# Paph Macabre 'Mother Mary'



## Greenpaph (Mar 20, 2007)

Just opened! Blooms every year faithfully!


----------



## WolfDog1 (C. Williams) (Mar 20, 2007)

Nice!

Have you ever had it judged?

Craig


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 20, 2007)

oh wow! those are excellent petals!!!!


----------



## Park Bear (Mar 21, 2007)

great form!!


----------



## NYEric (Mar 21, 2007)

Yep, good form!


----------



## Greenpaph (Mar 21, 2007)

WolfDog1 said:


> Nice!
> 
> Have you ever had it judged?
> 
> Craig



Craig,

It has bloomed three times and I have not been able to get it to judging. The next judging in Massachussetts is April 7th. I am not sure if it will stay in great shape till then. Hopefully!

thanks


----------



## TADD (Mar 21, 2007)

A M A Z I N G Formmmm!!!


----------



## Grandma M (Mar 21, 2007)

I think I would like to move to New Hampshire. You always have such beautiful blue sky for your pictures.


----------



## Greenpaph (Mar 21, 2007)

Grandma M said:


> I think I would like to move to New Hampshire. You always have such beautiful blue sky for your pictures.



We do have quite a few blue skies! But only in northern NH. Southern NH is not quite as nice!


----------



## Heather (Mar 21, 2007)

Greenpaph said:


> Craig,
> 
> It has bloomed three times and I have not been able to get it to judging. The next judging in Massachussetts is April 7th. I am not sure if it will stay in great shape till then. Hopefully!
> 
> thanks



Send it to me, I'll take it. :evil:


----------



## SlipperFan (Mar 21, 2007)

That's a really good form!


----------



## likespaphs (Mar 23, 2007)

so, uh, what's the leafspan on a blooming sized plant?


----------



## Greenpaph (Mar 23, 2007)

likespaphs said:


> so, uh, what's the leafspan on a blooming sized plant?




Brian,

It is about 1 foot.


----------



## Gideon (Mar 24, 2007)

Wow, excellent form


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 24, 2007)

Heather said:


> Send it to me, I'll take it. :evil:


oke: I thought you hated maudiae types

Good job Peter!, Heather got attracted to a maudiae


----------



## Roy (Mar 24, 2007)

Question, why would "Maudiae Type" be refered here. The Macarbe couldn't be further from a Maudiae type if it tried???????????
Roy.


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 24, 2007)

....fine mottled leaved types


----------



## Heather (Mar 24, 2007)

Isn't there some common parentage of maudiae way back in the breeding of this? I thought that was responsible for the very dark macabres that have been bloomed over the years. Lawrencianum or something? I started looking it up this morning but couldn't find the grex for one of the parents of Voodoo Magic.


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 24, 2007)

...I started looking too but then got bored... I can't find Vintner's Treasure in the registry


----------



## smartie2000 (Mar 24, 2007)

ok I finally got Vintner's Treasure, the search on the registry doesn't work that well...
there isn't maudiae (callosum x lawrenceanum) in it, but it has a fair amount of callosum. Anyways this plant would have been grouped together as a maudiae section in any catalogue. 
What class would this plant fit in for judging?


----------



## Roy (Mar 25, 2007)

Where will it be shown? Good question. This is where the Judging panel and show schedule makers need to catch up. There are so many plants exhibited with the 'sukhakulii' petals that a new class needs to be set. To my way of thinking, Paphs that fill the shape standard of 'Maudiae type' are 'barbatum, lawrenceanum & callosum' in the species or 'Maudiae, Claire De Lune, Alma Geveart' etc in the hybrids are TRUE 'Maudiae' types. Once any thing else is included, the 'type' shape generally disappears. I wouldn't put too much thought into where the 'suk' petal types fit in a catalog, all that does is confuse the potential purchaser by buying something that it isn't. What should happen is the creation of the 'suk' influence hybrid section as was created with the 'Maudiae type' section.
I don't know what sections for Paphs you have in the US but over here, all hell would break loose if a 'suk' type plant won in the Maudiae section.
Roy.


----------



## Nautilus (Mar 25, 2007)

Excellent form!


----------



## Greenpaph (Mar 25, 2007)

Roy said:


> Where will it be shown?
> 
> If I am able to go and the plant is still in good shape; the Boylston, Massachussetts judging center (Northeast supplemental judging center).


----------



## Roy (Mar 25, 2007)

Peter, good luck with your paph. I am a judge with the Aust' Orchid Council and in my opinion from the pic', it is well worthy of a high, quality award. One of the things that strikes me is the 'balance' of the flower. Everything seems to be in harmony. Size unknown but an excellent Paph.
'Where will it be shown', I mean 'what class'?. please let us know how you went and in what paph catagory it is judged.
Roy.


----------



## Greenpaph (Mar 26, 2007)

Thanks to all! 

I hope the flowers lasts in this excellent shape for another 12 days!


----------



## Greenpaph (Apr 8, 2007)

I brought it to the Boylston, MA judging. The judges did not award it!

They felt that because of the size and quality it was equal to other AM/AOS Macabres and awardable. However, they didn't award it because they said it doesn't add anything more to the ones already awarded. They also stated that they didn't want to parralel award. There have already been 117 awards to this hybrid.

I was pleased to hear that it was awardable anyway.


----------



## dave b (Apr 8, 2007)

very nice


----------



## Roy (Apr 9, 2007)

The Judges SUCK. Whats wrong with another award anyway???? If a plant is awardable then award it !! From what I have seen in Awards Quarterly, yours was well worthy of awarding. Soom I have seen a far less in quality to yours.
Maybe they were jealous.


----------



## PHRAG (Apr 9, 2007)

And this is why the judging of orchids is broken. Well, this and a dozen other reasons.

Hey Heather, I found my judging soapbox. You didn't hide it well enough. :evil:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

PHRAG said:


> And this is why the judging of orchids is broken. Well, this and a dozen other reasons.
> 
> Hey Heather, I found my judging soapbox. You didn't hide it well enough. :evil:



You have a crowd gathering, let er fly! oke: :clap:


----------



## Roy (Apr 9, 2007)

Just to add to the discussion, I am a Judge, not in the USA, but what I see across the world is "inconsistancy" with panels. Even here in Aus', you can see it at shows, monthly meetings and in awards. Awards Quarterly is a great publication to highlight this, one would have to ask the question " how do some of these panels/judges hold their accreditation???" We aren't privilaged to see our National awards on such a regular basis and am sure I would ask the same question. Maybe it's the " who owns it factor " running.


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

I'm not surprised. 
The people in the NE are very reticent to give parallel awards. Especially with Paphs, IMO. 

Go John, Go!


----------



## WolfDog1 (C. Williams) (Apr 9, 2007)

I have submitted my application to become an AOS judge, but have not been accepted yet. I think this discussion of 'parallel' awards is very interesting. I'm sure I have a lot to learn, but in my opinion, if a flower is of the quality that it deserves an award, it should be awarded. That being said, how is it that flowers get an HCC or AM once an HCC or AM is already awarded and published? Maybe I'm not understanding the 'parallel' award part. If it gets the points, award it. 

Craig


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

As I understand it, if it is thought to be in the range of other HCCs or AMs, it won't even be nominated for pointing. There needs to be some significant improvement over other awarded plants for it to even get that far.


----------



## NYEric (Apr 9, 2007)

Aren't HCC's for superior culture? I think judges can only compare to known quality and if it surpasses a standard it gets more points toward FCC. At the GNYOS there are many [Hundreds] of show awards but few AOS awards.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

If judges really use the parallel award idea there can only be 3 awards for any single hybrid. HCC, AM and FCC. If the first clone of a hybrid judged gets an FCC there could never be an Am or HCC awarded.

*The whole concept is warped*, each plant should be judged as an individual and if it is equal to one that has an AM it should also get an AM. 

Who came up with the first come first served award concept anyway?


----------



## PHRAG (Apr 9, 2007)

gonewild said:


> Who came up with the first come first served award concept anyway?



Breeders.

:evil:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

PHRAG said:


> Breeders.
> 
> :evil:



Breeders who are judges.
:evil: :evil:


----------



## WolfDog1 (C. Williams) (Apr 9, 2007)

LOL @ both of you!


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

Argh. Okay. 
Phrag new I'd do this. oke:

HCC is 70-79 points - High Class Certificate
AM is 80-89 - Award of Merit
FCC is 90-99 - First Class Certificate

These are flower quality awards, not cultural awards. Those are such as CCE and CCM.


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

gonewild said:


> *The whole concept is warped*, each plant should be judged as an individual and if it is equal to one that has an AM it should also get an AM.
> 
> Who came up with the first come first served award concept anyway?



I disagree! Breeding improves or doesn't over time. There should be options beyond three plants awarded years ago. Look at the roths today!

It isn't warped. If there is progress over the last AM award a cross receives, it should be allowed to be upgraded to an FCC. 

Progress. Not like size or color. It should be BETTER. 

I'm not sure why you people have a difficult time understanding this. oke:


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

Oh, and I know for a fact that PHRAG has some tomatoes he is grooming just for the purpose of throwing them directly at me! :rollhappy:


----------



## PHRAG (Apr 9, 2007)

Because bigger doesn't mean an orchid is better. Rounder doesn't mean an orchid is better. Who you know at the judging center doesn't mean your orchid is better.

But then again, I am biased. I think judging is a silly waste of time.


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

You ever had a plant you thought worth judging? You might feel different. 
I've learned from the process, a GREAT deal, and I think it is something every serious grower should experience. It gives you a really great insight into the background of judging and the why. 

Don't judge if you don't know about judging, IMHO!
(and I don't mean the plants, I mean the system, I've learned so much listening in on judging sessions!)


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

Face it John, I will kick your ass on this one.


----------



## PHRAG (Apr 9, 2007)

I have not bloomed one plant that would be "worthy" of judging.

I don't think you have to participate in plant contests to be a serious grower. You have learned alot about the judging system, and what judges look for in awardable plants, neither of which interests me.

I don't have to sit and watch paint dry to know it would be a waste of my time.


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

Heather said:


> I disagree! Breeding improves or doesn't over time. There should be options beyond three plants awarded years ago. Look at the roths today!



No, you misunderstood what I meant or I said what I didn't mean. There should be unlimited options for plants to be awarded and not limited by the necessity to be better than a previous award. Equal to should be enough.



> It isn't warped. If there is progress over the last AM award a cross receives, it should be allowed to be upgraded to an FCC.



Yes, but a plant should not be screened because it is not good enough for an FCC and there are already plenty of lower awards. I guess maybe it is the screening process that is warped.



> Progress. Not like size or color. It should be BETTER.



The judging should be against a set of criteria and not the fact that a hybrid already has plenty of awards.



> I'm not sure why you people have a difficult time understanding this. oke:



The same reason you do. oke: back


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

You don't buy nice enough plants. oke:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

PHRAG said:


> Who you know at the judging center doesn't mean your orchid is better.


You wannna bet?


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

Lance? I was talking to John. 

But I disagree with you too. If the plant isn't better, it shouldn't be judged, IMO. Waste of time! Do you guys know how much time it takes to discuss and decided to judge a plant?


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

Heather said:


> You ever had a plant you thought worth judging? You might feel different.
> I've learned from the process, a GREAT deal, and I think it is something every serious grower should experience. It gives you a really great insight into the background of judging and the why.
> 
> Don't judge if you don't know about judging, IMHO!
> (and I don't mean the plants, I mean the system, I've learned so much listening in on judging sessions!)



You sound like a lawyer talking about the legal system.


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

Edited my post - please read.

I wouldn't know. I'm not a lawyer, nor can I afford one!


----------



## PHRAG (Apr 9, 2007)

I know, I buy the leftovers from the previously bloomed miniature species bench. I am doomed!


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

I know, but I thought I would but in just to cause chaos.
:drool: 
I really don't care about judging I just wanted to argue about it. 
But it was warped in the 70's and it still is.


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

PHRAG said:


> I know, I buy the leftovers from the previously bloomed miniature species bench. I am doomed!




And they are really sweet, but that's not the collection I am growing! Don't judge me because I'm a perfectionist, Mr. Ammonite. :wink:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

Heather said:


> Edited my post - please read.
> 
> I wouldn't know. I'm not a lawyer, nor can I afford one!



But the question is can you afford a judge?
:rollhappy:


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

Lance, has anyone ever told you you are a bit of a pain in the ars?  
Not that I am saying that...I'm really interested in that MK of yours so I'll behave. 

I can be bribed. Easily.


----------



## PHRAG (Apr 9, 2007)

I would never judge you. You aren't as round as the other HCC's in this category.


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

gonewild said:


> But the question is can you afford a judge?
> :rollhappy:



Depends on the plant. 
Not so far!


----------



## Heather (Apr 9, 2007)

PHRAG said:


> I would never judge you. You aren't as round as the other HCC's in this category.



Now THAT's how a man should respond! 
Gentlemen, take note!
:smitten:


----------



## gonewild (Apr 9, 2007)

Heather said:


> Lance, has anyone ever told you you are a bit of a pain in the ars?
> Not that I am saying that...I'm really interested in that MK of yours so I'll behave.
> 
> I can be bribed. Easily.



It took many years of trial and error to get to the point I can be an effective pain. Be happy I have self control.


----------



## Roy (Apr 10, 2007)

This thread seems to have lost its way, but its fun. Any judge worth their salt should be able to look at a flower and know whether it is awardable or not and what award it should get within 5 minutes. If Heathers scale of points is correct, with a 10 point margin between HCC & AM, AM to FCC then there is enough scope to award all flowers that are deserving. We have the scale of HCC...75 to 80 points, AM....80.1 to 85, FCC...85.1 to 100.
The biggest problem we found is that we kept looking for the next orchid we awarded of the same Hybrid or species or Hybrid in general, to be that bit better until we pushed the award requirements to a level that was almost unreachable. As it is now with a relaxation of this criteria, some of the orchids awarded HCC's 3 years ago, under todays standards should have received FCC's.
As a judge, you have to remember the last award granted for the genus, example, Paph Macarbe and armed with the stats available for that plant compare it to the one you are now viewing. If the previous one gained a HCC with 78 points and the one your viewing totals 75 to 77 it should get the award still, full stop. Maybe the one your viewing stats up better than the previous, ok, up your plant to 78.1/2/3/ whatever, award it. Frankly, many Judges express views on things they know nothing about but to make out they do.


----------



## WolfDog1 (C. Williams) (Apr 10, 2007)

I too have learned a lot by sitting in on judging. I think it's very interesting. I've never experienced the 'parallel' discussion, but I would guess that I will. The process can be very contentious. It's even more interesting when the judges disagree than when they agree. I find these discussions notable because of the way that judging and criteria can shift over time. 
I envision a time when rounder and flatter may not be the 'standard' by which Paphs are judged; and at time I don't think that standard applies even today.


----------



## Roy (Apr 10, 2007)

The rounder and flatter standard should still apply to the Paphs its supposed to fit, ie complex hybrid Paphs. You cannot use that standard for Maudiae type or Suk petal types etc.
The problem is that many judges "only grow or like" the 'suk' petal, species, novelty type hybrids or Maudiaes. They have lost all knowledge on how to judge the round, flat complex type, or just don't care. The reverse can also apply. Whatever the orchid being judged, the Judge MUST be familiar with, at a minimum, the basic requirements of that 'style' of orchid (ie paph ) should hold, to be worthy of consideration for an award. If they don't, then there is no way that orchid will be assessed fairly or correctly. Its like comparing lemons with watermelons. BTW, this type of judging is common.


----------

