awards where I think I have seen better. When I see an FCC awarded plant I expect to be blown away. I think you devalue the award when you give a plant such as this an FCC. It is more of a novelty flower, not a superior form of the species. 




John M said:


> O
> 
> I tend to disagree that "It [an FCC], says that every thing about the flower is 'remarkable'". Everything but size could be remarkable and the point score should reflect all that...the good and the bad......and if the average still reaches 90 points, then it is still an FCC quality flower. Theoretically, a plant could get a core of 0 for size and still get an FCC, if it gets a perfect score on everything else. I doubt this flower got much of a score for size; but, the other characteristics scored high enough to put it up to 90 points....= FCC.



Given the flower size is smaller than just an average fairreanum, the judges would surely have had to score 0 for size which would mean they would have had to consider all the other traits were perfect.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 20, 2017)

If you read the award text you will realize that they did not discount points for size or condition of the plant. The award was given based on the small size. 

Read the last sentence of the award text *"awarded for it's balance of miniature size in relation to the size of plant and it's exquisite charm and form."*

As a miniature it surely does deserve the FCC. But where is the evidence that it is a natural genetic miniature and not chemically induced or a hybrid. If someone has been selective breeding fairreanums to miniature size they have kept a good secret until now. So who takes credit as breeder of the new minis?????

Personally I like the plant and flower very much but would like to know if it is miniature or not. Judges should have passed it and waited to see it as an older plant.


----------



## Migrant13 (Feb 20, 2017)

Lance you make some good points. Seems like the miniature size was part of the appeal. I really like this one and can see why it was awarded.


----------



## John M (Feb 20, 2017)

This is an interesting discussion. Thanks. I am coming around to the notion that this plant should not have been pointed in the first place. Generally, I have historically hated.....Ooops,....I "disliked" when the judges say "bring it back next year", when they decide that the plant is not putting out it's best effort, because technically, they're not supposed to be judging the plant, only the flower.

Even though I've said I like this flower very much, I do think that this plant is a very good example of why cut flowers should not be submitted for judging and why plant health/condition should be included in what helps judges decide if a plant even deserves to be pointed in the first place. If cut flowers were not allowed....and whether or not a plant was strong and in good health, were factors in deciding if a flower should be pointed, people would be encouraged to be better growers and not waste anybody's time with inferior plants, regardless of whether or not they have superior flowers. After all, while the judges are not in control, what's the point in awarding a plant that looks like it is likely to not survive for long after the judging?

I suggest that a plant like this, with a beautiful but, small flower and on an abnormally short stem, produced by an inferior plant, should be given an "honorable mention for future potential". Such a thing does not exist. I think it should...as a means to be encouraging to growers. It would recognise and point out that the judges see something special and potential; but, the plant has not quite proven itself yet and it needs more good quality cultivation to see if it will improve and become true award quality. Since this would be said to the owner without the plant being pointed, it's not actually an award and there would be no "award payment" required. However, it would be a good way, on a personal level, for the judges to recognise a plant and encourage the owner to work on improving it's cultivation in order to see if truly awardable qualities can be brought out.

I also agree that it is time for the judging system to be expanded to include a sub-category for recognising high quality, miniatures where a "normal" sized version existed first. A lot of growers value and want to own miniature plants and a lot of breeders are working on producing some really beautiful miniature plants. It could be called the "Bantam class". This category would need a separate set of rules/guidlines, so that miniatures are not compared to other normal-sized plants. Having the potential of winning a BFCC/AOS (Bantam First Class Certificate), would encourage breeders to put in the time and money in an effort to create excellence in a miniature version of many popular normal sized plants. I think promoting miniatures in important. In this day and age of high energy costs making greenhouse bench space a lot more valuable and the high cost of shipping, superior quality miniatures would fill a growing demand for both pot plants and hobbyist-collector, exhibition plants.


----------



## gonewild (Feb 20, 2017)

John M said:


> Even though I've said I like this flower very much, I do think that this plant is a very good example of why cut flowers should not be submitted for judging and why plant health/condition should be included in what helps judges decide if a plant even deserves to be pointed in the first place. If cut flowers were not allowed....and whether or not a plant was strong and in good health, were factors in deciding if a flower should be pointed, people would be encouraged to be better growers and not waste anybody's time with inferior plants, regardless of whether or not they have superior flowers. After all, while the judges are not in control, what's the point in awarding a plant that looks like it is likely to not survive for long after the judging?



Good points. I would add that plant health and condition should be considered when an FCC award is given. The FCC implies that the genetics of the plant are of the highest quality....not just the flower. After all plants that are awarded FCCs are very valuable as breeding plants. An important part of breeding is plant vigor not just flower beauty. Using this mini fairreanum as example... It now can be assumed to be the best mini fairreanum in the World. It's pollen is very valuable because of the name and award. But if the plant is genetically weak and as some suggest be dead soon then genetically it is not a good choice to breed with other than as a short step forward in the line of miniatures.


----------



## PaphMadMan (Feb 20, 2017)

Wow. I didn't anticipate "haters gotta hate" getting such a strong reaction. That perhaps demonstrates the connotation of the phrase as well as anything. Once someone has a negative reaction, reasoned or not, it may be unlikely to change their mind. It may be used with humorous intent (as it was here), simple resignation to reality, or in dismissive frustration, but much more rarely with true rancor or malice. I'm sorry some found it objectionable. Much more was read into it than I intended.


----------



## Tio Mister (Feb 20, 2017)

Where does it state in the standards that the stem has to be long? It is required that the stem be strong and that it holds the flower well above foliage . 

Again, it seems that we (notice the first person) are trying to impose a size/proportion standard to what is a minuscule plant . A longer stem would have broken with the overall proportion that the judges that granted the FCC/AOS stated it was one of the primary reasons they recognized the plant for.

Would I have judged? I am happy I was not there .


----------



## emydura (Feb 20, 2017)

Like Australia, the AOS does have a category for 'Award of Distinction' (AD). Wouldn't this be better suited for such an award? It seems to satisfy people's need to award miniature breeding. A grower in our society had a Paph given an AD where the petals fused into a pouch. I forget the term for it. It is not the sort of thing you give a quality award for but the AD category enables you to recognise it.

http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/award_display.asp?award=4261 


AD (Award of Distinction)

Awarded once to a cross representing a worthy new direction in Breeding. _The award is granted unanimously without scoring by the judging team assigned._


----------

