# Disillusioned by AOS judging



## My Green Pets (Oct 17, 2017)

I took two plants in I thought were very nice. Neither was considered for awards; fair enough. It was explained to me that the flowers must be larger or more numerous than previously awarded plants. 

It was suggested that I fertilize more and use MSU formula to get bigger flowers. 

I left disappointed, but more knowledgeable, I suppose.


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 17, 2017)

That's bullshit...sorry, but any judge or judges who say that needs their credentials revoked. And they sound like they are being lazy. These reasons they give are probably the main impetus for why AOS judging is dying out. They are killing their own profession with being size queens . Balance (of color, dimensions, florescence, etc) is more important than size or number of flowers alone..pisses me off so much. I am glad that my regional judges have better sense..can you possibly go to another region?


----------



## My Green Pets (Oct 17, 2017)

Yes, there is another judging center about the same distance in another direction.

I'm glad you mentioned other flower qualities. I was curious if form and color played important roles too, but they were not mentioned to me at the time.


----------



## h_mossy (Oct 18, 2017)

ehanes7612 said:


> That's bullshit...sorry, but any judge or judges who say that needs their credentials revoked. And they sound like they are being lazy. These reasons they give are probably the main impetus for why AOS judging is dying out. They are killing their own profession with being size queens . Balance (of color, dimensions, florescence, etc) is more important than size or number of flowers alone..pisses me off so much. I am glad that my regional judges have better sense..can you possibly go to another region?



Seems to me that if size were an actual factor that eventually we would reach the genetic limit, and I suppose after that there would be no more awards?


----------



## troy (Oct 18, 2017)

Alot of judges will award their friends plants who in turn awards theirs, there is money involved, an awrded plant goes for twice as much money


----------



## Roy (Oct 18, 2017)

Doesn't only happen in the USA. A book could be written on decisions made here in the last few years.


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 18, 2017)

h_mossy said:


> Seems to me that if size were an actual factor that eventually we would reach the genetic limit, and I suppose after that there would be no more awards?



size is but one factor and I believe that the rubric they are suppose to use describes how size is to be judged..it really depends on how it adds to the overall appearance. 


But yeah, if size were the only factor..the judges who believe that just signed their own death warrants ...no more awards


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 18, 2017)

CambriaWhat said:


> Yes, there is another judging center about the same distance in another direction.
> 
> I'm glad you mentioned other flower qualities. I was curious if form and color played important roles too, but they were not mentioned to me at the time.



When I take a plant to my judging center they give me the entire spiel on why it didnt pass muster..form , color, balance, size, etc...they also mention the previous awards and give qualifying remarks to size and floral count of those rewards (as well as color saturation and balance of the inflorescence) but they also stress that these factors are only taken into consideration as parts of the whole. Sometimes it's obvious that an orchid bloom is awardable and I have noticed that the judges make a predetermined value (FCC, AM or HCC) based on their own experience before they get into any particulars. They will research the past awards but the problem with research is that you really cant know how that bloom appears, pictures will never capture the true nature of the bloom. With blooms that are on the edge of award quality..they will do a more exhaustive research to see if there is anything that will boost its measure of value for an award but I think it's mostly an exercise to acquaint themselves better with the records of that particular grex. These are things I have noticed when I go to judging..I am sure that a responsible judge is asking a lot of questions and seeing the bloom from a lot of different perspectives. Good judges, I believe, are ones who make a deep philosophical connection to their craft and have the verbal skills to help novices understand the process. Bad judges give superficial answers (either they are being dismissive of your intellect or they are lazy)


----------



## Ozpaph (Oct 18, 2017)

Maybe the judge explaining the result was trying to be kind and encouraging rather that 'doing it by the book' "your flower doesn't make the grade". No system is perfect and most can be improved. If you want to change the system become part of it and influence.


----------



## Ray (Oct 18, 2017)

Has it not occurred to anyone that "fertilize more and use MSU fertilizer" to get bigger flowers is also BS?


----------



## John M (Oct 18, 2017)

Ray said:


> Has it not occurred to anyone that "fertilize more and use MSU fertilizer" to get bigger flowers is also BS?



Yes. As I read this thread, I was waiting to hit a post that mentioned that fact. As a blanket statement, "more fertilizer = bigger flowers" is total, misguiding crap. If anything, just piling on more feed will reduce the size, quality and number of flowers.


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 18, 2017)

Ray said:


> Has it not occurred to anyone that "fertilize more and use MSU fertilizer" to get bigger flowers is also BS?


I was thinking that too


----------



## tnyr5 (Oct 18, 2017)

" They must be larger and more numerous than previous awards" is not true. They just have to meet "the standard of the age" , so to speak. If we're talking Paphs, the point breakdown ( for single flowered Paphs) is Form: 40 points, Color: 40 points, Substance & Texture: 5 points Stem Quality ( straight & strong): 5 points, *Size: 10 points*. Smaller flowers with better form and color get awarded all the time. Now, if the flower in question exceeds those standards by a wide margin, that's a big help, because this is all subjective and even the best judges will disagree over where the cutoff for the standards should be. I can think of one scenario where this kind of response would have been appropriate, ( assuming that you were exhibiting plants that had no previous awards, because that's a whole different ball game) and that is: *if form and color are just barely HCC quality, then the flowers must be bigger and more numerous than previous awards. * But, if that's what this person said without explaining any further, I would have been insulted. Whoever said it should have taken the time to really explain why the flower didn't meet the standard & what can be done about it. 

Sooo....may we see the flowers in question?


----------



## troy (Oct 18, 2017)

Orchid awards mostly has to do with who is friends with who, totally political, I've had the run down from multiple well known good vendors, I realize unless I have a hangianum, godefroyae or adductum that has more than 3 flowers on 1 inflourescence, it wouldn't even be looked at


----------



## littlefrog (Oct 18, 2017)

Probably varies by region. I don't think our region is particularly political. I know I'm not... I try to believe in the best qualities of people as well as in the best qualities of the orchids.

I think you got a lazy answer. Sometimes it is hard to answer your question, however. Judging isn't just about one attribute (it shouldn't be!). Size is only part of the equation. But what it is about is an overall combination of a huge number of attributes, and some of them are not 'pointable'. For example, some flowers just knock you over, they have a presence that is overwhelming, but when you try to quantify them (measurements, looking at color, etc) they just don't match up. The hardest part of judging is to go with those unquantifiable attributes over numbers. Numbers are easy and stupid, any monkey with a database could award things based on numbers.

One of the things you don't see, and is equally hard to explain, is that if a judge has domain knowledge - in other words real experience with a particular group of orchids - we have often seen literally hundreds of many of these plants that come to the judging table. I'm not sure I'd claim to be a true expert in Paphs, but I know them better than probably anybody in my judging center. Sounds like maybe in yours too...  When I see one of those plants I instantly know how it stacks up to the 100 other plants of that cross I've seen, and can score it without pointing it, if that makes sense. I can't explain that to the exhibitor though, they would have to see 100 plants too. Of course I'm useless when it comes to many other genera, I'll admit that most phalaenopsis look pretty much the same to me. In that case I need to go with numbers and research. I might defer to another member of my team with more knowledge about that genus. And they would probably rate my opinions about slippers a little higher than someone else's. It is team exercise.


----------



## My Green Pets (Oct 18, 2017)

The plants were both bulbophyllum, one echinolabium and one antenniferum. 

I can also mention that the judge told me that he helped develop the MSU formula and they sell so many hundreds of pounds of it a year. He told me that I could really push those bulbophyllum further with more fertilizer. So honestly, as he rested his hand on my shoulder, I felt like I was being hassled to buy his product. 

And yes, this happened in front of everyone present at the judging center.


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 18, 2017)

When my region was all of the Northwest , there was politics, especially since there were some top notch vendors who really depended on awards. I used to hear about it..but they broke up the regions a while ago ..I can tell you that the NWOS region here in seattle has no politics whatsoever..they take their craft very seriously. But with that said, they get few plants just because the orchid society in general is dying out and our shows are very small. There is talk of recombining back into one large region...they cant find new apprentices either.


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 18, 2017)

Ray said:


> Has it not occurred to anyone that "fertilize more and use MSU fertilizer" to get bigger flowers is also BS?



That thought did cross through my mind...


----------



## NYEric (Oct 18, 2017)

troy said:


> Alot of judges will award their friends plants who in turn awards theirs, there is money involved, an awrded plant goes for twice as much money



Never seen this. Most judges are not vendors.


----------



## troy (Oct 18, 2017)

I know a bunch, I had a wossner kolorand in bloom 1 inflourescence had 8 the other 7, the inflourescence was 36 inches tall and the judge sneered at it, the same judge said my shun fa golden x roth was misslabeled there was no hangianum in it. Sssooooo...


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Oct 18, 2017)

Awards have no value to me. 
I like what I like. Headache free!


----------



## troy (Oct 18, 2017)

I agree!!!


----------



## abax (Oct 18, 2017)

Don't be discouraged Cambria. The AOS judging system and a good many of the venues for judging are already
decided by who's who. A friend in CA was in a manner
black balled for having won too many awards no matter
how great his plants are. You'd probably recognize the
name if I used it here.


----------



## John M (Oct 18, 2017)

troy said:


> the same judge said my shun fa golden x roth was misslabeled there was no hangianum in it. Sssooooo...



Photo please.


----------



## troy (Oct 18, 2017)

Tapatalk will not open the picture aarrgghhh, it's in archives here on st


----------



## Tom-DE (Oct 18, 2017)

I have no problem with what the judge said in this case. If you feed your plants regularly, they normally will produce nicer bloom and most experienced growers will agree that.... MSU fertilizer is just her/his suggestion. That's all.

Politics do exist in AOS or RHS judging from time to time, however, based on your photo, the judge's opinion on your Bulbo. is right IMO. 
Just keep it in mind, you might think the flower is fantastic, out of this world.... but in judge's eyes, it could be completely different.... Good luck next time.


----------



## Tom-DE (Oct 19, 2017)

ehanes7612 said:


> Sorry, but I completely disagree..telling someone to give more fertilizer without understanding the amounts they already give or/and impressing upon them the basic fundamental property of gardening in any form..balance of nutrients , watering , soil properties, etc etc etc. There is absolutely no way to understand what is the limiting element from such a superficial conversation. I can't tell you how many times I have heard from novice orchid growers say they have gotten this advice about fertilizing and ended up killing their plants. It's a counter productive way of giving advice and very irresponsible



The judge just pointed out the importance of nutrients and let her down gently in this case, nothing more... you can write hundreds of books about fertilizers and its related subjects....and it will still not have enough details, same thing goes to watering and light... I agree people should adjust fertilizers, watering and air movement accordingly....but that is not the point here....Further more, the judge is not here to teach her how to grow orchids in details. He/she just simple made a suggest(in general)...End of the story!


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 19, 2017)

Tom-DE said:


> The judge just pointed out the importance of nutrients and let her down gently in this case, nothing more... you can write hundreds of books about fertilizers and its related subjects....and it will still not have enough details, same thing goes to watering and light... I agree people should adjust fertilizers, watering and air movement accordingly....but that is not the point here....Further more, the judge is not here to teach you how to grow orchids in details. He/she just simple made a suggest(in general)...End of the story!



NO, not the end of the story..well, it would have been but you didn't seem to be content with me deleting my comment
I call it 'patronizing' ... a judge is a position of authority in this case and since I have seen judges and others give more responsible answers, I am going to call them out on it and raise the standard for giving such responses. Given that they have had at least 11 years of experience to get to this point, they should know better. Ironic how the judge has high standards for flower quality but cant seem to correlate that with advice on growing, and like the OP said..it was suspicious...that's BULLSHIT!!!..got it??


----------



## Tom-DE (Oct 19, 2017)

ehanes7612 said:


> NO, not the end of the story..
> I call it 'patronizing' ... a judge is a position of authority in this case and since I have seen judges and others give more responsible answers, I am going to call them out on it and raise the standard for giving such responses. Given that they have had at least 11 years of experience to get to this point, they should know better.



You are full of ****! Kido, you are still a grasshopper in this field....step aside and wait on the line.
and don't change or delete your post!


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 19, 2017)

Tom-DE said:


> You are full of ****! Kido, you are still a grasshopper in this field....step aside and wait on the line.
> and don't change or delete your post!



I see you really can't hang wth me..I guess you are folding now?


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 19, 2017)

right on


----------



## Tom-DE (Oct 19, 2017)

Well, what else do you want me to say? Besides that, I have no time for an idiot!


----------



## ehanes7612 (Oct 19, 2017)

Tom-DE said:


> Well, what else do you want me to say? Besides that, I have no time for an idiot!



Apparently you do


----------



## Ozpaph (Oct 19, 2017)

CambriaWhat said:


> I can also mention that the judge told me that he helped develop the MSU formula and they sell so many hundreds of pounds of it a year. He told me that I could really push those bulbophyllum further with more fertilizer. So honestly, as he rested his hand on my shoulder, I felt like I was being hassled to buy his product.
> 
> And yes, this happened in front of everyone present at the judging center.



That sounds condescending and inappropriate.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Oct 19, 2017)

Yep, sounds like a sales pitch to me, not so good one at that, too! lol


----------



## h_mossy (Oct 19, 2017)

troy said:


> Orchid awards mostly has to do with who is friends with who, totally political, I've had the run down from multiple well known good vendors, I realize unless I have a hangianum, godefroyae or adductum that has more than 3 flowers on 1 inflourescence, it wouldn't even be looked at



Years ago a friend overheard two judges at a show here in Hawaii, one judging that particular show, and one who was merely visiting the show. The one just visiting told his buddy to "not award so-and-so's plant, because he wanted to try to buy it later". My friend would never tell me who those judges were, but after that I could see that the habit of scratching each other's backs does occur.


----------



## h_mossy (Oct 19, 2017)

abax said:


> Don't be discouraged Cambria. The AOS judging system and a good many of the venues for judging are already
> decided by who's who. A friend in CA was in a manner
> black balled for having won too many awards no matter
> how great his plants are. You'd probably recognize the
> name if I used it here.



It should be based solely on the quality of the plant, and not on who owns it, or how many awards that owner has received. Maybe that particular owner merely has superior genetic stock. I'd give them the award if the plant merits it. If it is awarded, then that is good for the orchid world in general in that that plant will have progeny that will benefit the rest of us one way or another. It would be better to not know who owns what until after the awards are given out.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Oct 19, 2017)

I wish your friend would have outed these two guys.
They shouldn't be judging. But then, no matter what, these people will always be around. The reality.

I love going to my local shows and enjoy the displays. And of course, buying plants is a big part of the fun. 
I just have no interest in judging and awards that much. 
Life is always full of bs, and one doesn't need to look for more is my policy. lol


----------



## AdamD (Oct 19, 2017)

h_mossy said:


> It would be better to not know who owns what until after the awards are given out.



That’s the way it’s supposed to go down. 

So, if this is the judging center I think it is, I’ve been told the same before. They looked at it, but passed because of the flower count, but did say bring it back next blooming


----------



## naoki (Oct 19, 2017)

John M said:


> Yes. As I read this thread, I was waiting to hit a post that mentioned that fact. As a blanket statement, "more fertilizer = bigger flowers" is total, misguiding crap. If anything, just piling on more feed will reduce the size, quality and number of flowers.



I agree with Ray and John, it is unlikely that fertilization influences the flower size.

Wang has done this experiment with Phalaenopsis. Fertilization (or media type, which influences the availability) did NOT influence the flower size. However, fertilization influences the vegetative aspects as well as the number flowers produced (also in Dendrobium).

Wang, Y.T. and Gregg, L.L., 1994. Medium and fertilizer affect the performance of Phalaenopsis orchids during two flowering cycles. HortScience, 29(4), pp.269-271.

This doesn't have flower size data, but it has flower numbers.
Wang, Y.T., 1995. Medium and fertilization affect performance of potted Dendrobium and Phalaenopsis. HortTechnology, 5(3), pp.234-237.

We shouldn't make a blanket statement based on a couple examples. But if you think about the function of flowers, it is logical that plants don't increase the flower size based on the nutritional level. For example, does the size of a single flower influence the pollinator attraction? With Phalaenopsis (or plants with multiple flowers per inflorescence), it is likely that producing one extra flower to increase the overall display size is more likely to be successful than increasing the size of each flower by 5%. Also, other attractant like scent (in case of Bulbophyllum) is more important than flower size. So if there is some excess resources, they don't gain much from increasing the flower size. Additionally, if you change the flower size (especially around the column), the pollination success will reduce because the pollinia can be deposited to the wrong part of the insect. One may say that plants can change the petal and sepal sizes independent from column and lip. But in many plants, there are strong genetic correlations between the sizes of different parts.

I guess artificial judging for artificial hybrids are ok, but I don't see any points in the current judging of pure species (except for the merits attached to the growers such as CCE).


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Oct 19, 2017)

I totally agree!!


----------



## My Green Pets (Oct 20, 2017)

naoki said:


> I guess artificial judging for artificial hybrids are ok, but I don't see any points in the current judging of pure species (except for the merits attached to the growers such as CCE).



I agree.


----------



## cnycharles (Oct 20, 2017)

I&rsquo;ve listened in on judging at our shows and others I was helping clerk at, plus collected images of our shows awarded plants. Most of the judges in the whole northeast/canada/midatlantic are pretty decent, at least who I&rsquo;ve met, and would allow clerks to ribbon judge, while breaking ties and weighing in when judgement was unsure, explaining details of ribbon and aos judging. 

There are many individuals involved, and often they have to drive long distance to judge and are going to be out the door very quickly to get home. I don&rsquo;t think this affects judging quality for most, but likely may affect how detailed a description might be to a plant owner. 

I probably wouldn&rsquo;t tell someone to fertilize more, there&rsquo;s much more to it than that. But, for screening before deciding to judge, those involved pretty much check flower size and number after they have scanned for eliminating flaws. 

And if there are lots of awards then if a plant might be an hcc, generally they won&rsquo;t award just to have another on the books. Pretty regularly plants nice get passed because they want to raise the standard of what is awardable, that is pretty ingrained into the exam and thinking. 

And yes they realize that there will be many fewer awards given to certain things that have received many previously. Judges are people, unpaid volunteers who may not have taken a class on public speaking and relations

And yes, as someone who&rsquo;s grown lots of species I believe there is a lack of good understanding about what is a good species representation, so that it could be judged on its own genetic merits and not passed for being wavy, unflat or un round 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tnyr5 (Oct 24, 2017)

Maybe nobody else is going to say it, but I am. Cambria, I'm sorry for what happened to your thread, you deserve better. 

Since this is devolving into fake-news ( yes, _*fake news*_) slinging and ego-stroking, I will not reply to this thread again. 
Still, you deserve a more thorough answer since you took the time to post a pic. 

Let me preface this by first saying that it is a lovely and well grown plant! I'm sure all the judges thought the same. I'm about to nit-pick it to death, but when "lovely" is a given, this is exactly what the judges must do. 

I believe in another thread you showed this flower as having a vertical spread of about 28cm. That's the first problem. While it is true that size is only 10 points and the sizes of awarded flowers vary greatly, yours is significantly smaller than the recent awards to this species, in some cases, it is more than 12 cm smaller. It can't be _that_ far off. 

Problem number two is the color. it has nice color in and of itself, but the awarded plants appear to be significantly darker than yours (One could argue that this is a photography problem). If your flower could compete with the awarded ones size-wise, this might have been okay; they'd have docked a few points and moved on. Conversely, if it were smaller, but much darker than the awarded ones, they might have tried to find a way to award it for color ( maybe a JC). 

The third problem is the petals. Yes, the apical recurvature is normal for echinolabium, but we are not looking for "normal". There are awards on the books to flowers about the size of yours ( and the judges would have specifically sought those out for comparison to yours), but most of the ones that are that size also have petals that are pretty much held flat. ( Also, side note: If you see an awarded flower and think: "That's not awardable! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!??", the judges often think the same thing, which means they probably won't use that flower for comparison purposes when newer awards are considered. This is a problem for the grower if his/her plant is only better than that low-hanging fruit.) 

The final nail in the coffin is that most of the awards which are somewhat comparable to your plant are HCCs of 76-78, which gives the judges no wiggle room as far as scoring is concerned. 

Given all this, we can see that, condescending and self-serving or not, the most likely reason the judge said what he said is that he thinks there's a chance the flower might be awardable in the future, if you can "beef it up", so to speak. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## My Green Pets (Oct 25, 2017)

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I was very disappointed on judging day but this helps me to swallow the pill more easily. This particular judge also just irritates me in general from previous interactions, so that certainly played a part in my reaction.

Again, many thanks for helping me make some sense of this.


----------



## Ozpaph (Oct 26, 2017)

tnyr5 said:


> Maybe nobody else is going to say it, but I am. Cambria, I'm sorry for what happened to your thread, you deserve better.
> 
> Since this is devolving into fake-news ( yes, _*fake news*_) slinging and ego-stroking, I will not reply to this thread again.
> Still, you deserve a more thorough answer since you took the time to post a pic.
> ...



That's a helpful, educational critique.


----------



## StreetVariety (Oct 26, 2017)

Only exceptional plants should be awarded. It sounds like AOS judge did his job.


----------



## Tom Reddick (Oct 26, 2017)

Great post tnyr5. I have been watching this thread, and feel compelled to speak.

I am not an AOS Judge. I have been growing for 35 years, and twice I have been poised to enter the student program- but opted out because my career path does not work well with the incredible demands on a Judge's time, even as a student. 

That said, I have clerked at a significant number of shows over the years, as well as observed at monthly judgings, plus in my high school and college days I repped for Carmela and other vendors at shows.

I have not stepped into those AOS Judge shoes (yet), but I think I have about as much experience and observation of the process as a person can claim without being an AOS Judge.

All my life I have heard tales about judges blackballing certain people, or coming to plant sales tables and expecting free plants before the judging starts, giving awards to friends etc. 

And I have to say I have never once personally witnessed any such behavior, or anything close to it. Not saying it is impossible- but AOS Judging is certainly not a corrupt or broken system.

I will also note most of these tales of terror have come from vendors and breeders- i.e. those whose profits are very directly impacted by whether certain breeding stock or potential candidates for cloning receive an award.

The perception of arrogance or dismissiveness is legitimate- and sometimes it is in reality just what it seems to be.

But often it is not. Consider that judges are expected to travel outside of their regions to judge, and regularly. It is not uncommon for a judge to fly or drive hundreds of miles in a single day to judge a show, and then come right home after in the middle of the night rather than spend $200+ on an overnight stay.

Also- I have seen a number of cases where exhibitors openly questioned and argued with judges over their decisions, and in front of large groups of people. That is a no-win situation for a judge, and a display of disrespect and childishness on the part of the exhibitor that undermines the civility and perceived integrity of a process that relies on years of unpaid labor and personal expense by the person sitting in the judge's chair.

It would be a wonderful thing if everyone could get the kind of explanation tnyr5 gave a couple of nights ago. Unfortunately, there is seldom time- and while you Cambria have been very graceful and receptive to the answer you got, a lot of people are not so gracious. And it is hard for a judge to know in advance what reaction they will receive.


----------

