# Gloria Naugle 'Crimson Beauty' 89.4 AM/AOS



## paphioland (Jul 25, 2009)

Gloria Naugle 'Crimson Beauty' 89.4 AM/AOS

Dorsal 5.8, PW 3.7, NS 18.4 - two very well formed and colored flowers

Bigger than every GN ever awarded the highest previous recent award was an 86 and it was inferior in every way.

I hate showing plants but my friend asked to take it for judging. I thought it would be a good test so I let him. Again the AOS judging system never seems to amaze me. This is clearly an FCC flower. Most judges gave it comfortably an FCC score. I know two judges gave it a 92. One Judge gave it an 85 and refused to change when given the chance after knowing his score was off. He kept the score because "the pouch was big" and he didn't want it to be an FCC. Obviously he has never seen a micranthum or its hybrids or know why people use it for breeding. Interestingly the judge and my friend used to be friendly but recently had a little tiff over something ridiculous and now don't talk. Just craziness. I was not there because I would not waste my time but this was relayed to me from multiple reliable source. This was an easier test than the caudatum 'Perfection', since the records are more clear concerning this GN compared to past awards and it is more common. LOL. Just have to laugh.


----------



## Candace (Jul 25, 2009)

When I saw the score, I cringed. So close... If it blooms out a hair larger next time it will get the FCC. It's a gorgeous plant regardless of awards. Congrats on the AM, even though I know it irks you.


----------



## SlipperFan (Jul 25, 2009)

Looks like ignorance prevailed. But congrats on the AM.


----------



## paphioland (Jul 25, 2009)

Candace said:


> When I saw the score, I cringed. So close... If it blooms out a hair larger next time it will get the FCC. It's a gorgeous plant regardless of awards. Congrats on the AM, even though I know it irks you.



Thanks Candace.

Yeah it irks me because this was clearly an FCC. Giving an 85 is unethical. The 86 given before was clearly inferior. I am not saying this is the best ever but this is the best GN ever shown to AOS judging and it has been around awhile never getting an FCC. Look at the past data. It was even better than in these photos since it had a second very well held high flower. I know how good the plant is so that does not bother me. What irks me is how imperfect and possibly political aos judging is. I cant trust awards at all when buying select plants. I either have to know and trust the person who is selling's eye or see the plant in bloom myself. This just makes collecting select paphs that can be expensive more difficult and a crap shoot.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jul 25, 2009)

That score of 85 is a laugh, or more appropriately a cry. An amazing flower, no matter what. I'm sure you're plenty pleased about having it.


----------



## Wendy (Jul 25, 2009)

I KNEW this was a good one! I'm also disappointed that they didn't give it the FCC. To me it is that good...I hope it gets the upgrade in the future. Congratulations to you anyway...well done!!! :clap:

Is this a recent photo? if not could you post a new one (please?)....I love this flower!


----------



## paphioland (Jul 25, 2009)

Wendy said:


> I KNEW this was a good one! I'm also disappointed that they didn't give it the FCC. To me it is that good...I hope it gets the upgrade in the future. Congratulations to you anyway...well done!!! :clap:
> 
> Is this a recent photo? if not could you post a new one (please?)....I love this flower!



I will in the near future. have to take one so can see 2 flowers well


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 25, 2009)

A lovely flower.....As one that has also received an 89 pt AM before, I know how you feel.......Most judges are more than fair, it's too bad that one couldn't budge. Usually they can be shamed into making it work. Don't read more into the situation than there is, some people see a plant differently and that is their opinion.


----------



## John M (Jul 25, 2009)

slippertalker said:


> .....some people see a plant differently and that is their opinion.


 But, isn't the whole point of having a judging "system" so that standards are established and plants do NOT get awarded based on an individual judges opinion; but rather, on the flower quality as it compares to the established AOS standards? 

Situations like this is why I'm no longer interested in judging. I used to go to every judging, every month, as well as exhibit at shows. I found that it's more of a popularity contest than it is a fair critiquing of a flower's attributes. Most of the judges that I know use their own personal likes and dislikes as criteria for point scoring (including what they personally like to see in a flower, as well as how well they like the exhibitor); when they should be using the AOS standards of quality to guide them in their critiquing. 

A point score of 89.4, with a point spread of 7 points among the judges, is an absolute disgrace and abuse of power by the low scoring judge. That judge has an axe to grind with somebody and he allowed his personal bias against that somebody to override his responsibility to the AOS judging system. 

I once had a Phrag Dominianum pointed. The point score averaged out to 74.4. One judge in particular was about 8 points lower than the highest score and he was considerably lower than the next low score. However, he stubbornly refused to adjust his score; so the plant did not get the HCC. As it happens, earlier in the day, as I was parking my car, I noticed that I and this low scoring judge had been heading for the same parking spot....and it happened that I got there first and was half-way in before I even noticed that he was after the same spot. Not thinking it was a big deal (there were PLENTY of other spots), I just smiled, waved and mouthed "sorry". This guy was ROYALLY PISSED OFF! He took it so personally.....like I'd just slept with his wife, or stolen money out of his wallet, or something equally bad. He was as cold as ice in the judging room and then he got his revenge by ruining the point score on my plant. 

I've got a number other similar stories of personality clashes between judges and exhibitors and as a result of too much negative first hand experience, I've come to think of the judging process as a complete joke.

Paphioland, I am very sorry for you in this situation. I can certainly understand your frustration. It's not a case of being a sore loser. It's a case of expecting professional, fair treatment and not getting it because of politics......a judge's personal bias and that sucks.


----------



## emydura (Jul 25, 2009)

The pouch was too big!!!! Surely he could have come up with something better than that. Bizarre reason. FCC for sure.

David


----------



## paphioland (Jul 25, 2009)

John M said:


> But, isn't the whole point of having a judging "system" so that standards are established and plants do NOT get awarded based on an individual judges opinion; but rather, on the flower quality as it compares to the established AOS standards?
> 
> Situations like this is why I'm no longer interested in judging. I used to go to every judging, every month, as well as exhibit at shows. I found that it's more of a popularity contest than it is a fair critiquing of a flower's attributes. Most of the judges that I know use their own personal likes and dislikes as criteria for point scoring (including what they personally like to see in a flower, as well as how well they like the exhibitor); when they should be using the AOS standards of quality to guide them in their critiquing.
> 
> ...



Thanks John,
It was a little strange that the guy and judge had recently had a falling out. I have no idea what his problem was but he was either a horrible judge of paphiopedilums and their hybrids based on the previous precedent or biased. I could see him saying it was an 89 or something but look at the recently awarded 86. How could he score it below that and then refuse to budge when he saw he was low compared to other paph competent judges?


----------



## paphioland (Jul 25, 2009)

emydura said:


> The pouch was too big!!!! Surely he could have come up with something better than that. Bizarre reason. FCC for sure.
> 
> David



yeah. If he said that he is very ingnorant when it comes to paph species and hybrids. Has he ever seen a micranthum? Isn't a larger pouch favorable? The pouch is bigger than the petals often.


----------



## emydura (Jul 25, 2009)

They need a system similar to judging in the olympics where the highest and lowest scores are removed thereby minimising the impact an individual judge can have on the overall score.

David


----------



## Kevin (Jul 26, 2009)

emydura said:


> They need a system similar to judging in the olympics where the highest and lowest scores are removed thereby minimising the impact an individual judge can have on the overall score.
> 
> David



You mean like in figure skating? I seem to remember that was not quite 'by the books'. People will always find a way to by-pass the rules so that they can have their way. It's really sickening.


----------



## Kevin (Jul 26, 2009)

Congrats on the award anyway, Paphioland. I've never seen one of those in person, and it must be incredible. Yours is the best one I've seen (in pictures)!


----------



## emydura (Jul 26, 2009)

Kevin said:


> You mean like in figure skating? I seem to remember that was not quite 'by the books'. People will always find a way to by-pass the rules so that they can have their way. It's really sickening.



Yes. They do it in the diving and gymnastics as well. I just think it is a way of preventing one rogue judge greatly influencing the decision. If you have a couple of judges disagreeing with the other judges than maybe there views are valid. No system is perfect but the current one is really open for abuse by a biased and vindictive judge.

David


----------



## JeanLux (Jul 26, 2009)

yes, congratulations for this beauty!!!! Jean


----------



## Kavanaru (Jul 26, 2009)

hhhmmm.... sad what has happened... I can recognize thar plant is great, however I am not that experienced to say whether AM or FCC on my own...

but I have a question... isn't it in the USA that the judges should not know who is the owner of the plants to be judged? I can recall to be told that if I ever bring a plant to be judged (in Zürich!) I must bring the plant at least 30 minutes earlier, so that it can be placed in the judging room before the judges come, and that anything that could indicate the plant belongs to me (or which nursery it comes from) should be removed... 

OK, I must admit that I cannot ensure that this happens all the time, but at least if it is so, it is a good way to avoid some biass...


----------



## Bob in Albany N.Y. (Jul 26, 2009)

All I can say in congratualtions and sorry you got robed. It is a great plant that any one of us would be happy to own. You and I both know it is a great example of that cross.


----------



## paphioland (Jul 26, 2009)

Kavanaru said:


> hhhmmm.... sad what has happened... I can recognize thar plant is great, however I am not that experienced to say whether AM or FCC on my own...
> 
> but I have a question... isn't it in the USA that the judges should not know who is the owner of the plants to be judged? I can recall to be told that if I ever bring a plant to be judged (in Zürich!) I must bring the plant at least 30 minutes earlier, so that it can be placed in the judging room before the judges come, and that anything that could indicate the plant belongs to me (or which nursery it comes from) should be removed...
> 
> OK, I must admit that I cannot ensure that this happens all the time, but at least if it is so, it is a good way to avoid some biass...



Like I said it is possible they didn't know but unlikely. It was brought days before and the person is a commercial orchid grower. People saw him with it. It is a shocking flower so I am sure people were talking and he had to keep it with him until judging which was a day later.


----------



## paphioland (Jul 26, 2009)

Bob in Albany said:


> All I can say in congratualtions and sorry you got robed. It is a great plant that any one of us would be happy to own. You and I both know it is a great example of that cross.



Thanks Bob.


----------



## neo-guy (Jul 26, 2009)

emydura said:


> They need a system similar to judging in the olympics where the highest and lowest scores are removed thereby minimising the impact an individual judge can have on the overall score.
> 
> David


Please note that within the AOS judging system there is a rule that if there is more than a 6 point spread between scores, the score sheets must be passed back to the judges to be rescored. If the team does not resolve the variance, the plant then goes to another judging team. The judging handbook also states that if there a one score that is unduly out of line with the other scores, that judge may reconsider their score.

It is unfortunate that the score ended up at 89.4. If there truly was a point score variance, it would have only required one judge to increase their score by one point to round up to 90 points.

It does happen though....
Pete


----------



## paphioland (Jul 26, 2009)

neo-guy said:


> Please note that within the AOS judging system there is a rule that if there is more than a 6 point spread between scores, the score sheets must be passed back to the judges to be rescored. If the team does not resolve the variance, the plant then goes to another judging team. The judging handbook also states that if there a one score that is unduly out of line with the other scores, that judge may reconsider their score.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the score ended up at 89.4. If there truly was a point score variance, it would have only required one judge to increase their score by one point to round up to 90 points.
> 
> ...



I wasn't there but this is what I was told. It was low scored by one judge significantly. Then he was given the option to rescore. He made his score so that it got and 89.4 so that it would not be an fcc because he felt that pouch was too big. 

Yeah it happens but if true it was a poor job done by that judge. The plant is obviously an fcc based on past standards of awards.


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 26, 2009)

neo-guy said:


> Please note that within the AOS judging system there is a rule that if there is more than a 6 point spread between scores, the score sheets must be passed back to the judges to be rescored. If the team does not resolve the variance, the plant then goes to another judging team. The judging handbook also states that if there a one score that is unduly out of line with the other scores, that judge may reconsider their score.
> 
> It is unfortunate that the score ended up at 89.4. If there truly was a point score variance, it would have only required one judge to increase their score by one point to round up to 90 points.
> 
> ...



What you say is true........There can only be a 6 point spread, so if this guy gave it an 85 and others scored 92 it would be out of range. I've seen cases like this where one judge was out of range, its was rescored and several judges actually increased their scores. An FCC does require a leap of faith since it approaches perfection which is entirely subjective. Something like this is generally discussed prior to scoring so a consensus can be built.


----------



## Scooby5757 (Jul 26, 2009)

It was a beautiful plant. There was a lot of discussion, and I know my heart broke a little when the score was read. 

Thank you for letting your friend bring it. It was a pleasure to see, and who knows, maybe now that some of the judges have seen it, they'll think back to this Gloria Naugle when they see the next. I doubt anyone will forget it.

:clap:


----------



## John M (Jul 26, 2009)

I thought about that rule where a point spread can't be more than 6 points; but, just assumed that the rule had changed. So, how'd this situation come to pass if the 6 point rule is still in place? 

Also, I like the idea of the highest and lowest point score being dropped. If that had happened in this case, the guy with the grudge couldn't have messed up anything and the plant would've got the WELL DESERVED FCC. In my case with the Dominianum, the guy with a grudge against me wouldn't have been able to stop my plant from being awarded. It may not make the judging process perfect; but, it is a vast improvement over the way things are now.


----------



## paphioland (Jul 26, 2009)

slippertalker said:


> What you say is true........There can only be a 6 point spread, so if this guy gave it an 85 and others scored 92 it would be out of range. I've seen cases like this where one judge was out of range, its was rescored and several judges actually increased their scores. An FCC does require a leap of faith since it approaches perfection which is entirely subjective. Something like this is generally discussed prior to scoring so a consensus can be built.



It doesn't have to approach perfection it is based on the standard for the species or hybrid established by precedent.


----------



## paphioland (Jul 26, 2009)

John M said:


> I thought about that rule where a point spread can't be more than 6 points; but, just assumed that the rule had changed. So, how'd this situation come to pass if the 6 point rule is still in place?
> 
> Also, I like the idea of the highest and lowest point score being dropped. If that had happened in this case, the guy with the grudge couldn't have messed up anything and the plant would've got the WELL DESERVED FCC. In my case with the Dominianum, the guy with a grudge against me wouldn't have been able to stop my plant from being awarded. It may not make the judging process perfect; but, it is a vast improvement over the way things are now.



I wasn't there. What I heard is that the score was very low, rumored 85 or below. So he was given the chance to rescore. I believe he rescored the plant to get to 89.4 but not over and would not budge based on the pouch or a grudge. I don't know. Was someone here there? Or really know what happened. I only know from the friend who took it and someone else who was there.


----------



## paphioland (Jul 26, 2009)

Scooby5757 said:


> It was a beautiful plant. There was a lot of discussion, and I know my heart broke a little when the score was read.
> 
> Thank you for letting your friend bring it. It was a pleasure to see, and who knows, maybe now that some of the judges have seen it, they'll think back to this Gloria Naugle when they see the next. I doubt anyone will forget it.
> 
> :clap:



Thanks. Were you there? 

multiple judges I know thought it was an FCC.


----------



## WolfDog1 (C. Williams) (Jul 26, 2009)

Looks to be a fine example of Paph Gloria Naugle that received a very nice AM from the AOS. 

Congratulations


Craig


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 27, 2009)

paphioland said:


> It doesn't have to approach perfection it is based on the standard for the species or hybrid established by precedent.



An FCC approaches perfection on the score sheet based on the background of the cross. Of course, perfection is a very subjective concept. They are by definition the best of the best. 

The scale is always changing based on improvements in hybridizing, therefore an FCC in 1990 is almost always surpassed by an FCC in 2009. Most plants from 50 years ago won't get a second look with some notable exceptions.

I find it interesting that people always seek nefarious motives in judging. I have never seen such personal bias, if there is a bias it is more that some judges prefer certain genera to others and score accordingly, or they are by nature conservative or liberal with their scoring.


----------



## NYEric (Jul 27, 2009)

Without being there it really is hard to say what is FCC material from a photo. 

That being said, it looks terrible! I'll PM you my address and you can sent it to me! oke: 

Congrats on the award and sorry the clown got the better of your effort.


----------



## Scott Ware (Jul 27, 2009)

slippertalker said:


> I find it interesting that people always seek nefarious motives in judging. I have never seen such personal bias, if there is a bias it is more that some judges prefer certain genera to others and score accordingly, or they are by nature conservative or liberal with their scoring.



That's the way I've always seen it too. I can't recall ever seeing an actual case of malicious scoring to prevent someone from getting an award. I suppose it could happen, but AOS judges work too hard for their accreditation and they are expected to uphold a standard of ethics. I don't know if there is a disciplinary system in place or not, but if there is, I would think the aspect of losing everything they worked years to achieve would serve as strong motivation not to violate those ethics. The old saying comes to mind, "Never ascribe to malice, that which can easily be attributed to incompetence." And while I am not ready to pronounce incompetence in the case of orchid judging, _as nobody would be more incompetent than I_, it seems reasonable to assume that each judge may be influenced by their own personal preferences. We are human after all, and while a set of standards and guidelines exists, judging flowers is ultimately subjective.

Several years ago I had been nurturing a group of seedlings from (what I considered) a very fine paph species outcross I had made. After hours of careful packing, a long drive and a speeding ticket, I barely got the 14 plants to the judging center on time. Optimist that I was, I was holding on to the delusion that I might walk away with an AQ. Then I overheard one of the judges on the team groan to his colleagues in a tone reminiscent of Eeyore, "I hate Paphs." Now he didn't know who I was at all. But it was clear that he wasn't a paph fan and I suspect that is why his score sheets were consistently the lowest among the three nominated cultivars in the group.

It didn't take another plant to judging for about 16 years but finally dragged one down there a couple months ago and was pleasantly surprised to come home with an award. Oddly enough - I think I recognized that same old turd of misery from 16 years ago sitting off to the side. His comments were still negative and not constructive - he hadn't changed his tune at all. So he is, if nothing else, consistent!


----------



## Wendy (Jul 27, 2009)

Of all the times I have attended at our judging centre I must say I have never seen anything 'off colour'. I will admit that I always hope for certain judges when my plant is up for judging....not all of them like Paphs...but they do seem to be fair. I am always invited to sit in on judging and am even allowed to score plants along with them...although my vote sheet doesn't count. It is fun to see how I point the plants compared to the real judges and is very educational. They alway take time to explain things to me too which makes it a real learning experience. :clap:
I am hoping to join the judging program this winter, maybe spring.


----------



## toddybear (Jul 28, 2009)

It's a stunning bloom regardless to what the so-called experts say.


----------



## Elena (Jul 28, 2009)

Ouch, it's a shame the flower wasn't properly scored whatever the reason. Still, congrats on this beauty. I, for one, cannot wait to see the updated photo with two flowers. Bet it's a show stopper.


----------



## fcabarle (Jul 28, 2009)

The AOS should have sanctions for judges that are truly '
out of line'.


----------



## slippertalker (Jul 28, 2009)

There are very specific provisions in the AOS Handbook for judges that are ethically challenged. Ethics are commonly discussed and even a hint of a question of impartiality or personal bias is firmly discouraged.

Having a different opinion is very different than being a bad apple. In the case that Scott mentioned, that judge isn't unethical, he's just cantankerous, obstinate and difficult to move from his position. Fortunately that is pretty unusual for a judge since judging is a teamwork consensus. That same judge questioned my Phrag besseae that received an AM because he considered it a "lateral award" even though it was larger in most respects than all but one prior award. Others on the team scored it high enough to offset his reluctance.


----------



## orcoholic (Jul 29, 2009)

I saw this paph before the judging. It was stunning. So clearly the best Gloria Naugle that to not give it an FCC was a crime.

I didn't see the actual judging, but if there was a 7 point difference and the 85 wouldn't come up, then the 92's must have come down, or it would have gone to a small group of judges to decide the final score. I'm not sure if that's how all judging centers do it, but this one does.

Anyway, take it to another center next year and get the 90++++ it deserves.

Where and when did you get it? How are you growing it? It was truly spectacular. I've seen a lot of these and none has even approached it.

Mike


----------



## paphioland (Jul 29, 2009)

orcoholic said:


> I saw this paph before the judging. It was stunning. So clearly the best Gloria Naugle that to not give it an FCC was a crime.
> 
> I didn't see the actual judging, but if there was a 7 point difference and the 85 wouldn't come up, then the 92's must have come down, or it would have gone to a small group of judges to decide the final score. I'm not sure if that's how all judging centers do it, but this one does.
> 
> ...



Thanks Mike. It was definitely a crime. I agree it may just be the best. Who cares if it is not it is the best the AOS has ever seen and the hybrid has been around for some time. To not give it an FCC is crazy. I can guarantee no judge there has ever seen a better one.

I think he may have come up on the 85 to make sure it got exactly an 89.4. At least that is what I am told. Not to give this flower an FCC was absurd based on the previous awards and the average gloria naugle. Not only did this one have great color, substance and form, it is huge! 

In the write up there is a sentence about the pouch being large with a but before it like this was a negative-this is from the comments of the paph challenged judge. Duh the whole flower is large. Larger in every dimension than any ever awarded, including the pouch. I am sorry the judge who said the pouch is large is a moron when it comes to paphs and its hybrids. He has obviously never seen a micranthum. A large pink pouch is desirable in micranthum and its hybrids.


----------



## emydura (Jul 30, 2009)

paphioland said:


> In the write up there is a sentence about the pouch being large with a but before it like this was a negative-this is from the comments of the paph challenged judge. Duh the whole flower is large. Larger in every dimension than any ever awarded, including the pouch. I am sorry the judge who said the pouch is large is a moron when it comes to paphs and its hybrids. He has obviously never seen a micranthum. A large pink pouch is desirable in micranthum and its hybrids.




It is like penalising a sanderianum because the petals are too long. Just illogical. 

David


----------



## Scooby5757 (Jul 30, 2009)

paphioland said:


> Thanks. Were you there?
> 
> multiple judges I know thought it was an FCC.



Yeah, I was clerking. I got into the room where the plants were being held and went right to it in the morning when I saw it. I was telling my friend Ive never seen one quite like it, except for this one I saw online recently...had no idea they were the same plant, just thought quality was on par. :rollhappy:

When they read the score, there was a groan from everyone, and a joke about passing the score sheets back again. This flower had a lot of people in love at first sight. Please, just bring it back again. Ill come pick it up if I have to.


----------



## Pete (Aug 2, 2009)

AY! .2 points away is tough. Great color!


----------

