# AOS Judging



## practicallyostensible (Apr 24, 2007)

Okay, I'm confused, I've never really looked into judging before but I am trying to read up a bit and my understanding is that you can only get a plant judged at an AOS judging center, right, am I totally off the mark here? There is no actual judging at orchid shows then, because they compare the plants to a database? Is there anywhere online where I can read about the process, à la "Orchid Judging for Dummies" so I don't have to trouble you all with more inane questions?


----------



## Candace (Apr 24, 2007)

There are judged orchid shows. Yes, they use databases, but laptops are portable:> I'm sure others have the same questions you do! Judging centers are listed on the AOS website. They usually meet once a month. And then there are judged shows.


----------



## smartie2000 (Apr 25, 2007)

AOS judges do come to some shows
Unfortunately you have to get your plant to bloom at the right time! They come just once a year


----------



## li'l frog (Apr 25, 2007)

Candace said:


> There are judged orchid shows. Yes, they use databases, but laptops are portable:> I'm sure others have the same questions you do! Judging centers are listed on the AOS website. They usually meet once a month. And then there are judged shows.




And before laptops, there was Awards Quarterly.


----------



## Candace (Apr 25, 2007)

I can't imagine the time it took to search through AQ for data. What a PITA.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 25, 2007)

The AQ has an index, it's not so hard.


----------



## WolfDog1 (C. Williams) (Apr 25, 2007)

Lots of shows are AOS judged. Just watch for the shows in your area. Usually the people who are putting on the show let people know if it is AOS judged or not. Also, your local orchid society will probably be a wealth of information regarding judged shows. Also, the AOS website, lists the judging centers. If there is one close to you, I strongly suggest paying a visit to it during monthly judging. If you go, just introduce yourself to some of the people there (probably mostly judges and students) and let them know that you are a visitor and would like to observe the judging process. They are pretty nice people. I have done that on many occassions and have sit in on many judgings. It's very informative. Sometimes the discussions of particular plants gets pretty 'lively.' Also, if you have a plant in bloom at the time of the judges meeting and you want them to look at it, take it along with you. They will help you get it registered. It may or may not get nominated, but there you are. 

Good luck with all this. 

Craig


----------



## Candace (Apr 25, 2007)

> The AQ has an index, it's not so hard.


 I know that, but still a PITA! And to carry around all that data...


----------



## dave b (Apr 25, 2007)

Most of the shows in my area (Dayton (home), Cincinnati, Columbus) are AOS sanctioned. The orchids are (MAY be if deemed worthy) judged as are the displays. Displays only get trophies. For our recent show, our society had to provide a complete collection of Awards Quarterly, as well as any other reference materials available. Sander's lists, Orchid Wiz, and AOS's e Awards database were on hand. 

The AOS sells a small book covering all the details of judging and a AOS sanctioned show. Its called the Handbook on Judging and Exhibition. The MAOC website (mid america orchid conference) also has a set of guidelines based on AOS criteria covering rules and regulations for AOS shows and judging. It is viewable and downloadable as a pdf.


----------



## Bolero (Apr 26, 2007)

Does anyone else think that judging is getting so demanding that eventually it will be almost impossible to improve the standard further to get an award?

I mean plants can only be improved so much can't they???


----------



## littlefrog (Apr 26, 2007)

I don't know about that. Certain breeding lines are maxed out, I'm sure. But with 25,000+ species to work with, we will not run out of interesting things for a long time.

I think also that judging tends to reflect trends (or perhaps drive them). Now that complex paphs are becoming more popular, we are seeing more awards to them. Are they better than the best of 30 years ago? Some are. I don't think most are though. That might be a different rant. Along with the rant about certain southern judging regions and the crappy paphs that they keep awarding (I throw away plants that are better than some of the award slides I've seen in the last few months).


----------



## Ernie (Apr 26, 2007)

If you enter a plant in a display at an AOS show and the judges don't pull it for judging, it is considered "screened" and can't be considered for an AOS award on that same blooming. SO, if you have a plant in a show that you want judged, poke one of the judges and ask them what they think. If you want to learn about the process, let them know. If you're not sure, ask them for their honest opinion. Also, you can often carry a plant in to AOS judging that (in our region- Mid-America) is usually Saturday morning after ribbon judging. Let the judging chair know you want it entered for AOS judging and they'll see that it happens. 
Yes, there's always room for improvement. Once one breeding line gets tapped out, improvement is the encouragement to try new things. Shoot, even the species (which in reality become hybrids over time) get better with each generation- look at Jason's Phrag. besseae 'Rob's Choice' ! Heck if that's the best besseae that will ever be, the next goal is cultural awards. Imagine that plant with ten spikes! 

-Ernie


----------



## NYEric (Apr 26, 2007)

littlefrog said:


> (I throw away plants that are better than some of the award slides I've seen in the last few months).


:rollhappy: 
More awards of any plant will be made if people breed and grow for higher quality, to get higher flower counts, or better shape or color, etc. For example, look at besseae 'Rob's Choice'. Also as some older judges go out of the loop older crosses will be new to the judges and may make a rebound.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 26, 2007)

hmmm.. like minds or exceptional plant?!?


----------



## NYEric (Apr 26, 2007)

BTW who sniped the Phrag. Elizabeth March out from under me on eBay?!


----------



## littlefrog (Apr 26, 2007)

I think Ph. besseae 'Littlefrog Flame' is better than 'Rob's Choice'... I've seen them both in person, although the latter was probably not blooming to its potential as it had been recently divided. 'Rob's Choice' is a damn good breeder though (and beautiful, don't get me wrong), I haven't been able to get anything to take on the flame.

I might be a little biased...


----------



## NYEric (Apr 26, 2007)

Some day, both of those will be Home Depot material!:evil:


----------



## Rick (Apr 26, 2007)

smartie2000 said:


> AOS judges do come to some shows
> Unfortunately you have to get your plant to bloom at the right time! They come just once a year



I guess it depends how remote you are, or how willing you are to travel. Here in TN I have acess to about 5 or more regular shows within 4-5 hours of driving time, and they are kinda scattered throughout the spring and fall. The closest Judging center to me is Atlanta which is also about 4 hours away. The judges meet at the center once a month (in this case the 2nd Saturday of each month) . I think they don't meet in December??

Timing for slippers of phals should be pretty easy for these speces. But even with a local judging center its still a timing game for allot of species.


----------



## Rick (Apr 26, 2007)

Bolero said:


> Does anyone else think that judging is getting so demanding that eventually it will be almost impossible to improve the standard further to get an award?
> 
> I mean plants can only be improved so much can't they???



That's until they come up with a 8N rothoke: oke: 

You do have a point Bolero for species and hybrids with a long history. I guess thats one of the attractions for breeders of hybrids, you can always come up with something new. And you can also see the impetus for discovering the next new species. But as the world shrinks the oppertunities to find the next kovachii decreases, and all the new species quality awards will go to weird micro pleurothalids.:evil: 

Another outlet though are the cultural awards.


----------



## Roy (Apr 27, 2007)

Interesting thread again. I make the point here again that there should never be a "max out" on a cross being awarded. I receive awards quarterly & look in disgust at some of the awards given ( hybrids mainly ) and wonder where judging is going. As was discussed at length in the thread of Paph Macarbe, if the plant is worthy of an award it should be given. If comparisons are made between crosses, about one third of the Cattleyas awarded in the USA should have been rejected as inferior enough to be even classed out as a showbench plant. If the theory of enough clones of a cross have been awarded then the next cross given an award of quality due the number of clones exhibited then that should nearly wipe out any chance of further plants of the cross being awarded. For what its worth for those with awards quarterly, have a look thru at the pics, the across the board consistancy is zero. As an observation, some judging groups are up to date and recognise quality where other groups are assessing orchids that were out of date 40 years ago, even as show bench plants.


----------



## Bolero (Apr 27, 2007)

Roy said:


> Interesting thread again. I make the point here again that there should never be a "max out" on a cross being awarded. I receive awards quarterly & look in disgust at some of the awards given ( hybrids mainly ) and wonder where judging is going. As was discussed at length in the thread of Paph Macarbe, if the plant is worthy of an award it should be given. If comparisons are made between crosses, about one third of the Cattleyas awarded in the USA should have been rejected as inferior enough to be even classed out as a showbench plant. If the theory of enough clones of a cross have been awarded then the next cross given an award of quality due the number of clones exhibited then that should nearly wipe out any chance of further plants of the cross being awarded. For what its worth for those with awards quarterly, have a look thru at the pics, the across the board consistancy is zero. As an observation, some judging groups are up to date and recognise quality where other groups are assessing orchids that were out of date 40 years ago, even as show bench plants.



So what would be the solution to that dilemma? If you live in the right area you will get a plant awarded that wouldn't have been considered from another area.

That happens in Australia as well, if you only occasionally see certain plants then you have to go on what you know. I would hate to refer to measurements as a guide as you never really know what that plant in AQ looked like unless you saw it clearly in person.

It's an interesting discussion though and one all judging panels should have.


----------



## Roy (Apr 27, 2007)

Bolero, your exactly right. The Head of the Judging panel should have with them at each show, have enough material to refer to for information on unusual orchids for award judging. Notification to the panel of the presentation should be made by the owner prior to presentation so data can be gathered. The more common awarded orchids should be easily identified as awardable or not by the 'training' supposedly undertaken. The biggest problem comes back to the individual judge/s or at the end of the day, the Chairperson / Registrar of Judges / AOS, AOC, not being competent enough to request an explaination as to why this plant was awarded OR reject the award because of the lack of quality compared to previous awards granted for that GENUS ( or ) crossing. They have the capabilities to refer to all awards and stats for each award plus colour pics. Should the quality of the awards being granted by a panel or panels show a decline in quality, as being exhibited at present everywhere, then they should instigate a meeting of that / those panels to find out why and have them do a refresher coarse or get out. To put it in a nut shell, put up the last 6 AM's awarded to similar bred Paphs from different panels across the country and look at the variation.
See AQ.
Roy.


----------



## Bolero (Apr 27, 2007)

That's a great idea Roy and it should probably be implemented. It's difficult thought, that process would be quite time consuming and technical. But in order to find improvements or at least an equivalent plant we should be able to reference the material you suggest.

It's interesting where I judge, we learn by appreciation and not so much the technical aspects of the plant when compared to previous awards. Measurements and such information is not often taken out (note: I live in Australia). With the amount of judging and training we do it would be impossible to cover everything, let alone every genus I have to say. Maybe judges should be made to specialise now???


----------



## Roy (Apr 27, 2007)

Hey Bolero, note my location. We are neighbours ( almost ). Maybe even the same judging system ?? The specialist Judge is great but how then would they get an award ? Appreciation is fine but it doesn't teach you how define a quality flower. This where the variations occur. Some judges appreciate certain orchids more than others. If you have been able to access an orchid under the old AOC Standards book then apply it to appreciation and see what the difference is, it might surprise you. The better Judges I grew up with and the way I judge is by having used the old system for years which taught me the rights and wrongs of a flower. It is too easy to be "attracted" to a flower and award it easier or higher than you should. Any one can judge by appreciation, example: a club meeting members popular vote, not by accessing the qualities of the orchid for shape, size, colour, substance & texture, spike habit & flower count. Memory and looking at 100's if not thousands or orchids is the only way you will know if the orchid you are looking at is awardable or not. Or use the old Standards on the new stuff and see if its still worthy of an award.


----------



## Ernie (Apr 27, 2007)

We frequently use all of the mentioned resources- award slides, computer databases (e-AOS/AQPlus, OrchidWiz, WildCatt), "Fisher Bishop", Award Quarterlies, RHS registry, original taxonomic literature (darn Pleurothallids!)... in considering plants for awards. It doesn't take a lot of time to do, BUT usually a good judge will spot the award winners quite easily. Certainly, everyone has their strengths- that's why there is a team. We almost never see Cymbidiums, so we rely on help from a couple California judges that moved here and the references for guidance when they pop up. Also, we have a couple AWESOME vanda growers here, but we always need to see what the Floridians are up to to stay current and fair. 

-Ernie


----------



## NYEric (Apr 27, 2007)

Rick said:


> But as the world shrinks the oppertunities to find the next kovachii decreases, and all the new species quality awards will go to weird micro pleurothalids.:evil:


Hmm... Lepanthes, Stellis, Yum Yum!


----------



## NYEric (Apr 27, 2007)

There's an interesting point to the regional aspect of AOS judging. I think that the selection of judges from other regions at the GNYOS show is such that plants wont get more credit than is due because no one is familiar w/ them.


----------



## slippertalker (Apr 27, 2007)

Ernie said:


> We frequently use all of the mentioned resources- award slides, computer databases (e-AOS/AQPlus, OrchidWiz, WildCatt), "Fisher Bishop", Award Quarterlies, RHS registry, original taxonomic literature (darn Pleurothallids!)... in considering plants for awards. It doesn't take a lot of time to do, BUT usually a good judge will spot the award winners quite easily. Certainly, everyone has their strengths- that's why there is a team. We almost never see Cymbidiums, so we rely on help from a couple California judges that moved here and the references for guidance when they pop up. Also, we have a couple AWESOME vanda growers here, but we always need to see what the Floridians are up to to stay current and fair.
> 
> -Ernie



I agree that usually there is more than enough information to make informed decisions. It isn't too difficult to compare prior and recent awards from other regions. It comes down to judging ability, and with a good sized team there are enough opinions and specific expertise to cover most genera. I also agree that an AM is usually spotted immediately, but the arguments generally revolve around low HCC's and high AM's. It's true that all regions are deficit in their knowledge of plants that are never brought in to judging. It's important to travel to other parts of the country to get perspective.


----------



## Ernie (Apr 27, 2007)

Slippertalker,

Yes, great point about traveling!!! Can't be emphasized enough! I love going out of region! We get an extra zero on our paychecks for judging out of region shows!  

-Ernie


----------



## littlefrog (Apr 27, 2007)

I'll be going out of region tomorrow. See you in Chicago, Ernie?

Rob


----------



## slippertalker (Apr 27, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Slippertalker,
> 
> Yes, great point about traveling!!! Can't be emphasized enough! I love going out of region! We get an extra zero on our paychecks for judging out of region shows!
> 
> -Ernie



Unfortunately it is a 2-3 day drive to get to another region, or a healthy airplane ride....You must get paid more than me!:evil:


----------



## Ernie (Apr 27, 2007)

littlefrog said:


> I'll be going out of region tomorrow. See you in Chicago, Ernie?
> 
> Rob



For sure! See you there! Er... here. 

-Ernie


----------



## Rick (Apr 27, 2007)

So how regionally insular are judges? I know that some of our judges in the Atlanta center travel "out of region" fairly often. One makes regular trips to Taiwan.

I'm not sure if there is regional judging bias due to limited exposure to out of region material, or attitudinal bias on how plants should be awarded.

There is considerable controversy over lateral awarding vs vertical awarding (using terms from this arguement posted in the past).


----------



## slippertalker (Apr 27, 2007)

Rick said:


> So how regionally insular are judges? I know that some of our judges in the Atlanta center travel "out of region" fairly often. One makes regular trips to Taiwan.
> 
> I'm not sure if there is regional judging bias due to limited exposure to out of region material, or attitudinal bias on how plants should be awarded.
> 
> There is considerable controversy over lateral awarding vs vertical awarding (using terms from this arguement posted in the past).



In every region there are judges that regularly get out, and others that don't.
Not everyone has the means to travel all over the globe. 

Regional bias comes from 1) a lot of quality plants of certain genera, 2) a deficiency of plants of certain genera, 3) quality of judges, and 4) a lack of interchange between regions. I don't think there is a huge attitude difference regarding how plants are judged.

Lateral awards vs vertical awards (your terminology) will always be an object of discussion. Arguments can be justified both ways, and exceptional crosses seem to stir the drink.


----------



## Bolero (Apr 28, 2007)

Roy said:


> Hey Bolero, note my location. We are neighbours ( almost ). Maybe even the same judging system ?? The specialist Judge is great but how then would they get an award ? Appreciation is fine but it doesn't teach you how define a quality flower. This where the variations occur. Some judges appreciate certain orchids more than others. If you have been able to access an orchid under the old AOC Standards book then apply it to appreciation and see what the difference is, it might surprise you. The better Judges I grew up with and the way I judge is by having used the old system for years which taught me the rights and wrongs of a flower. It is too easy to be "attracted" to a flower and award it easier or higher than you should. Any one can judge by appreciation, example: a club meeting members popular vote, not by accessing the qualities of the orchid for shape, size, colour, substance & texture, spike habit & flower count. Memory and looking at 100's if not thousands or orchids is the only way you will know if the orchid you are looking at is awardable or not. Or use the old Standards on the new stuff and see if its still worthy of an award.



Yes we are practically neighbours, about an hour apart. I'm in Geelong, just near Melbourne. As I don't know your name I am guessing that you are OSCOV and I am AOC but I won't hold that against you. I'm an associate judge so far. I think appreciation judging is about seeing thousands of plants and judging from memory, the more you judge the better your appreciation skills become. I for one think that we are too hard on plants in this state and have unrealistic expectations of a plant that should be awarded. Note the lack of any FCC's in this state over the last 20 years.......surely there must be at least a few benchmark plants that were well grown during that time????

Let me know when you're ready to come over from the dark side.......;-)


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2007)

Hey, ask Clive Hayman if he knows a ROY in the Judging panel VRJP.
Or Grant Garrett. I've been a panel member for many years. Don't get to too many meetings these days for various reasons. I'm on the emeritus list at the moment.


----------



## Bolero (Apr 28, 2007)

Roy said:


> Hey, ask Clive Hayman if he knows a ROY in the Judging panel VRJP.
> Or Grant Garrett. I've been a panel member for many years. Don't get to too many meetings these days for various reasons. I'm on the emeritus list at the moment.



Ah ok, I will check my listing, I am not familiar with your name.........or maybe I am and just don't remember.

I will ask Clive and Rita the next time I see them........good to talk to you!!! Hopefully we see you around soon.

;-)


----------



## British Bulldog (Jul 30, 2007)

*Judging!!*

Looking at all the comments on judging made me smile!!oke:
I have been an RHS Judge since 1971!!
AND I am still amazed at some of the comments I hear from these "experts" around the world.

What is a perfect orchid?
They do not exist!!
One comparison that always makes me fume is the one that says complex paphs should always be bigger to be better.
That is B******* rubbish.
Colour should be the main criteria, then shape, THEN size.
With our attempts to get new colours often size is lost.
Look at some of the first bessae hybrids??

Going back to breeding Pygmy Paphs we will get "perfect" complex shapes
but only a quarter the size
Keep stirring
Paul


----------



## Roy (Jul 30, 2007)

Paul, you won't get any argument from me on your points. Although I would put shape before color but then again but thats me. I would like a dollar for every time a Judge?? said " it would be nice if it was a bit bigger". I'm not sure what they are referring to a times. One only has to look at the advancement in Mini Catt' breeding. Some of them are better than any Standard size?? catt's ever bred. The one thing that really annoys me is the judging voting for the well flowered, highly colored Paph hybrid with the shape of an insigne. coz it looks nice.....derrrrrrrrrr


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 30, 2007)

In judging complex paph hybrids, size is certainly a consideration. I consider with standard complex hybrids that shape, color and size are the primary indicators of quality. Size is the most important 10 points on the scoresheet as it gives a fuller flower with wider segments which enhances the shape, and the visual impact of a colorful flower of good size and full segments is greater. I look for these standards to work in concert; a big poorly shaped or colored flower is obviously inferior. A compact well shaped and colored flower would be superior.

Now, the parents always have to be taken into consideration, and miniature crosses are still judged according to full shape, good color and size according to the parentage. These criteria are always important whether the hybrids are derived from P. insigne, P. rothschildianum or P. helenae. A wise judge will always consider breeding lines and the effect of certain parents in a cross.


----------



## British Bulldog (Jul 31, 2007)

*Paph size!*

Yes but size is ONLY 10 points out of the full score.
Most certainly a wise Judge should look at parentage but are there many out there.:evil:
The mini Catt saga is certainly a case in point.
Here in the UK we had a problem with mini Cyms also as plant size on some lines were not "mini" growth.
I absolutely agree at the end of the day, no matter which system is used, personal preferences come into play.


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 31, 2007)

I appreciate your comments, especially regarding wise judgesoke:

With new species being used in hybridizing, there will always be new tangents to explore, and new challenges for judges. Every judge has weaknesses and strengths, and I don't expect expertise in every genus. Hopefully, at the end of the day, a team of judges can share enough knowledge to properly discern quality. The ability to learn, share information and work as a team is paramount. That being said, mistakes will continue to be made.........A large majority of the awards are correct and most judges have decent decision making abilities.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 1, 2007)

slippertalker said:


> In judging complex paph hybrids, size is certainly a consideration. I consider with standard complex hybrids that shape, color and size are the primary indicators of quality. Size is the most important 10 points on the scoresheet as it gives a fuller flower with wider segments which enhances the shape, and the visual impact of a colorful flower of good size and full segments is greater. I look for these standards to work in concert; a big poorly shaped or colored flower is obviously inferior. A compact well shaped and colored flower would be superior.
> 
> Now, the parents always have to be taken into consideration, and miniature crosses are still judged according to full shape, good color and size according to the parentage. These criteria are always important whether the hybrids are derived from P. insigne, P. rothschildianum or P. helenae. A wise judge will always consider breeding lines and the effect of certain parents in a cross.



Slippertalker,

You make a great point that needs stressed: size can be interpretted as proportion in addition to (and more important than?... you decide) our "beloved" natural spread. Big, leggy flowers are no match for full flowers. I've said it before in someone's thread on Paph roths- watch for segment *width* as well as length. Most folks don't think of multifloral Paphs, for instance, as having "full" flowers, but they most certainly can be full if the dorsal, synsepal, and petals have sufficient width to them. 

-Ernie


----------



## littlefrog (Aug 1, 2007)

Symmetry is a big one for me. I have serious problems getting past an asymmetrical flower regardless of its other qualities. Some flowers aren't ever symmetrical, of course, (mormodes for example) that doesn't bother me. But it really is hard for me to overlook in paphs and phrags.

I don't even measure flowers anymore before I nominate, I decide based on its other qualities. I'll ask for measurements before I score, of course. Color is very important to me, as is form. Floriferousness is a big seller for me too, if I can reasonably expect to see it. 

The more I think about it... Beauty in a flower is like beauty in a face. It is really hard to quantify. You know it when you see it. If you have looked at enough orchids, you develop a feel for what is beautiful and what isn't, and your feeling might be different than somebody else's. Same with beautiful faces. The size of the face is irrelevant, in fact, too big and it might be ugly! The judging process is really a divergence from the classical understanding of beauty. We award based on quantifying various characteristics, which we have learned how to do from experience. This leads to some interesting results. Very unattractive flowers may get high awards, just because they are better than the last unattractive flower. It is a pretty fair system, it awards good qualities and has had a great influence on breeding, but it isn't a beauty contest.


----------



## rdlsreno (Aug 9, 2007)

That is the purpose of Orchid judging is recognize improvements in breeding better orchid species and hybrids. There is always room for improvement. Let us look at the species Paph, rothschildianum. The early awards (FCC) where beautiful then but look at the ones today (FCC) its far better than the old ones. The FCC before may not even be awarded as a HCC. In future, we see wider and flatter dorsal and syn-sepals. Wider petals and darker color even more flowers per stem. Man can never be satisfied he/she will find something to improve.

Ramon


----------



## Marco (Aug 9, 2007)

Hey Ramon. Welcome to the forum!


----------



## Candace (Aug 9, 2007)

Yeah, glad you popped in:>


----------



## slippertalker (Aug 9, 2007)

rdlsreno said:


> That is the purpose of Orchid judging is recognize improvements in breeding better orchid species and hybrids. There is always room for improvement. Let us look at the species Paph, rothschildianum. The early awards (FCC) where beautiful then but look at the ones today (FCC) its far better than the old ones. The FCC before may not even be awarded as a HCC. In future, we see wider and flatter dorsal and syn-sepals. Wider petals and darker color even more flowers per stem. Man can never be satisfied he/she will find something to improve.
> 
> Ramon



I agree with your comments, but the species "purists" will say that hybridizers are artificially manipulating these plants into something different than nature intended. The same folks that decry selective breeding also purchase the same plants in lieu of poor quality plants similar to many jungle plants, so there is a bit of hypocrisy here.
The point is that breeders and judges have artificial standards that tend to "improve" the plants to their ideal, and the buying public loves them too.


----------



## rdlsreno (Aug 10, 2007)

slippertalker said:


> I agree with your comments, but the species "purists" will say that hybridizers are artificially manipulating these plants into something different than nature intended. The same folks that decry selective breeding also purchase the same plants in lieu of poor quality plants similar to many jungle plants, so there is a bit of hypocrisy here.
> The point is that breeders and judges have artificial standards that tend to "improve" the plants to their ideal, and the buying public loves them too.



Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Maybe in the future reflexed flowers that are not flat is the standard. I think what the most orchidist likes will be the standard or the norm for beauty and that will be the basis of the criteria.

Ramon


----------

