# Judging Mini Complex Paphs



## Darin (Sep 16, 2010)

I am prepping a presentation to give to the Cincinnati Judging Center next month on judging mini complex paphs. What special considerations would you suggest should be pointed out that are different from when a team is judging full size toads. Size is obvious but what else is there?

Thanks for any input you may have.
Darin


----------



## chrismende (Sep 16, 2010)

Interesting that your thread about judging minis and mine about breeding them are concurrent. How many of us are interested in these on this forum?

I'm not a judge, but I would hope that overall balance between plant and flower would be an aspect to consider when judging minis, since not only the flower should be small.


----------



## Ernie (Sep 16, 2010)

I love your topic! This falls under the "what's not on the score sheet" category IMO. This fabulous hobby of ours has transitioned from cut flowers on huge specimen plants that never saw a customer to pot plants and now to mini/compact pot plants. It's partly about how big of a bang from a flower can I get from how small of a plant in this line of breeding. There's not really a spot for this on any point scale. You could tweak it into size as proportion of flower to plant. As far as the stuff you can point, think of the species that give us small plants and "complex" style flowers. 

charlesworthii, helenae, barbigerum, spicerianum, druryi, henryanum, etc. So, the crew that gives us the typical "complex feel". From this group, we commonly infuse: dorsals with narrow bases and maybe funneling, narrow petals that might hug the pouch or aim at the ground for helenae. We also get waxiness and heavy substance with long flower life on thin but self-supporting inflorescences. Backcrossing true complex onto these species might go a step backward in form especially, but the goal is to reduce plant size. I love seeing a big, fat synsepal on this style of breeding. Score higher for these obvious attempts even if form is a little off what we'd hope for from a true toad- consider the species involved and point accordingly. 

Brachys are also used to downsize toads. They are also in the background of classic complex, but using them in recent breeding (crossing toads to Brachy species or pure Brachy hybrids) will commonly instill a white background, short sometimes weak stems, and speckles. Godefroyae and leucochilum are best for saturating color instead of giving speckles. Again, consider the non-toad parent and score with its strengths and faults in mind. 

Parvis are pretty new considering the lineage of some of the classic complexes. Their influence in hybridization is usually obvious. They are used for color as well as shrinking down plant size. Delenatii has some history in complex breeding. Armeniacum and micranthum are fairly new to the scene in the grand scheme of things. I wouldn't personally bother using malipoense onto complexes. Again, consider the parentage and breeding goals. 

There are tons more species used for this. Lots of Barbata, etc...

So, keep in mind the parentage when looking at a hybrid. Even though the form may be less than perfect when a complex is crossed to a species, the result should be predictable and within acceptable limits for the attempt. Still, the flower should be symmetric and as full as possible for the breeding. Color should be clear and crisp, well-defined.... All the typical score sheet items. But you want a honkin', imposing flower on a plant in a thimble or at least a tea cup. 

Similarly, think of this... when a fragrant flower is at the table, we sniff it and it usually puts us in a good mood. Shoot, even bad smelling flowers get attention for novelty. A good mood when screening or scoring a plant really helps the plant. How about when someone in Alaska blooms a fabulous Vanda, but it's not quite up to south Florida standards. I think that's an accomplishment and could be recognized. Or someone in the desert blooming out a specimen Dracula. Or someone just managing to get a Coryanthes or Stanhopea to judging during the hours or days they are actually open. These things help hedge bets in favor of the plant. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as we don't go too nuts. 

Help any?


----------



## hardy (Sep 16, 2010)

Very interesting and informative discussion, thanks a lot


----------



## Roy (Sep 17, 2010)

Interesting topic. From an Australian Orchid Judge, the breeding of the plant doesn't come into calculations here so the plants in his discussion would be over looked for an award unless for color or culture. Hard I know but thisis the difference mainly between AOS judging & AOC judging. The other major thing is that the flower must have some sort of quality shape about it. Don't get me wrong, these plants can be quite delightful in their own way but not classes as exhibition type flowers here. They are looked upon as pot plants or novelties rather than serious show plants.

Ernie, I understand your comments on someone flowering a Vanda in Alaska but not up to Florida quality but as I understand it, we are not awarding the owner, we are awarding the orchid. The owner could be awarded a cultural certificate for their amazing achievement but to award the orchid under the circumstances would just deminish the standing of the past, present and future awarded Vandas etc.


----------



## rdlsreno (Sep 17, 2010)

Here are some awarded mini complex paphs in AOS.

Hope this helps 

Paph. Ali Taba 'Elite' HCC which is 7.4 NS

Paph. Plumfairie 'Darkest' HCC is 8.2 NS

Paph. Plumfairie 'Little Plum' AM is 8.5 NS


Ramon


----------



## Roy (Sep 17, 2010)

Nice flowers Ramon, as an observation, out of the 3, the Ali Taba would be the only one that may stand a chance of a quality award here. I know to judge from pics is ill advised but I see too many faults with the other 2, to have even be considered.


----------



## paphreek (Sep 17, 2010)

One advantage of crosses using barbigerum, helenae, henryanum, and charlesworthii, is the ability of the hybrid to produce multiple growths in a season. The best plants of a particular cross should easily produce 3-6 flowers on as many new growths simultaneously. While this is a plant growth issue, and not a flower quality issue, I believe the overall impact, or "wow factor" is greatly enhanced by multiple flowers.







While this example is not awardable, flower count should be considered as part of the overall judging. In the same vein, cultural awards for mini complex Paphs should have more flowers than the average simply because it is so easy to have multiple blooms.


----------



## Ernie (Sep 17, 2010)

Roy said:


> Ernie, I understand your comments on someone flowering a Vanda in Alaska but not up to Florida quality but as I understand it, we are not awarding the owner, we are awarding the orchid. The owner could be awarded a cultural certificate for their amazing achievement but to award the orchid under the circumstances would just deminish the standing of the past, present and future awarded Vandas etc.



I agree on the by the book idea of judging that geography is irrelevant, but it happens. Again, it's usually not intentional, but seeing a flowered plant one would usually consider "impossible" for the area puts you in a frame of mind. Yes, per the score sheet, geography, fragrance, plant habit (minitureization, compactness), flower ephemerality, etc are exciting and sort of slip us a bribe oftentimes without us realizing it. That's my point, if it wasn't clear in my first post. I don't advocate drastically straying from the score sheet, but some things sneak in under our radar and others are downright recognizable. Like our topic here of efforts to reduce plant size while maintaining flower size. 

Two things about judging that make it odd. 1) Humans do it. 2) It's a team sport. If the team is straying from its goals or the aim of judging in general, it's up to the sane folks on the team to steer back on course. If everyone is out of wack, then you get what you get. Really not much we can do to change that other than show up and do our very best. If you think a flower/plant is exceptional it's your responsibility to go to bat for it. If it's not to standard, same thing. If you don't know, you gotta use your resources and learn more to give it a fair shake.


----------



## Darin (Sep 17, 2010)

Thanks for the input thus far. Great ideas and Points for our Judging discussion. 

The "Whats not on the scorecard" topics are always tough to explain and be accepted by some of the more rigid seasoned judges. Others are much more open to the realization that goals of the breeders and hobby in general has changed since the judging standards were developed. We are on the cusp of a new era in judging where many of the old rules need to be modified, diminished or dismissed and new aspects be considered in the judging process. 

Keep the thoughts coming... I am processing and developing the discussion in my mind.


Thanks All!!!


----------



## Ernie (Sep 17, 2010)

Roy said:


> Interesting topic. From an Australian Orchid Judge, the breeding of the plant doesn't come into calculations here so the plants in his discussion would be over looked for an award unless for color or culture. Hard I know but thisis the difference mainly between AOS judging & AOC judging. The other major thing is that the flower must have some sort of quality shape about it. Don't get me wrong, these plants can be quite delightful in their own way but not classes as exhibition type flowers here. They are looked upon as pot plants or novelties rather than serious show plants.



Interesting. Yes, we are allowed swing to recognize a plant for what it is (its parentage) and not some universal standard. So if we see a classic complex hybrid crossed to barbigerum, we are allowed to consider the pinched dorsal base etc and reduction in overall flower size as alright as long as it's an improvement over barbigerum for form or geometric mean for sizes (geometric mean can actually favor smaller size, but that's a whole other discussion!).


----------



## Ernie (Sep 17, 2010)

Darin said:


> The "Whats not on the scorecard" topics are always tough to explain and be accepted by some of the more rigid seasoned judges.



A lot of rigid seasoned judges are not as rigid as they might portray. Play a game with them. When a fragrant flower comes to the table see how long it takes them to sniff it. The sniff test is a lot easier to pick up on compared to the flowerlant size, ephemerality, or geography tests. 

Ever pass a woman on the street who is otherwise average then you get a wiff of perfume that grabs your attention (Elizabeth Arden's Sunflowers really does it for me). Score goes up. A bikini with snow in the background stands out more than on the same woman on Cocoa Beach. Slate blue eyes, dark hair, and olive skin- how hot is that! 
A Vanda in Alaska is a bikini in snow. 
A blooming Coryanthes is the light-eyed, dark hair, olive skin...
If you see excellent white phals every day, it's harder for you to possibly recognize one with an award maybe. Like I said, it's a human sport- it's impossible to remove the human element. Is that always bad???


----------



## Roy (Sep 17, 2010)

Ernie said:


> I agree on the by the book idea of judging that geography is irrelevant, but it happens. Again, it's usually not intentional, but seeing a flowered plant one would usually consider "impossible" for the area puts you in a frame of mind. Yes, per the score sheet, geography, fragrance, plant habit (minitureization, compactness), flower ephemerality, etc are exciting and sort of slip us a bribe oftentimes without us realizing it. That's my point, if it wasn't clear in my first post. I don't advocate drastically straying from the score sheet, but some things sneak in under our radar and others are downright recognizable. Like our topic here of efforts to reduce plant size while maintaining flower size.
> 
> Two things about judging that make it odd. 1) Humans do it. 2) It's a team sport. If the team is straying from its goals or the aim of judging in general, it's up to the sane folks on the team to steer back on course. If everyone is out of wack, then you get what you get. Really not much we can do to change that other than show up and do our very best. If you think a flower/plant is exceptional it's your responsibility to go to bat for it. If it's not to standard, same thing. If you don't know, you gotta use your resources and learn more to give it a fair shake.



Ernie, what you say is very true.


----------



## goldenrose (Sep 17, 2010)

rdlsreno said:


> Here are some awarded mini complex paphs in AOS.
> Hope this helps
> Paph. Ali Taba 'Elite' HCC which is 7.4 NS
> Paph. Plumfairie 'Darkest' HCC is 8.2 NS
> ...



Koopowitz mentions these in his chapter on mini paphs. If you've started a search you can stop now, chances are you won't find them & if you do, you'll think twice of owning or wanting to breed with it. Here's what Koopowitz has to say -
Ali Taba (Paeony x fairrie)- registered by Clark Day Jr., the first seedlings to flower were perfectly shaped mini complexes, 3 recieved awards, unfortunately the rest of the grex produced larger, gawky flowers on bigger plants. The cross was repeated by Day with the identical parents but none of the second batch yielded the desired mini flowers. Paeony was widely available, other breeders tried it & all were duds. The good clones seemed difficult to maintain in cultivation.

Plumfairie - (Plumly x fairrie) - reg. by Rod McLellan. The pod parent had Orchilla & Bonheure in the background. Koop acquired unbloomed seedlings, which were awarded when they flowered. 'Little Plum' was a favorite but the plants were somewhat larger & seemed to be sterile in his hands. They were not robust growers, eventually dwindled away & died.


----------



## poozcard (Dec 8, 2011)

chrismende said:


> Interesting that your thread about judging minis and mine about breeding them are concurrent. How many of us are interested in these on this forum?
> 
> I'm not a judge, but I would hope that overall balance between plant and flower would be an aspect to consider when judging minis, since not only the flower should be small.



i am in
:clap:

to me, the flower should be as big as possible
while the leaves should be as short as possible


----------



## Brian Monk (Dec 9, 2011)

Most (all?) judges have used the phroase, "Size is only 10 points!" I like the phrase, it keeps one in the frame of mind that size is a realtively small proportion of the actual score. What bothers me about the size considerations is that without a significant size score, higher awards might not be possible. In other words, flowers given a lower size score (rightly or wrongly), might miss out on an FCC. 

Again, this points to the importance of the education and experience of the individual judge. While judging is arranged to be as objective as possible within its immediate framework, it is very subjective all the way up to the point when a flower is scored. i.e. A judge who has seen hundreds of teacup Paphs is going to more accurately score a flower than a judge who has seen only a few. Though it seems obvious, the question of teacup Paphs again raises the importance of the individual judge continuing to pursue their education. (As an aside on this, I would like to see the AOS require continuing education for judges - I have to do it as a doctor, so why not?). 

Sorry if I rambled, it is late.


----------



## Ozpaph (Dec 10, 2011)

I would have thought judging a show with different colleagues was continuing education - provided there was discussion by the group. Sort of like 'grand rounds' for docs?


----------



## tomkalina (Dec 10, 2011)

Except for size, I don't think "teacup" complex Paph hybrids should be judged any differently than the full sized ones. Toward roundness and fullness ,flatness, symmetry, color and stem length are all criteria that should apply to both styles, regardless of size.

I remember Alvin Bolt of the Atlanta Judging Center giving a talk on judging when I was just a student judge. His comment about size was that to some judges, while it's only 10 points, it's the first 10 points. While we all try to discount the importance of size, I think some of us are enamoured of the fact that it's one of the few truly objective criteria we have to point score aside from stem length. 

The best judges we have today require extensive research far beyond size to determine awardability. The combination of Orchid Wiz and AQ + software makes awards research much easier than it was in the past, and if properly used, should make the decision to award or to screen more objective and accurate.


----------

