# roth judgement



## dodidoki (Feb 21, 2017)

Can anybody send me a useful link about judging a roth?


----------



## Ryan Young (Feb 21, 2017)

It will be compared to all else on record, but also may depend on whose doing the judging as taste and experience differ, if reaching final scoring. 

They look for form, well held flowers, more the better, spaced nicely along inflorescence (not crowded but not far gaps either) size, clear sharp markings, colour.

Take marks off for deformed or aged, smaller sized and poor orientation flowers along inflorescence. 

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk


----------



## troy (Feb 21, 2017)

I think the status quo now is 5 or more large, bigger than the norm flowers arranged nicely on tall inflourescence, with little or no imperfections


----------



## cattmad (Feb 21, 2017)

I think James Fang wrote an article on new generation roth Judging, I havent seen it myself but I hard it was quite good.

If anyone knows how to read it online please share the link


----------



## emydura (Feb 21, 2017)

cattmad said:


> I think James Fang wrote an article on new generation roth Judging, I havent seen it myself but I hard it was quite good.
> 
> If anyone knows how to read it online please share the link



It was in the April 2015 issue of Orchids -

_Judging Paphiopedilum rothschildianum- The New Standard, by James Fang, this article outlines what makes this species awardable._

I haven't read it myself but I would like to. Our orchid society should have it so I will have a look for it.


----------



## paphioland (Feb 21, 2017)

I look for at least 7cm dorsal, 2cm petals and 30 ns. Then form. Good synspal. Full dorsal. Hopefully minimal proximal petal reflexing. Rich color that suffuses whole pouch. Color goes all the way to proximal petals. If you want to judge roths go look at a lot of them. Flower number isn't as important. Much of this is environment. Most not all roths if grown well can hit 4-5 flowers.


----------



## Fabrice (Feb 22, 2017)

dodidoki said:


> Can anybody send me a useful link about judging a roth?



In another way, you can forget the standardization of tastes and just listen your heart. 
Of course, if you want absolutely win an award to a show, don't listen to me...


----------



## dodidoki (Feb 22, 2017)

Okay, I have few imagines. at least 20 cm wide fs, 4 flowers, lower ones within 10 degree distorsion, uppest within 30 degrees distorsion, laterals dropping within 15 degrees, dorsal at least 6 cm wide without reflexion, darkness within a standard colour scale( by card).


----------



## ehanes7612 (Feb 23, 2017)

knowing if a bloom has potential takes experience ..an orchid judge can see it right away, just like a good photographer knows a good composition...they just see it....the only way to learn this is by doing (seeing as many blooms as possible) ..it cant be explained to you..it's all about seeing the balance..numbers only mean something in the description but all that is trivial information to what is really going on

But if you need numbers why don't you go to the source, AOS, and get all the history of awards


----------



## Tio Mister (Feb 24, 2017)

troy said:


> I think the status quo now is 5 or more large, bigger than the norm flowers arranged nicely on tall inflourescence, with little or no imperfections



You will b e surprised if you were to do an average of the metrics of the last 5 awarded with FCC


----------



## paphioland (Feb 25, 2017)

ehanes7612 said:


> knowing if a bloom has potential takes experience ..an orchid judge can see it right away, just like a good photographer knows a good composition...they just see it....the only way to learn this is by doing (seeing as many blooms as possible) ..it cant be explained to you..it's all about seeing the balance..numbers only mean something in the description but all that is trivial information to what is really going on
> 
> But if you need numbers why don't you go to the source, AOS, and get all the history of awards



Um very very few orchid judges can see it right away. Actually I've never seen one who can. Not saying they don't exist but they are far and few between. Most of the most "knowledgeable and experienced" roth people are not AOS judges, I can assure you of that. And very few AOS judges are collectors or Hybridizers of high end roths so their opinion is useless to everyone including breeders. Are there exceptions? Of course. But in general. Like would I take Norito or Frank Smith's opinion with some seriousness? Of course. Notice though how both are hybridizers. The common AOS judge doesn't have a clue about roths.


----------



## paphioland (Feb 25, 2017)

Tio Mister said:


> You will b e surprised if you were to do an average of the metrics of the last 5 awarded with FCC



I can tell you again what size high end collectors want and breeders try to achieve which is more important than AOS. 30+,7,2. Obviously there are many other things that go into a flower but these are general targets to try for. A roth can still be spectacular missing some of these targets. And a roth can just be good hitting these targets. This is just size.


----------



## AdamD (Feb 25, 2017)

Well said


----------



## ehanes7612 (Feb 25, 2017)

paphioland said:


> Um very very few orchid judges can see it right away. Actually I've never seen one who can. Not saying they don't exist but they are far and few between. Most of the most "knowledgeable and experienced" roth people are not AOS judges, I can assure you of that. And very few AOS judges are collectors or Hybridizers of high end roths so their opinion is useless to everyone including breeders. Are there exceptions? Of course. But in general. Like would I take Norito or Frank Smith's opinion with some seriousness? Of course. Notice though how both are hybridizers. The common AOS judge doesn't have a clue about roths.



You completely misunderstood what I wrote. A judge doesn't need to know anything about a particular species or hybrid to be able to see what has POTENTIAL on first sight . First sight is ALWAYS , always about overall composition. This comes with decades of experience judging blooms in general.. just like an experienced photographer who understands lighting composition and framing. As far as the particulars of any flower (trends) , that's why they have a data base. If the judges feel that composition in general overrules a particular characteristic ( generally size) then they will give it an award, no matter what the stats say. So is this about judging or the trends in breeding?...because no one needs to know the trends to be able to see a well balanced, quality bloom..and yes, a lot of people can see this on first sight. Does a judge or anyone know what are the unique characteristics in the trends of roth blooms or that matter, any particular flower...how often do judges see the same species or hybrids ?, ...probably few do without having to look it up,...but that refers to a more objective and standardized evaluation that comes after the initial selection in a judging and something that I feel is a lot less valuable to the novice grower or even to any judging. The ability to 'see' overrides any knowledge in trends as this is what allows the viewer to apply universal patterns of balance and composition to anything visually...maybe the common judge doesn't know anything about roths (or any particular species or hybrid) but they are highly skilled in the art of recognizing great blooms.


----------



## paphioland (Feb 25, 2017)

ehanes7612 said:


> You completely misunderstood what I wrote. A judge doesn't need to know anything about a particular species or hybrid to be able to see what has POTENTIAL on first sight . First sight is ALWAYS , always about overall composition. This comes with decades of experience judging blooms in general.. just like an experienced photographer who understands lighting composition and framing. As far as the particulars of any flower (trends) , that's why they have a data base. If the judges feel that composition in general overrules a particular characteristic ( generally size) then they will give it an award, no matter what the stats say. So is this about judging or the trends in breeding?...because no one needs to know the trends to be able to see a well balanced, quality bloom..and yes, a lot of people can see this on first sight. Does a judge or anyone know what are the unique characteristics in the trends of roth blooms or that matter, any particular flower...how often do judges see the same species or hybrids ?, ...probably few do without having to look it up,...but that refers to a more objective and standardized evaluation that comes after the initial selection in a judging and something that I feel is a lot less valuable to the novice grower or even to any judging. The ability to 'see' overrides any knowledge in trends as this is what allows the viewer to apply universal patterns of balance and composition to anything visually...maybe the common judge doesn't know anything about roths (or any particular species or hybrid) but they are highly skilled in the art of recognizing great blooms.



I don't know which "highly skilled" judges you are observing. After collecting and breeding what id like to think are some of the highest level paphs since Ive been 23 yo Ive been shocked at the lack of judging skills. I'm still shocked by it. Im not going to go into a full rant but orchids are too diverse and there is no incentive to have truly highly skilled people become judges. And the incentives that do exist for skilled eyed orchid people to become judges are possibly nefarious. I guess it is what it is. I just think novice orchidphiles place so much reverence for aos judging when at the most benign level its really just mostly crap. At the most malignant level it is political, ugly and selfish. Absolutely there are some great judges and I'm positive some judges are good at judging one type of orchid or another. Its just kind of sad that you have to take a plant to people who may have only seen one or two of its kind before and have them tell you how good it is.
An interesting tidbit. Really good paph eyes can tell quality without a ruler. Ive never seen Terry pull out a ruler to price a paph. I once tested him on segment sizes and he was so remarkably close it was scary. His eyes were basically rulers. Probably partially a natural gift and much of it that he has seen so many paphs his whole life. In addition he know how hard some traits are to breed for which is mostly lost on judges. If you need the ruler to tell you if a paph is good you probably shouldn't be judging a paph. Sure a ruler is nice to verify size but it shouldn't be necessary. I don't need a ruler to tell me that Kate Upton is hot lol.


----------



## ehanes7612 (Feb 25, 2017)

Depends on the region, judges in my region are very skilled, but they are also not prone to the politics that I have heard of from centers in California and Florida

And as far as trusting certain growers in their evaluation of their blooms ..sorry but there is something to be said about attachment... seen it a lot from commercial growers who over value their plants because of their need for recognition or greed


----------



## h_mossy (Mar 18, 2017)

ehanes7612 said:


> knowing if a bloom has potential takes experience ..an orchid judge can see it right away, just like a good photographer knows a good composition...they just see it....the only way to learn this is by doing (seeing as many blooms as possible) ..it cant be explained to you..it's all about seeing the balance..numbers only mean something in the description but all that is trivial information to what is really going on
> 
> But if you need numbers why don't you go to the source, AOS, and get all the history of awards


This actually makes sense to me. It is more about a feeling rather than something tangible. Unfortunately, language does not adequately convey what you are trying to say. I may be a noob to paph growing, but believe it or not I know what you are speaking of. It is more than merely size and measurements. It is the overall impression it gives you, and yet it is still even more than that. It is subtle. I've had to try to explain it before, but it involved using different composition elements - music, art, literature - a number of things could be presented to you, and all appear virtually identical, yet for a reason you can't quite put into words, one leaves you with a better feeling or impression than the other ones. You don't know why, but you still can't deny the difference. I believe that is what you are getting at. 

I'm not so sure can train for this. I think either you have it or you don't, but with seeing more of the type of bloom you are judging I believe you can sharpen this sense.


----------

