# Paph. Spiderman 'Shippo' HCC/OSSEA



## AquaGem (Feb 19, 2011)

76 points HCC/OSSEA... how many points would u give it? :evil::evil:


----------



## Dido (Feb 19, 2011)

Nice one


----------



## biothanasis (Feb 19, 2011)

Gorgeous!


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 19, 2011)

AquaGem said:


> 76 points HCC/OSSEA... how many points would u give it? :evil::evil:



How many flowers? Next blooming, I bet it will get an AM.


----------



## emydura (Feb 19, 2011)

SlipperFan said:


> How many flowers? Next blooming, I bet it will get an AM.



I agree. The flower is worth an AM award I think.

David


----------



## SlipperKing (Feb 19, 2011)

They must see a lot of anitum hybrids in that region. Love to have a divison some day. This is the same plant you have in another thread isn't it?


----------



## Kevin (Feb 19, 2011)

What's OSSEA? Where are you located?

Nice flower too and congratulations!


----------



## W. Beetus (Feb 19, 2011)

I would probably give it in the low 80's region. It does have a nice, even tone throughout the dorsal and petals. I also like the symmetry. Very nice plant.


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 20, 2011)

Yes, this is the same plant I posted on the other thread. When I send it for judging yesterday, it has 2 flowers completely opened and a 3rd half open.
@SlipperKing: Unfortunately, as much as many people would like to think that Judges here have seen many anitum, sadly, there are less than a handful of them who have any experiences growing or judging Paphs and Phrags. Unlike the AOS, they are not required to travel to shows outside of their region as part of their training. The judging sessions are closed to the public so no one except all the judges knows what was said about the plants. As far as I know, there are no references during the session to compare previous awards and measurements etc. One good example was that on 2 occasions, my plants were rejected from being judged due to their lack of knowledge. Last year, I brought a Paph. coccineum to be judged, and I was told by one of the judge, also a taxanomist and a published author, Peter O'Byrne, that he has no idea about Paph. coccineum. I would have accepted his excuse if that was a recently discovered plant, but that plant has been around for over 10 years which makes his excuse quite.... (speechless). Yesterday, I also brought in a Masd. Redshine to be judge and that plant was also being rejected. Their explanation was, they have not been exposed to this Genera and are not confident enough to judge plants from these genera. I wonder what will happen during the upcoming WOC.... Any thoughts?


----------



## paphioboy (Feb 20, 2011)

Congrats on the upgrade of the award! 

Kevin, OSSEA = orchid society of south east asia, based in Singapore.


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 20, 2011)

paphioboy said:


> Congrats on the upgrade of the award!
> 
> Kevin, OSSEA = orchid society of south east asia, based in Singapore.



There was no upgrade.. this was the first time it was judged and they gve it a 76 points HCC...


----------



## Pete (Feb 20, 2011)

nice one. dont be to discouraged with the score. most all multi's these days should have 4 flowers to be in the AM range. even though its 50% anitum, it could still do 4 easily. seems like the norm has gone up that extra notch in recent years. color is obviously excellent, as is the stance of the petals. its a little long. you probly just got nocked for only 3 flowers and the windows at the base of the dorsal


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 20, 2011)

Pete said:


> nice one. dont be to discouraged with the score. most all multi's these days should have 4 flowers to be in the AM range. even though its 50% anitum, it could still do 4 easily. seems like the norm has gone up that extra notch in recent years. color is obviously excellent, as is the stance of the petals. its a little long. you probly just got nocked for only 3 flowers and the windows at the base of the dorsal



Pete, only if it was the case.. but believe me it wasn't. hahaha...... :evil::evil:


----------



## Kevin (Feb 20, 2011)

paphioboy said:


> Kevin, OSSEA = orchid society of south east asia, based in Singapore.



Yeah, that's what I surmised, but it would be easier if there was a location listed at the top.


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 20, 2011)

Kevin said:


> Yeah, that's what I surmised, but it would be easier if there was a location listed at the top.



Ooops.. just realize I forgot to put down my location... my bad. oke:oke:


----------



## Kevin (Feb 20, 2011)

Thanks!


----------



## NYEric (Feb 20, 2011)

AquaGem said:


> As far as I know, there are no references during the session to compare previous awards and measurements etc. I also brought in a Masd. Redshine to be judge and that plant was also being rejected. Their explanation was, they have not been exposed to this Genera and are not confident enough to judge plants from these genera. I wonder what will happen during the upcoming WOC.... Any thoughts?


How do they judge it based on 'history' of other awarded plant with no reference? At the WOC, wont they be using AOS criteria and AQ+ program? BTW, I recently found out that that's not enough and you must have good internet access to look up other resources!


----------



## Kevin (Feb 20, 2011)

Why would awards given at the WOC use AOS history as a guide? There are many different orchid award systems around the world - what makes the AOS better? I thought that the WOC was it's own system, taking bits and pieces from judging systems from around the world - at least, that would make sense.

Seems a shame to have a plant rejected simply because the judges don't know anything about it. Perhaps they should study first? I guess it's better than judging it anyway and giving it an undeserved award.


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 21, 2011)

Kevin said:


> Why would awards given at the WOC use AOS history as a guide? There are many different orchid award systems around the world - what makes the AOS better? I thought that the WOC was it's own system, taking bits and pieces from judging systems from around the world - at least, that would make sense.
> 
> Seems a shame to have a plant rejected simply because the judges don't know anything about it. Perhaps they should study first? I guess it's better than judging it anyway and giving it an undeserved award.



I did mention about the learning curves and researching about a plant using the internet but one of the excuse was that learning how to judge Masd. was not their priority since it will not be something the judges here will get to see very often and the most people here don't grow them...


----------



## toddybear (Feb 21, 2011)

Wow!:drool:


----------



## Pete (Feb 22, 2011)

only if that was the case, but it wasnt?? whats that supposed to mean. i stick by everything I wrote and believe that that is the case.


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 22, 2011)

Pete said:


> only if that was the case, but it wasnt?? whats that supposed to mean. i stick by everything I wrote and believe that that is the case.



I mean, if that was the case that it got an HCC, but I really don't think that the award was given based on what u said by the judges... if only u could hear the conversation during the judging but unfortunately, over here, judging is a closed session thing and no one is allowed to sit in to listen to what was said.


----------



## emydura (Feb 22, 2011)

AquaGem said:


> I mean, if that was the case that it got an HCC, but I really don't think that the award was given based on what u said by the judges... if only u could hear the conversation during the judging but unfortunately, over here, judging is a closed session thing and no one is allowed to sit in to listen to what was said.



How do you know if you never heard what the judges said?

David


----------



## Pete (Feb 22, 2011)

thats what i was just thinking david.
anyhow. it doesnt matter. youve got a nice plant and it will only get better on future bloomings!
fyi-i love paphs just as much (probly more) than the next guy, but they are an over awarded group in my opinion. there are some many paphs out there i really feel like judges should be very stringent on judging them to ensure that standards are consistantly being met and even pushed, to drive breeders and growers.


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 22, 2011)

emydura said:


> How do you know if you never heard what the judges said?
> 
> David



From past experiences I have had bad experiences with the reason for plants that they did not award or reasons for not wanting to judge a plant. One example was when I brought in a Paph. coccineum for judging lat year, the plant was rejected for judging because the judge, who happens to be a taxanomist and a published author told me he has no idea or info about Paph. coccineum so they have no idea how to judge it. I would understand if it was a recenlt discovered Paph but coccineum has been described over 10 years ago.... go figure.....


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 22, 2011)

Pete said:


> thats what i was just thinking david.
> anyhow. it doesnt matter. youve got a nice plant and it will only get better on future bloomings!
> fyi-i love paphs just as much (probly more) than the next guy, but they are an over awarded group in my opinion. there are some many paphs out there i really feel like judges should be very stringent on judging them to ensure that standards are consistantly being met and even pushed, to drive breeders and growers.



Pete, I agree with you about being selective with what should be or should not be awarded. In order to do so, the judges have to know what they are looking at but here in Singapore, most of them have not seen quality Paphs or Phrags species or hybrids. With the advancement of technology, most of the info are just a few clicks away and yet, these instant learning tools were not being taken advantage of....


----------



## Pete (Feb 22, 2011)

Singapore has been a signatory party of CITES since 1986. _Paphiopedilum coccineum_ was only formally described in 2000. It would have been technically illegal for you to even have that plant (listed under Appendix I), in Singapore, let alone for any society to award it, without the proper accompanying documentation proving its legality. I am however, not familiar at all with how tightly the regulations are enforced there.
.....perhaps the judge was doing everyone a favor?


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 22, 2011)

Pete said:


> Singapore has been a signatory party of CITES since 1986. _Paphiopedilum coccineum_ was only formally described in 2000. It would have been technically illegal for you to even have that plant (listed under Appendix I), in Singapore, let alone for any society to award it, without the proper accompanying documentation proving its legality. I am however, not familiar at all with how tightly the regulations are enforced there.
> .....perhaps the judge was doing everyone a favor?



ALL PAPHS SPECIES are listed as CITES APPENDIX I, ARTIFICIALLY CULTIVATED PAPH SPECIES IN FLASK ARE NOT. The I got them in with CITES paperwork. These were seedlings that came in as Paph. barbigerum var. coccineum. If you check with RHS, Hybrids have already been made and registered. The point here is not about the legality of the plant but about the competency of the judges and the judging system here. If you feel that this is not a good enough of an example i have stated, then maybe this other example would be a lot more obvious. I send in a Masd. Hybrid to be judge and it was also rejected for the same reason.... Don't know enough to judge and also not our society's priority to learn about Masd because we don't see it that often.


----------



## Pete (Feb 23, 2011)

> ALL PAPHS SPECIES are listed as CITES APPENDIX I, ARTIFICIALLY CULTIVATED PAPH SPECIES IN FLASK ARE NOT.



the mother plant of these flasked seedlings must be CITES certified. if not, the flask exempt rule does not apply. if it did we would have hangianum, tranlienianum, etc here in abundance in the US as we could just buy any of the thousands of flasks available in Taiwan. Furthermore, this species is native to Vietnam which allows ZERO export of plants; further complicating the matter.


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 23, 2011)

Pete said:


> the mother plant of these flasked seedlings must be CITES certified. if not, the flask exempt rule does not apply. if it did we would have hangianum, tranlienianum, etc here in abundance in the US as we could just buy any of the thousands of flasks available in Taiwan. Furthermore, this species is native to Vietnam which allows ZERO export of plants; further complicating the matter.



I know that too.. haha... but that rule only applies to the USA but not anywhere else... phew... They ae now selling hangianum in Japan too.... and I mean legally.... :clap::clap:


----------



## Pete (Feb 23, 2011)

they cannot sell hangianum legally. it has never been legally exported from Vietnam. They can allow it to be sold and not care about it or look the other way, but its not, legal.

unless of course they confiscated plants from somebody and gave them to a rescue center who then propagated them and released them with the proper documentation, assuming they have a process in place similar to that of the US.


----------



## John M (Feb 23, 2011)

Pete said:


> they cannot sell hangianum legally. it has never been legally exported from Vietnam. They can allow it to be sold and not care about it or look the other way, but its not, legal.



Pete; I'm afraid you're confusing CITES rules with domestic law in the USA. CITES is not a USA law, it is an international agreement among signatory countries. No one country has more authority to dictate the rules than any other. The issue of "legallity" that you are refering to is purely a domestic USA thing. Those laws are in addition to the CITES rules and they apply only in the USA because they are only USA laws. Whether or not someone in Singapore can import, grow and/or sell hangianum, has nothing to do with USA laws.

CITES rules exempt all Appendix I species in sterile flask, regardless about where the seeds came from or the status of the parent plants. The reason is because promoting the artificial propagation and disemination of rare plants is the best way to achieve conservation of wild plants and assist in the preservation of the species as a whole.....a goal of CITES. But, the USA thinks otherwise, contrary to most of the rest of the world and extra laws have been put on the USA law books to further restrict the rights of USA residents to acquire and own CITES listed plants. Unfortunately, a lot of USA residents complain about CITES; but, it's not CITES that is so restricting, it's the domestic USA laws.

In fact, recently, the USA has been pushing a proposal at CITES meetings that the USA-style "extra" laws be adopted by the convention and incorporated into the CITES rules, resulting in tighter restrictions on the movement of artificially propagated plants, thus, reducing the preservation of rare species through propagation and disemination goal of CITES. I'm quite sure that the whole world will be pissed off, big time, if the USA somehow managed to successfully lobby and push it's own agenda through by using political arm-twisting. 

In Canada, I am free to own any Appendix I species that I like....and I do own and grow hangianum, helenae, etc. They come into Canada in flasks and are 100% perfectly legal in Canada. Canada follows CITES rules as they are written and the way they were intended to be interpreted. We do not add on a layer of extra restrictions, as the USA does. The CITES rules, as they are currently written, help to preserve wild plants by forbidding them from being exported for commercial purposes; but, seed collected from wild plants and grown in flask, is not only allowed by CITES rules, it's encouraged. CITES rules are written that way to encourage the production and disemination of artificially propagated rare species, which will in turn, cause the world-wide appetite for wild collected plants to lessen. Unfortunately, CITES does nothing to stop collection of wild plants for domestic consumption in the endemic countries. That's an area of law that must be addressed by each individual country. Some do and some don't bother.


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 23, 2011)

John M said:


> Pete; I'm afraid you're confusing CITES rules with domestic law in the USA. CITES is not a USA law, it is an international agreement among signatory countries. No one country has more authority to dictate the rules than any other. The issue of "legallity" that you are refering to is purely a domestic USA thing. Those laws are in addition to the CITES rules and they apply only in the USA because they are only USA laws. Whether or not someone in Singapore can import, grow and/or sell hangianum, has nothing to do with USA laws.
> 
> CITES rules exempt all Appendix I species in sterile flask, regardless about where the seeds came from or the status of the parent plants. The reason is because promoting the artificial propagation and disemination of rare plants is the best way to achieve conservation of wild plants and assist in the preservation of the species as a whole.....a goal of CITES. But, the USA thinks otherwise, contrary to most of the rest of the world and extra laws have been put on the USA law books to further restrict the rights of USA residents to acquire and own CITES listed plants. Unfortunately, a lot of USA residents complain about CITES; but, it's not CITES that is so restricting, it's the domestic USA laws.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much for clarifying. Taiwan is one of the largest country that artificially propagates orchid species. Many Paph. species seedlings can be bought there. :clap::clap:


----------



## Pete (Feb 24, 2011)

it was and is my understanding that the flask exempt rule does not apply to any of the species described after the uplisting to Appendix I occurred, in 1989.
Furthermore, Vietnam does not legally export ANY CITES plants.


----------



## Pete (Feb 24, 2011)

btw i certainly know how conservation works and the idea behind the CITES treaty. I study conservation biology along with botany and orchids and have been all for CITES to allow this to go on here in the US so as to lessen the pressure put on wild collected plants being introduced into the market place. and as far as i knew that each country ( a "party" ) in CITES, once they ratified their signed agreement with the treaty, into law, in their own country. they indeed must abide by the rules of the treaty. perhaps they dont and perhaps my understanding is skewed but I have asked numerous people this and was told that it didnt matter if it was in flask if it was one of the "new" (post-'89) species. perhaps japan, canada and singapore are lax with their laws, which in turn helps orchid conservation by letting the treaty do what it was intended to and encouraging artificial propagation of these plants, but my understanding has always been that there is zero allowed trade of any CITES appendix I species unless it came from a rescue center following a confiscation or the parent plants were CITES approved from the host-range country.

blah blah blah. lets end this thread already. CITES makes my head hurt. you have a nice plant AquaGem, im sure it will get the score you think it deserves in time, all that really matters is that you and your peers know how good it is. lots of politics (unfortunately) goes into judging, no matter the society.


----------



## John M (Feb 24, 2011)

Pete said:


> it was and is my understanding that the flask exempt rule does not apply to any of the species described after the uplisting to Appendix I occurred, in 1989.
> 
> *That seems to be true in the USA because of hard-line domestic USA laws; but, they are not CITES rules. CITES wants everything propagated in flask and spread around the world, en-masse. The sooner this is done - the better, because then the presure on wild plants in-situ will be dramatically reduced and therefore, the wild plants will be saved....at least from over-collection for export purposes to foreign markets. The rules you refer to above, are USA laws and they do not apply in other solvereign countries, which is why so many people in other countries are allowed to have these plants and USA residents are not. It's the USA government that is restricting your rights to have these plants, not CITES rules. In countries where the CITES rules are followed; but, no other extra laws are also put in place, these plants are perfectly legal if they are imported in sterile media in flasks.
> 
> ...


..

EDIT: Pete, while I was formulating my response above, you were formulating your BTW addition; explaining that you do have a good working knowledge of the situation. I'm not beating a dead horse here; I just didn't get my post done before you added your addendum.

Yeah, let's leave this for now. I agree, we've hashed it enough and CITES makes my head hurt too! It just REALLY sucks that you guys in the USA don't get to have these things because of politics, ignorance and bureaucrats running amuck in Washington. It makes no bloody sense!


----------



## AquaGem (Feb 24, 2011)

Pete said:


> btw i certainly know how conservation works and the idea behind the CITES treaty. I study conservation biology along with botany and orchids and have been all for CITES to allow this to go on here in the US so as to lessen the pressure put on wild collected plants being introduced into the market place. and as far as i knew that each country ( a "party" ) in CITES, once they ratified their signed agreement with the treaty, into law, in their own country. they indeed must abide by the rules of the treaty. perhaps they dont and perhaps my understanding is skewed but I have asked numerous people this and was told that it didnt matter if it was in flask if it was one of the "new" (post-'89) species. perhaps japan, canada and singapore are lax with their laws, which in turn helps orchid conservation by letting the treaty do what it was intended to and encouraging artificial propagation of these plants, but my understanding has always been that there is zero allowed trade of any CITES appendix I species unless it came from a rescue center following a confiscation or the parent plants were CITES approved from the host-range country.
> 
> blah blah blah. lets end this thread already. CITES makes my head hurt. you have a nice plant AquaGem, im sure it will get the score you think it deserves in time, all that really matters is that you and your peers know how good it is. lots of politics (unfortunately) goes into judging, no matter the society.



I hope that one day, all the artificially propagated Paph species will be readily available to all and hopefully in the USA to. When there is cultivation, the chances of extinction and illegal trading will be minimize.


----------



## John M (Feb 24, 2011)

Pete said:


> ".....but I have asked numerous people this and was told that it didnt matter if it was in flask if it was one of the "new" (post-'89) species. perhaps japan, canada and singapore are lax with their laws,....."



Sorry....just gotta comment to help clarify something......and then I'm done. 

Unfortunately, I've heard numerous times of people asking US authorities (namely, USFW officials), about CITES rules and the big problem is that for the most part, the officials just don't "get" that CITES is not a USA law and/or, the USA laws are not made part of the CITES rules that all other countries must follow. These mistaken officials combine the USA laws with the CITES rules and give advice on that basis....making it appear to the person inquiring, that CITES rules contain all these extra and excessive restrictions, when it does not. It's just that the USFW officials are muddling the two and attributing the US restrictive laws to CITES, making it seem to USA residents that CITES is the culprit, when in fact, it's the ill-informed USFW officials that need more training because they are not giving out accurate or correct information.

As far as Japan, Canada and Singapore being lax with our laws: We're not really. We just don't have as many laws as the USA. We signed onto CITES and we follow CITES rules and that's enough for us. We don't have additional layers of restrictive laws, above and beyond CITES, like the USA. We feel CITES rules take care of the important concerns and anything more is just bureaucracy and politics, not conservation/preservation of endangered species.


----------



## emydura (Feb 24, 2011)

Australia is no different to Japan, Canada or Singapore. There is nothing we can't grow as long as it was not illegally collected from the natural habitat.

David


----------



## SlipperFan (Feb 24, 2011)

John M said:


> ..
> It just REALLY sucks that you guys in the USA don't get to have these things because of politics, ignorance and bureaucrats running amuck in Washington. It makes no bloody sense!


You certainly have that right, John! It drives me nuts.


----------



## Heather (May 4, 2011)

Apparently these threads are making the OSSEA's head hurt too…what a bunch of BS going on there. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## AquaGem (May 4, 2011)

Yes... This plant no longer has the award because I refuse to retract my opinion.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 4, 2011)

AquaGem said:


> Yes... This plant no longer has the award because I refuse to retract my opinion.



Well, that makes no sense at all. Either the plant is awardable or it is not. Nothing you say should have anything to do with it. Politics!


----------



## AquaGem (May 5, 2011)

Here are the emails from the very beginning till my reply yesterday. 

On 4/25/11 4:26 PM, "John Elliott" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Jason,

You submitted two plants recently to the OSSEA judges, one of which (Paph Spiderman) was judged, and one of which (Masdevallia Redshine) was not.

Subsequently some comments appeared on Slippertalk, posted by AquaGem on 20/Feb/2011, which created some concern among the judges and the OSSEA General Committee, and which appear to be your comments. http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19435 

AquaGem indicates disappointment that the judging process is not open to the public, and makes other remarks indicating a lack of confidence in the Judges. AquaGem also asks, if OSSEA Judges would not judge masdevallias, being unfamiliar with them, it raised an issue of how judging could be carried out at the coming World Orchid Conference.

Can I confirm with you that these remarks are posted by you?

The Judging process is confidential exactly as in other societies, and exhibitors should not submit plants unless they have confidence in the judges, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless. I am sure you would not wish to receive an award that you think is given by non-competent judges.

On the matter of masdevallia judging at the WOC, judging at the WOC is done by judges from all over the world, only a tiny proportion of whom are OSSEA judges. All judges from any country will judge only in their area of expertise. To think that judging of masdevallias (or any genus) at the WOC would somehow depend on the expertise of OSSEA judges is a complete misconception, and it is pity that such a view got stated on Slippertalk.

If you made these comments, I must ask you to retract them. 

Look forward to hearing from you,

John

___________

Dr John Elliott
President,
Orchid Society of SE Asia
1E Cluny Road #01-02 
Singapore 259601

Tel/fax +65 6762 4966 



Hi John,

Yes, I made those comments. It is my person views derived from the feedback given to me as to why my plants were rejected from two different occasions. 

Re: The Judging process is confidential exactly as in other societies, and exhibitors should not submit plants unless they have confidence in the judges, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless. I am sure you would not wish to receive an award that you think is given by non-competent judges.

Our government has been promoting transparency in our society. For a ‘reputable’ society such as OSSEA who will be hosting the WOC at the end of the year to still conduct a closed judging session will only seem to me as something that is non-transparent. 

The AOS has abolished closed judging sessions many years ago. The reason being that it should be an educational process to let people learn more about orchids through the remarks made by knowledgeable judges who have to go through at least 7 years of training before becoming an a credited orchid judge. The open session also tend to deter judges from making random remarks without first thinking if it was appropriate. As a society that wants to promote the popularity of orchid growing and attract more people to join the society, one should move forward and progress instead of staying stagnant. 

In my 16 years of being involved in the orchid world, it is a first I have every encountered that a plant was being rejected by a judging centre, not only once but twice with the explanation that they have never judge the genera before or not familiar about that particular species. When I mentioned this to some of my friends who are not just judges but also chairs of judging centre, owners and famous hybridizers around the world, their reaction and comments were all unanimous: They and their centre would be more than happy to have new genera and hybrids brought in to be judge. With the technologies, all the necessary information can be gotten over the web within minutes. That is what judging is about! Looking, research, recording and awarding and setting a standard for new species and hybrids. This will allow other plants of the same hybrids and species brought in to be judge to have something to be compared to. By rejecting a plant, there will be no records or references for future comparison.
A plant I brought in last year was Paph. barbigerum var. coccineum. This plant was discovered and published over ten years ago and yet it was rejected for judging because no one had any idea what they are looking and and didn’t even bother doing any research about it or gave it a botanical award to set a standard for future references. Is this something a society who wants to move forward?

It I because I have confidence in the society and wish for it to move forward that propels me to bring in high quality plants to be judged hoping that it will be a educational processing for the judges to further their knowledge not only to local species and hybrids but to other orchids form other parts of the world. Instead of embracing this opportunity to learn more about these new plants, it was turned away bluntly.

Re: On the matter of masdevallia judging at the WOC, judging at the WOC is done by judges from all over the world, only a tiny proportion of whom are OSSEA judges. All judges from any country will judge only in their area of expertise. To think that judging of masdevallias (or any genus) at the WOC would somehow depend on the expertise of OSSEA judges is a complete misconception, and it is pity that such a view got stated on Slippertalk.

Are you saying that if I have any Masdevillia or any genera that OSSEA has not been exposed to that I wish to have judged, I can only wait for an opportunity like WOC or bring it to another country so that it can be judged? If every society has such rules, then what would Taiwan, Australia or Japan do for their monthly meeting when someone brings in a Masdevillia, Pleurothalis, Lycaste, etc? A far as I know, many of these have been judged and awarded instead of being rejected. Maybe the judging program is highly flawed or the person(s) who is/are running the program is not competent? How do you explain about the very first species or hybrid of any genera being awarded? It must be the fist time any judges have encountered them and if they were to adopt the mentality of rejecting any plants that they are not familiar with, no plants would have been awarded at all to date.

I have stated my point of view very clearly and I hope that an intelligent and well respected individual like you will do something to help OSSEA move forward and that this will be a boost for the society to rethink it’s policy about close judging sessions and rejecting a plant brought in for judging in the future. If you still think that the comments made by me on the Slipper talk forum were unfair and untrue, I encourage the society to post on there to defend yourself rather than asking me to remove the posts. It will give everyone the opportunities to understand your policies. 

Is the removal of the posts on Slippertalk a condition for the award of my Paph. Spiderman to be confirmed and also the approval to put up my exhibits at the WOC? When I asked Shen Chin about the certificate and details of the Paph. Spiderman, he mentioned that you wanted to clarify some issues with me and that after clarifying those issues will he be able to release the information to me.

I look forward to your reply soon. 

Is 

Regards,

Jason Ong


----------



## Heather (May 5, 2011)

I hope your going to post the rest. Like the part where they say yes, you have to retract your comments here. I've been trying to figure out something constructive to say here that won't make things worse but I'm afraid I cannot think of anything. The whole thing stinks of....yeaah, not constructive.


----------



## AquaGem (May 5, 2011)

￼On 5/4/11 3:33 PM, "John Elliott" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jason,

Its true AOS has open Judging in some centres, but it is not open in others; AOS judges in Taiwan at their shows do not have open judging (not even to other society judges, never mind the public). Japan, Taiwan, and RHS all do not have open judging. One can make a case either way, but the thing is, the way to make the case is to write to us. What is not acceptable is to submit a plant but then complain and attack the system in public. We still do not see why you would want an award if you have no confidence in the judges or the system of judging. 

Over the years judges do changed and learn and extend their expertise. It is not that judges are uninterested in new genera. Nonetheless, it would really not have been appropriate to judge – on the spot – a very unfamiliar genus. I have had sufficient experience of seeing judges from overseas struggle with local plants they are unfamiliar with at shows, to be convinced that we should ensure the same does not apply to ourselves. 

Sorry, I do not know why your Paph barbigerum was not judged – possibly simply because at the time we did not have the judges on hand, or because the judges decided the standard was below what they expect in order to judge. But in any case it could not have received an ABM, as it is a horticulturally well established species. 

Jason, I am not about to enter a public debate in a blog on this. It’s not appropriate. Correspondence and friendly discussions are the way to get things changed. Publicly attacking the system and the judges is not. The committee have made it clear to me that they will not confirm your award unless you retract your comments, so I hope you will reconsider, and accept that it’s not in order to ask for a plant to be judged, and then state publicly and in detail why you are dissatisfied with the standard of expertise (while at the same time accepting the award!) 

Regards,

John

On 5/5/11 4:07 AM, "Jason Ong" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear John,

I do not believe in being a follower. I am trained by the Gentle Warrior Farmer aka Ivy Singh-Lim to be a person who has the intelligence, which allows me to think like a human, not a cloned donkey. Since your judging committee has made their decision to retract the award, I will remove the HCC award given to the Paph. Spiderman ‘Shippo’. Do note that I will share and post all the correspondence about this matter to all my fellow orchid friends and on the forum to explain the reason why I have to remove the award. 

You ask me why I would want an award if I have no confidence in the judges or the system of judging? My answer to your question is simple. The results and reasons for why a plant was awarded or not being awarded says a lot about the judges’ integrity and commitments to promote the society’s main objectives; sharing and exchanging of knowledge and to educate the public about these amazing plants. The biggest difficulty for me to understand this given situation was not the closed door policy but the unwillingness of the judges treasure such an opportunity to expand their knowledge by researching and gathering information. It is a well-known fact that the memberships of many orchids societies have drastically dropped over the past few years due to different reasons. Insisting on this decrepit policy will only dampened the future of this wonderful hobby.

With regards to the Paph. barbigerum var. coccineum not being judged, the judge who told me he knows nothing about this species there cannot judge it was non other than Peter O’Byrne, author of A to Z of South East Asian Orchid Species. The variety coccineum is a different variety of barbigerum and may even be classified to be a different species from barbigerum by some taxonomists. This plant was discovered over ten years ago and its hybrids have already been registered with the RHS. The plant was not being rejected due to its inferior flower quality but because Peter O'Byrne said to me he does not know anything about this species, therefore he is not confident enough to judge it. I have attached a photo of the flower taken the night before the flower was brought in for judging.

Just because other orchid societies do not have open judging sessions does not make it a wise policy to adhere to. We are now living in the 21st century. This elitist system of judging policy is outdated and in my opinion somewhat discriminatory to those who are not in the judging system. I for one will not be part of a society who promotes such primitive practices. Until such practices have been abolished, I will not have anything to do with this society. As an educator in the National University of Singapore, what would you have done if you were to give your students an open topic assignment and one of your students submitted the essay about a subject you have absolutely no knowledge of? Would you find out what it was about before grading it? Would you give it an F or would you return the assignment to that student without giving it a grade with an excuse that you have no knowledge of the topic and therefore you are not confident in grading it.

Lastly, will I be able to participate in the WOC and put up the two proposed displays (20 sq meters and wardian case) and my plants being rejected to be judged at the show if I stand by my beliefs and not retract my posts on Slipper Talk forum? If that were to be the case, I would be very grateful if you would let me know by the end of this week before I start trying to recondition my collection of over 4000 orchid plants to flower in time for the WOC in November.



Regards,

Jason Ong


----------



## Hien (May 5, 2011)

AquaGem said:


> Yes, this is the same plant I posted on the other thread. When I send it for judging yesterday, it has 2 flowers completely opened and a 3rd half open.
> @SlipperKing: Unfortunately, as much as many people would like to think that Judges here have seen many anitum, sadly, there are less than a handful of them who have any experiences growing or judging Paphs and Phrags. Unlike the AOS, they are not required to travel to shows outside of their region as part of their training. The judging sessions are closed to the public so no one except all the judges knows what was said about the plants. As far as I know, there are no references during the session to compare previous awards and measurements etc. One good example was that on 2 occasions, my plants were rejected from being judged due to their lack of knowledge. Last year, I brought a Paph. coccineum to be judged, and I was told by one of the judge, also a taxanomist and a published author, Peter O'Byrne, that he has no idea about Paph. coccineum. I would have accepted his excuse if that was a recently discovered plant, but that plant has been around for over 10 years which makes his excuse quite.... (speechless). Yesterday, I also brought in a Masd. Redshine to be judge and that plant was also being rejected. Their explanation was, they have not been exposed to this Genera and are not confident enough to judge plants from these genera. I wonder what will happen during the upcoming WOC.... Any thoughts?


 You are only rendered speechless?
Strange! he seems to know so much about suzukii as a hybrid named Peng Seng (cruentum x tobaense),even sanderianum who lives in Vietnam & other vietnamese orchidist confirm that dendrobium suzukii exists in Vietnam .


----------



## Marc (May 5, 2011)

Aquagem,

I thnk you have done the right thing by standing up to them. It truly shows the colour of the people / society your dealing with here.

I think it's rediculous that they are trying to blackmail you to remove your opinion which is posted here on this forum. I can't tell if it was a hard thing for you to take the path that you did but I must congratulate you on your decision.

I hope that this nice showing of "politics" has no impact on your love for orchids in general.


----------



## AquaGem (May 5, 2011)

Marc said:


> Aquagem,
> 
> I thnk you have done the right thing by standing up to them. It truly shows the colour of the people / society your dealing with here.
> 
> ...



Marc, Thank you for using the word that i have been waiting for someone to post here, "BLACKMAIL". Doing the right thing has never been difficult for me because I believe in integrity. Nothing can make an impact on my love for orchids except for the discoveries of new and wonderful species. 
This cowardly act of desperation by the judges only makes me want to try to change the society to make it a politics free organization. Many tells me that it is near impossible to do so but near impossible is not impossible. Someone on the board has to be accountable for this act of blackmailing and I for one do not take lightly to being blackmail. 

I have cc those emails to many people including the President of AOS, and the secretariat of WOC in Singapore. I alone can only make a little impact but it is the right thing and I stand by my principles.


----------



## SlipperFan (May 5, 2011)

Good luck, Jason. I don't see how it is possible to change entrenched politics, unless the people involved are replaced. And who will do that?


----------



## Heather (May 5, 2011)

I read Marc's post and thought "that's it!!" *blackmail* is the word that sums this whole fiasco up. Is that not illegal in Singapore?


----------



## Marc (May 6, 2011)

AquaGem said:


> Marc, Thank you for using the word that i have been waiting for someone to post here, "BLACKMAIL". Doing the right thing has never been difficult for me because I believe in integrity. Nothing can make an impact on my love for orchids except for the discoveries of new and wonderful species.
> This cowardly act of desperation by the judges only makes me want to try to change the society to make it a politics free organization. Many tells me that it is near impossible to do so but near impossible is not impossible. Someone on the board has to be accountable for this act of blackmailing and I for one do not take lightly to being blackmail.
> 
> I have cc those emails to many people including the President of AOS, and the secretariat of WOC in Singapore. I alone can only make a little impact but it is the right thing and I stand by my principles.



I'm curious how this story wil develop, I hope you will keep us updated.


----------



## SlipperKing (May 6, 2011)

It sounds like they, the judges, already know they have issues and too embarrassed to open their doors. Coming up with weak excuses for what they do including blackmail. I say screw their award and please except ours. The SlipperTalk Gang is a much more prestigious organization anyway. Jason you may now add to your tag; AM/STG!


----------



## AquaGem (May 6, 2011)

SlipperKing said:


> It sounds like they, the judges, already know they have issues and too embarrassed to open their doors. Coming up with weak excuses for what they do including blackmail. I say screw their award and please except ours. The SlipperTalk Gang is a much more prestigious organization anyway. Jason you may now add to your tag; AM/STG!



Haha.... thanks for all your support. I will humbly accept this award. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Clark (May 6, 2011)

:clap:


----------



## SlipperKing (May 6, 2011)

GOOD! It's a done deal then!


----------



## goldenrose (May 6, 2011)

Good for you!


----------



## SlipperFan (May 6, 2011)

SlipperKing said:


> It sounds like they, the judges, already know they have issues and too embarrassed to open their doors. Coming up with weak excuses for what they do including blackmail. I say screw their award and please except ours. The SlipperTalk Gang is a much more prestigious organization anyway. Jason you may now add to your tag; *AM/STG!*



I love it!!! :clap:


----------



## John Elliott (May 6, 2011)

As the corrrespondence between AquaGem (Jason Ong) and OSSEA was publishd here, I add below my response for completeness,and to give Peter O'Byrne his say:
_________

Dear Jason,

Thank you for this clarification.

You mention your training. Mine was that it is discourteous to make correspondence public without the agreement of the correspondent. Accordingly, I will confine myself to the following remarks.
Your objections OSSEA judging procedure are noted, and will be considered further, but have nothing to do with the WOC. The OSSEA awards committee does not manage the WOC judging. If you have any concerns about exhibiting or judging at WOC they may be directed to the WOC judging committee: [email protected] It would be considerate to alert them that, if not satisfied, you reserve the right to disseminate any correspondence.

I will recuse myself from Judging any orchid or display offered by you at the WOC

Peter O'Byrne, whom you mention, is annoyed that you made your remarks about him in a forum from which he is barred, and without informing him, which rather undermines your plea for transparency. I attach his email on the subject (it's below).

Your resignation from OSSEA is noted with regret.

Regards

John

(President, OSSEA)
_______________________
Peter’s email:

Hi John.

I have just read the whole Paph. Spiderman 'Shippo' HCC/OSSEA thread on Slippertalk.com, and I'm really quite annoyed at the way Jason Ong (aka "AquaGem") has portrayed me and my expertise. On the 20th Feb, AquaGem made the following statements about me:

*I brought a Paph. coccineum to be judged, and I was told by one of the judge, also a taxanomist and a published author, Peter O'Byrne, that he has no idea about Paph. coccineum. I would have accepted his excuse if that was a recently discovered plant, but that plant has been around for over 10 years which makes his excuse quite.... (speechless).*

I am particularly pissed-off at the cowardly way Jason Ong has posted personal comments about me on a forum where I am barred from responding. He didn't even 'cc the comments to me so I could see what he was saying. I really would like to set the record straight on a few issues:

a) I am not a taxonomist, and I have never claimed to be one. Other people might have described me as a taxonomist, but that doesn't make it true. After years of working with orchids I've picked up a good deal of info about taxomony, but that doesn't make me anything more than an amateur. I challenge Jason Ong to cite one instance where I have described myself as a taxonomist. 

b) I am not a regular judge, and I have never claimed to be one. I have absolutely no interest in judging. As you know, my involvement in judging is entirely reluctant (meaning I usually get dragged in at the last minute when the panel is desperate to make a quorum) and is subject to certain conditions, one of which is that I WILL NEVER BE ASKED TO JUDGE A SLIPPER ORCHID. If Jason Ong had done his homework, he would have known this. Check my record: I have never been on a panel that judged a Paph, and I never will. My stance on Paphiopedilums is extremely well-known; I am simply not interested in them.

c) At the OSSEA meeting in question, Jason Ong approached me directly about judging his plant. Such an approach is ethically unacceptable; the exhibitor should deal with the Secretary of the Judging Panel and not go hassling individual Panel members (especially reluctant ones who have zero interest or knowledge of the genus in question). In order to maintain a degree of objectivity, Panel members are not even told who the owner of the plant is, so for an award-seeking exhibitor to try to discuss his plant with the members of the judging panel beforehand is a clear subversion of the Judging process. 

d) I did not tell Jason Ong that his plant should not be judged. In fairness, he hasn't made this claim .... although just about everything else he wrote is a distortion of fact. I told him that I could not judge his plant because I was not familiar with Paphiopedilum coccineum. My statement was 100% true when I made it, and it remains 100% true today. My total experience of this taxon is: I have seen P. barbigerum once (in October 2007), I have seen photos of P. barbigerum var. sulivongii in-situ (Sept 2008), but before Jason Ong approached me at the OSSEA meeting, I had never seen P. coccineum. This is not enough experience to formally judge a plant, and I said so. I do not understand why Jason Ong thinks I deserve a public flaming simply because I was honest with him. He certainly hasn't been honest in his portrayal of me !

e) According to the Kew website (accessed today, 5.5.2011 at 6:40 pm), P. coccineum. is a syn. of P. barbigerum var. barbigerum. OSSEA would have been in error to judge it (let alone award it) as either P. coccineum. or P. barbigerum var. coccineum.

f) Jason Ong thinks that just because a plant has been around for 10 years, someone who doesn't give a toss about Paphiopedilums should know all about it. Let's put the boot on the other foot. I would like to give Jason Ong 4 weeks notice (far more than the few minutes he gave me) that I will ask him to judge a plant to the next OSSEA meeting (Sunday 5th June, ie in 4 weeks time). The species I'll bring in has been around for more than 100 years, but I won't tell him the accepted name; rather, I'll refer to it by a fairly recent synonym. Let's see how Jason Ong copes under the same conditions he thinks I should operate under.

John, I'd be obliged if you could post this email on the Paph. Spiderman 'Shippo' HCC/OSSEA thread on Slippertalk.com.

Thanks,

Peter O'Byrne


----------



## Heather (May 7, 2011)

Peter O'Byrne, is not and has never been banned from this forum. Feel free to register and post. We welcome it!


----------



## John Elliott (May 7, 2011)

Heather, 
Thanks for the clarification, I'll tell Peter.


----------



## Candace (May 7, 2011)

I do believe he's confusing us with a different forum!


----------



## SlipperFan (May 7, 2011)

Candace said:


> I do believe he's confusing us with a different forum!


I agree -- the other slipper forum, to be exact.


----------



## AquaGem (May 7, 2011)

John Elliott said:


> Peter’s email:
> 
> Hi John.
> 
> ...



It isn’t even worth my time and energy to respond to your claim that I am a coward. 

a) During the same time when my Paph. coccineum was rejected to be judged by you, you have also rejected judging another plant of mine, Bulb. fascinator. You claimed that it is not a true fascinator and that it is probably hybrid. I then went on to mention to you that the AOS have judged and gave a few of this species an award. My plant of Bulb fascinator looks exactly like those on the awards quarterly. You then went on to mention that AOS had also send you some Dendrobium species which was given a probationary award to be confirmed and identified and that you had told them that the plants was not true to what it was named. You then mentioned to me that they went head to award it despite your confirmation. Even though you did not openly claim that you are a taxonomist, the statements you make certainly implied so. If you are not a taxonomist, then what give you the authority to reject a plant just because you claim that my Bulb. fascinator is a hybrid? Doesn’t that mean that your armature taxonomic opinion has a very big influence upon what was brought in for judging? Isn’t it unfair to the owner of the plant or to the plant that was brought in for judging? I always have the impression that the plant should be judged according to the name it was registered and a probationary award to be given and have the plant be confirmed by a recognized taxonomist before the award can be confirmed? If so, then why was my plant not given that opportunity? I understand that there were a few new species that were described, named and eventually published by you. Aren’t these supposed to be the job description of a plant taxonomist? If you claim to be just an armature then why not leave these jobs to a qualified professional instead? 

b) If you are not a regular judge and never claimed to be one then why are you there to judge my plants? If the judging session is a closed session and no public is allowed to be present during the judging session then why are you involved in the judging of my plants or any other people’s plant? At this point I MUST ask the judging committee why the double standard? Why are you asking a non-professional untrained person to judge a plant? If you are not interested in paphs but yet the back cover of your book shows a photo of you dressed up as a Paphiopedilum instead of a Dendrobium, Vanda or even a Cattleya? This is all so contradictory to all your claims.

c) Corrections!! I did not approached you after the judging session but my I was ask to go over to your group and I was told by you guys as to why both of my plants were not awarded. No conversations had taken place between any of the judges and I prior to that session. If I had approached you like you have claimed, and that you had felt that it was inappropriate, you could have decline to make a comment and told me what you have written here… approach the secretary of the judging panel? All you have said just doesn’t make sense. 


d) Where in my post did I mention about you saying it should not be judge? I said that you told me you couldn’t judge it because you are not familiar with this plant and therefore cannot judge it. Are you trying to say that since you are not a regular judge or a credit judge that it is the fault of the Judging committee to have asked you to judge? 

e) The topic in question now is not weather OSSEA would have been in error. If the judging panel were to be a professional group of qualified judges, then they would have known that they could get most of the info by looking it up on the net. Just Google Paph. barbigerum var. coccineum and most of the information will pop up within seconds. Did they do any research before rejecting the plant? If not, what is their protocol for judging a plant? 

f) Challenge accepted on the condition that all the members of the public will be allowed to be present during the judging session to promote in what I believe in. Since every plant has to be judge by a minimum of 3 judges, I will invite 2 other persons to be on my team. If the OSSEA committee agrees, I will also have the press present during the session to be a witness that it won’t be a bias event. According to OSSEA's rules, name of the plant presented for judging will have to be summited at least 24 hours prior to the date of judging, at least that was what i was ask to do every time I wanted to submit a plant for judging.


----------



## AquaGem (May 7, 2011)

Marc said:


> I'm curious how this story wil develop, I hope you will keep us updated.



Well.... John has send me an email to inform me that he will not be involved in any of my plants during the WOC. I guess he didn't get my point that it is not who judges my plants or anybody's plants but the attitude and commitments they make as a judge. 

He also noted about my resignation from the society with regret.

I am so disappointed that till now the judging committee still don't get it.

This was email to me a few days before the date when my plants were presented to them for judging:

1) I will try to arrange the judges. 

2) The plant would need to send a third party location,e.g, Botanic Garden, House 3 at NUS -Bukit Timah Campus or someone else nursery. Will let you know.

3) There is fee involves since it is not going to be at Monthly Meeting. Will let you the cost.

4) Here are some question you need to answer:

i) What is the plant full name ?

ii) If Hybrid, Is it registered with RHS? If No, can you provide the breeder name?

iii)If Hybrid, can you provide the seed parent name and pollen parent name?

iii) Has this plant been judged before ? [OSSEA or other organisation]

iv) Are you the owner of this plant ?

v) How long have u grown it ?

vi) What is the growing condition ? [greenhouse with control temp, outdoor, indoor, cold room,greenhouse without control temp]

vii) Why do you think this plant deserved to be judged? [high flower count, good form, rare plant, flower size bigger than others]

viii) If you plant is awarded, what name would you like to add ? e.g. "Aqua Gem", "Lucky Five"

ix) Are you able to provide a photo of the plant's current state?

Peter's statement about my posting on this forum and about him being barred from this forum without first finding out if it was this forum before making this accusation shows clearly the point I have been trying to make about the group..... sigh... oke:oke:


----------



## AquaGem (May 8, 2011)

With regards to point (f): f) Jason Ong thinks that just because a plant has been around for 10 years, someone who doesn't give a toss about Paphiopedilums should know all about it. Let's put the boot on the other foot. I would like to give Jason Ong 4 weeks notice (far more than the few minutes he gave me) that I will ask him to judge a plant to the next OSSEA meeting (Sunday 5th June, ie in 4 weeks time). The species I'll bring in has been around for more than 100 years, but I won't tell him the accepted name; rather, I'll refer to it by a fairly recent synonym. Let's see how Jason Ong copes under the same conditions he thinks I should operate under.

The notice was email to the secretary of the judging committee at least 24 hours in advance. Whether Peter got notice of the plant name or not was not my responsibility. No one was rushing them for a timeline to have the plant judged. He and the other judges could have taken a little more time to search for more info on the web etc.

I will give Peter 2 weeks grace to do more research before announcing which plant he will be bringing for the challenge better still, I will let him bring two different species in since he was kind enough to offer the 4 weeks advance notice to let me know the name of the plants. Therefore, we will wait patiently until 23 May for him to announce his choice of plant. Since he is not barred form this forum, I am sure he will have no problem in posting the name here for all to see. If he feels that it is too much of a hassle to register on this forum just to announce the name of a plant, I'm pretty sure John Elliot will be more than happy to post it for him since he was so helpful to post Peter's statement on this forum on his behalf.

If I was not able to give a fair and satisfactory judgement for these 2 plants which will be evaluated by all the members here and any other forums or any credited AOS judges, I will give up showing orchids, making any comments with regards to OSSEA and participate in any local orchid events for the rest of my life. What is Peter willing to give up if I am able to proof that there are better ways to judge these 2 plants than the way he and the other judges handled mine?


----------



## Pete (May 11, 2011)

a public forum is *not* the place for this. especially our nice little forum here. nobody here has anything to do with any of these issues. please keep it between the parties involved. this forum is for sharing information and photographs, not for making fun off or going off on people/topics.


----------



## toddybear (May 11, 2011)

Wow!


----------



## AquaGem (May 12, 2011)

Pete said:


> a public forum is *not* the place for this. especially our nice little forum here. nobody here has anything to do with any of these issues. please keep it between the parties involved. this forum is for sharing information and photographs, not for making fun off or going off on people/topics.



Pete, I had no intention of making it to be such a big issue until was was being blackmailed by OSSEA to retract my posts here about the attitude and professionalism of the judges. You can see from all the earlier correspondence between OSSEA and me, I was only stating the facts and in no way attacking them with false accusations.


----------



## Heather (May 12, 2011)

Personally, I think that since the demands of OSSEA specifically requests removal of statements posted on this forum, in order for Jason to receive his previously promised reward, this is probably the perfect place to have the discussion. 

As long as the behavior of the people involved doesn't break any forum rules, I see no problem with this.


----------

