# MAOC trophy catts



## tenman (Oct 4, 2010)

Some of my plants took a little trip to the MAOC in Louisville last weekend (Sept.24-26). Once again, despite my hopes, the judges didn't award the as-yet unawarded species Paph.vejvarutianum which had two flowering spikes this time (the last time it was before them was at the judging center about five years ago with the original description and a note from the author of that description verifying the plant was indeed that species, and pics from the original description and the internet - they said they didn't know anything about it and I should bring it back after the species had some awards - ????? WTF??? Isn't that THEIR job??), but I was surprised by two special awards on catts I just sent for color. As I work weekends and never get to out of town shows, I have seldom garnered any trophies but a few of my plants sometimes make their way to a show in the society's exhibit (Central Ohio Orchid Society). But I'm pleased by any I do get. The trophies were sets of crystal coasters, which I thought was a very nice choice. Having been involved in the selection of trophies for my local society at times in the past, I appreciate the thought and effort involved in such selections.

Sc.Crystelle Smith 'Hampshire', Jim Topmiller Award (Best mini catt in show)
Blc.Owen Holmes 'Radiance', Hedman Award (Large catt)


----------



## Shiva (Oct 4, 2010)

Sometimes, you just can't win. Maybe somebody should tell those judges to stop sitting on the fence. Saying a plant can't be judged because it's never won anything before is a lame excuse. If it's not worth judging they should at least explain why.


----------



## Candace (Oct 4, 2010)

Usually with nice, previously unawarded species, they give a CBR. ???


----------



## tim (Oct 4, 2010)

illegal species?


----------



## tenman (Oct 4, 2010)

Candace said:


> Usually with nice, previously unawarded species, they give a CBR. ???



No, they're too ignorant and chicken. They want someone else to do it first. Not illegal - pre-cites. Just our typical crappy judges here - the same ones who passed up my then very rare curtisii album at our MAOC in 2001, one judge overheard saying it was a 'nice maudiae'. Idiots!


----------



## Ernie (Oct 4, 2010)

Tenman, please elaborate on "not illegal- pre-cites" in respect to your vejvarut. Thanks.


----------



## Justin (Oct 4, 2010)

that's excellent tennis! will they still be in bloom for the october COOS meeting?


----------



## NYEric (Oct 4, 2010)

tenman said:


> they said they didn't know anything about it and I should bring it back after the species had some awards - ????? WTF??? Isn't that THEIR job??),


Don't tell us our job! We'll do it when we figure out what it is! 
Congrats on the catts!


----------



## paphreek (Oct 4, 2010)

Congratulations on the awards on the Catts. It's well deserved.


----------



## Yoyo_Jo (Oct 4, 2010)

Oh yes, congrats on the catt awards! They're both lovely. :clap:


----------



## tenman (Oct 4, 2010)

Ernie said:


> Tenman, please elaborate on "not illegal- pre-cites" in respect to your vejvarut. Thanks.



See vejvarutianum thread here:

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17342&page=2


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 4, 2010)

Shiva said:


> Sometimes, you just can't win. Maybe somebody should tell those judges to stop sitting on the fence. Saying a plant can't be judged because it's never won anything before is a lame excuse. If it's not worth judging they should at least explain why.


If that excuse were carried to the extreme, there would never have been any awards on anything.


----------



## JeanLux (Oct 5, 2010)

Congrats. for the awards!!!! Esp. the large one is a beauty (Imo )!!!! Jean


----------



## Pete (Oct 5, 2010)

that is not pre cities, and it should technically be considered illegal. the official species description, as linked by Olaf Gruss, was published in 2003. about 15 years after CITES was implemented.
Judges dont want to judge illegal plants because its a headache and a waste of time. believe me, once hangi or any others are legalized i will be the first one to start judging and evaluating.


----------



## tenman (Oct 5, 2010)

You have your facts wrong; please read the above-referenced thread and my posts. The plants came in pre-cites but the species was only described later from those plants. Please be sure of your facts before posting Invalid excuses for our idiot slacker judges.


----------



## Candace (Oct 5, 2010)

Tenman, many growers are in a similar boat-so to speak. If one is a member of a society, for example, with some older growers, there are quite a few divisions running around of pre-cites plants. I'm lucky to have such a mentor in my group who gives his divisions freely and has quite a collection of pre-cites paphs.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 5, 2010)

Why yes Candace! I'll take them off your hands before the CITES SWAT team arrives! :evil:


----------



## Candace (Oct 5, 2010)

I don't think I'm lucky enough to have any, Eric;> But, I hope he's kept his receipts-though how many of us would keep receipts for plants you purchased 40 years ago!


----------



## NYEric (Oct 5, 2010)

Then we are both at a loss.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 5, 2010)

tenman said:


> Please be sure of your facts before posting Invalid excuses for our idiot slacker judges.



This is not going to help your advancement in the judge training system! :rollhappy:


----------



## Darin (Oct 5, 2010)

Thank you for your input from one of the "idiot slacker judges" who judged that show. Your feedback is appreciated.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 5, 2010)

!!!


----------



## Shiva (Oct 5, 2010)

If CITES compliance or legality of the plant entered for judging were questionable, I would understand the judges decision not to judge the plant. But saying the plant can't be judged because it never received a prize before still doesn't fly. I could see another reason why judges could refuse to give a prize to a plant. If the result of a cross is just about the same across the board, the judges might conclude that no one flower is distinct enough from any other to deserve a prize. I wonder if that happens.


----------



## tenman (Oct 5, 2010)

Shiva said:


> If CITES compliance or legality of the plant entered for judging were questionable, I would understand the judges decision not to judge the plant. But saying the plant can't be judged because it never received a prize before still doesn't fly. I could see another reason why judges could refuse to give a prize to a plant. If the result of a cross is just about the same across the board, the judges might conclude that no one flower is distinct enough from any other to deserve a prize. I wonder if that happens.



Irrelevant in this case; a legal plant which is a previously unawarded species. And a nice example at that; should have gotten a CBR or CHM. But not here!!


----------



## Pete (Oct 6, 2010)

unfortunately for everyone, there are regulations in place. these regulations say that a species "doesnt exist" until they have been described and published in a scientific journal. the fact that these are appendex I species makes them even more closely watched and regulated.
they should certainly consider cases like this with a "grandfather clause" of sorts, but you would, of course, need verified documentation stating that you imported the plants, *prior to 1988*, etc etc. (papers).
its not that big of a deal. so they didnt award it.


----------



## Pete (Oct 6, 2010)

some judges are sticklers and just didnt buy the paperwork i guess... who knows


----------



## tenman (Oct 6, 2010)

Pete said:


> unfortunately for everyone, there are regulations in place. these regulations say that a species "doesnt exist" until they have been described and published in a scientific journal. the fact that these are appendex I species makes them even more closely watched and regulated.
> they should certainly consider cases like this with a "grandfather clause" of sorts, but you would, of course, need verified documentation stating that you imported the plants, *prior to 1988*, etc etc. (papers).
> its not that big of a deal. so they didnt award it.



Not a legitimate reason; the plants are legal and there has never been any question as to that. How 'bout 'platyphyllum'? According to your reasoning they are all illegal too?? Even if they've been here for a century, since they weren't described until 2001??? And all other split-off species?? ALL illegal? ALL needing 'paperwork? Sorry that makes no sense and is not the problem here. A taxonomist making new classifications does not render a plant illegal.

You haven't been exhibiting here for decades like I have, haven't had to put up with their stupidity, arrogance, egotism, malfeasance and misfeasance. I've discussed this many times; their making incorrect identifications, refusing to award plants based on personality differences, passing on plants they aren't familiar with (even despite the presence of documentation - while other centers proceed with the exact same plants and do award them) giving awards to admittedly inferior plants because they belonged to another judge (A quote from one judge:"Well, we should give it something; she went to all the trouble to bring it in"; quote from another, "well since it has a clonal name written on the tag it's obviously been awarded ( !!?? ) and since we can't find any information on the previous award we can't judge it now" [on a plant on which I had thoughtfully handwritten my clonal name so they wouldn't have to ask for it since I wasn't going to be present for judging - a common procedure, giving clonal names to discreet individuals in a collection, having NOTHING to do with having received previous awards] - and let's not forget the 'nice maudiae' quote about the rare album species which was corretly entered for judging) etc., etc., etc. These problems have been well known here and many people are done with them. There have been heated arguments from some of the very few good judges here protesting the others' behavior, but nothing is done and the AOS has taken a huge hit here in declining membership numbers, this being one of the reasons. it's an ongoing problem here which is likely only to be solved by the end of the AOS; previous complaints have gone unheeded in their old-boy/girl network. They look out for their own and define that not as the members but as the judges.

it is one of the long-standing problems with the AOS which will undoubtedly soon lead to its demise if not solved. The outlook is not good as they still have their heads in the sand, as they do on every other issue as well.


----------



## Pete (Oct 6, 2010)

whoa. easy dude. its not "my reasoning", its my explaning to you how the regulations that are in place are interpreted. whether you or I like it or agree with it or not. these are the regulations we are dealing with now. now if i go to Papua tomorrow and find a new Paph species and then describe it, does that mean it didnt exist before i described it? of course not! however, in terms of CITES classification, which is what we have to deal with, all paphs are appendex I status as of around '88 or '89.
in your original post you stated:


> Once again, despite my hopes, the judges didn't award the as-yet unawarded species Paph.vejvarutianum which had two flowering spikes this time (the last time it was before them was at the judging center about five years ago with the original description and a note from the author of that description verifying the plant was indeed that species, and pics from the original description and the internet - they said they didn't know anything about it and I should bring it back after the species had some awards - ????? WTF??? Isn't that THEIR job??


that says absolutely nothing. what this rant says basically is that you brought in a plant for judging. accompanied with that plant you had the original description (*which is dated 2003*) and a note from the author saying "yes, this plant here is the same as the new species i described". 
First of all, it doesnt matter if you had it before 2003. the regulations say differently. the regulations say that you would have had to legally import that plant by 1988, (*22* years ago) for it to be legal. judges dont care if you swear that plant was brought in 22 years ago or that a taxonomist agreed that your plant was indeed the new taxa they described. take it up with marie selby or the importers of the plant whenever it came in, or whoever described it or fisheries and wildlife.
furthermore, even if it were properly papered, whats to say that its awardable? because it had two spikes this time? not every species or hybrid is awardable. even the best of something doesnt mean its awardable.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 7, 2010)

Very interesting discussion. I don't want to get into that debate, but I do have a question from the last post:



Pete said:


> not every species or hybrid is awardable. even the best of something doesnt mean its awardable.



I've never understood why all species are not awardable, and if the best of something is not awardable, then what is? If an orchid species is 'ugly' in our terms, a particular clone might be the best of that species, and it is not awardable simply because it is that species? Are there some orchid species that have never, and will never get an AOS award?


----------



## Pete (Oct 7, 2010)

flowers must be well formed, have good, clear color and be of good size and proportion. natures not perfect. not all flowers fall into these categories. perhaps superior versions of things exist and they havent been shown. im sure there are LOTS of species that have never and will never get a merit award. cultural awards are different though and pretty much anything "ugly flower" or not, if grown superbly could qualify for a cultural award.


----------



## tenman (Oct 7, 2010)

Pete said:


> whoa. easy dude. its not "my reasoning", its my explaning to you how the regulations that are in place are interpreted. whether you or I like it or agree with it or not. these are the regulations we are dealing with now. now if i go to Papua tomorrow and find a new Paph species and then describe it, does that mean it didnt exist before i described it? of course not! however, in terms of CITES classification, which is what we have to deal with, all paphs are appendex I status as of around '88 or '89.
> in your original post you stated:
> that says absolutely nothing. what this rant says basically is that you brought in a plant for judging. accompanied with that plant you had the original description (*which is dated 2003*) and a note from the author saying "yes, this plant here is the same as the new species i described".
> First of all, it doesnt matter if you had it before 2003. the regulations say differently. the regulations say that you would have had to legally import that plant by 1988, (*22* years ago) for it to be legal. judges dont care if you swear that plant was brought in 22 years ago or that a taxonomist agreed that your plant was indeed the new taxa they described. take it up with marie selby or the importers of the plant whenever it came in, or whoever described it or fisheries and wildlife.
> furthermore, even if it were properly papered, whats to say that its awardable? because it had two spikes this time? not every species or hybrid is awardable. even the best of something doesnt mean its awardable.



You obviously believe 'platyphyllums' are all illegal then, since it's doubtful anyon has the papers on plants brought in int he 1920's. This is not the regulation. You are offering an incorrect interpretation of the regs. No-one believes a plant which has had a taxonomic name change is suddenly illegal.

And the point here is they weren't concerned at all about that issue; their only issue was that they 'didn't know anything about it' and to bring it back when 'there are some awards on the species'. These are quotes out of the mouths of the judges. Idiot judges.


----------



## Pete (Oct 7, 2010)

> No-one believes a plant which has had a taxonomic name change is suddenly illegal.


thats US, common sensical people that think on that level. not fisheries and wildlife.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 7, 2010)

Apparently, the judges had not thought out the logic: that if a species is not judged until it has some awards that it will never get awards!


----------



## Pete (Oct 8, 2010)

*not Every Species Is Awardable For Merit*


----------



## Kevin (Oct 8, 2010)

Pete said:


> flowers must be well formed, have good, clear color and be of good size and proportion. natures not perfect. not all flowers fall into these categories. perhaps superior versions of things exist and they havent been shown. im sure there are LOTS of species that have never and will never get a merit award. cultural awards are different though and pretty much anything "ugly flower" or not, if grown superbly could qualify for a cultural award.



Who decides what is well formed, good clear colour and good size and proportion? If we are just talking about AOS, then maybe there is some concensus about what this is, but there are other award systems in the world, and is it true that plants might get an award in one system and not in another?

When you say nature is not perfect, you mean that it's not perfect in human's eyes. And, this is subjective, because tastes change through the years. I'm sure if you look back on AOS awards, you will see plants that were awarded years ago that would not be awarded now, and vice-versa. It is very clear that not all judges think alike, which to me, makes for a flawed system. 

You say that perhaps superior versions of things exist but just haven't been shown. Therefore all species can be awarded. And, what makes a certain clone 'superior'? Does it have to be line-bred to make it look nothing like what accurs in nature to qualify (eg. Phrag. besseae, Paph. spicerianum - it's supposed to have a reflexed dorsal!!)? If the best example of a certain species is not awardable, what is?



Pete said:


> *not Every Species Is Awardable For Merit*



*Why*???



I guess this is a topic for another thread. I've asked these questions before, but it still doesn't make sense. If I am looking to get a merit award on a species, is there a list of species I should avoid, so as not to be disappointed?


----------



## Pete (Oct 8, 2010)

i dont know. i would generally expect things with poor muddy colors that are not clear or bright, have flower segments that are un-proportionate to each other, flowers that are not symmetrical, flowers that do not have an overall round look to them all to be not awarded. a fellow judge gave a great talk on judging and its flaws and this sort of thing. i will see if i can find it and post some pats of it for you.


----------



## Pete (Oct 8, 2010)

parts


----------



## tim (Oct 8, 2010)

Pete if you're in the judging system I hope you understand that indeed every species is awardable, just not always for merit. Tenman said a CBR - that's a totally appropriate award in this case. Not only would it be the right award to give, but it would establish a precedent for the species. It would likewise allow the SITF of the AOS to determine the legality of this as a species, which in my opinion would have been the right avenue to take.

Ten sorry dude - pretty ridiculous. I had the same situation happen with my xpradhanii, but I brought it back again and again until the right team got it. Some times it takes patience, and sometimes it's difficult to be patient.


----------



## Pete (Oct 9, 2010)

tim did you read my post? it says in explicit detail


> not Every Species Is Awardable For Merit


 and i also stated that cultural and recognition awards dont apply to what im saying


----------



## Darin (Oct 9, 2010)

Ten,

I would suggest that in the future, I would take it to the monthly judging (Cincinnati and Ann Arbor are both fairly close to you). At shows the entire group of judges don't see every plant, judges only focus on the class they were assigned for ribbon judging. As a result not every judge evaluates every plant to determine if it should be pulled. In some cases this results in worthy plants not being pulled due to a judging team that is less familiar with that genera, it being poorly displayed and lit in the exhibit (HAPPENS A LOT!!!), or generally is overlooked due to the sheer number of plants and time alloted for judging before the shows open. In a monthly judging every plant is looked at by every judge(at least at our center. 

Additionally, it is unfortunate but Judges are human and don't have every single species in every genera memorized to know if it has a CBR or other awards. At the judging center we have the luxury of time to do some research (as we have our library of references available) on each of the plants presented if we are unfamiliar with them. 

I know it isn't ideal, but the simple facts are that the shows are not the ideal place to get a new or uncommon plant judged. 

There are several people from up your way who I am sure would be wiling to bring the plant to judging on its next bloom if you are unable to attend.

Darin


----------



## cnycharles (Oct 9, 2010)

I know not the same species, but at our cnyos show last weekend, a paph schoseri was pulled for aos judging by one of the judges. There was an interesting discussion about what is awardable for an 'unattractive species' which is my condensing the discussion a bit. It ended up not being judged, though it was a nice plant because it was felt it wasn't awardable. Part of their discussion was wondering if there was any paph schoseri that was awardable...


----------



## tenman (Oct 9, 2010)

Darin said:


> Ten,
> 
> I would suggest that in the future, I would take it to the monthly judging (Cincinnati and Ann Arbor are both fairly close to you). At shows the entire group of judges don't see every plant, judges only focus on the class they were assigned for ribbon judging. As a result not every judge evaluates every plant to determine if it should be pulled. In some cases this results in worthy plants not being pulled due to a judging team that is less familiar with that genera, it being poorly displayed and lit in the exhibit (HAPPENS A LOT!!!), or generally is overlooked due to the sheer number of plants and time alloted for judging before the shows open. In a monthly judging every plant is looked at by every judge(at least at our center.
> 
> ...



The plant was tyaken to the center about 4-5 years ago; in my post above I note that's when they said 'bring it back when there are some awards on it'. (this has happened with other previously unawarded species, not just paphs, either. Their record on hybrids is as dismal.) Of course that would negate the idea of a CBR, which was my goal. 

The Cincy center IS the one with all the problems I've noted. I keep hoping it'll close and we can try to open another one with REAL judges.

I have managed to send some plants down occasionally; threre is only one judge from anywhere near here ( and that one is an hour from me) who goes regularly (and no-one goes to the MI one). Working all day Sundays, I am unable to go myself and with the pointlessness of trying to get anything decent or new (most of what I'm interested in having judged) awarded at that center, it's really not worth the effort any more. I just keep hoping they'll all die off or quit and we'll get new ones who know their a** from a hole in the ground!!! Of course by then everything will have been awarded by the REAL judges at other centers!


----------



## NYEric (Oct 10, 2010)

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17741&page=2


----------

