I found this video of the AOS judging session:
Awards from the Strongsville Show
- Thread starter big923cattleya
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
big923cattleya
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
- Messages
- 1,346
- Reaction score
- 1,076
The Fatal Flaw notion has existed for a long time. Truth is, that concept does not officially exist within our Judging Handbook. We can’t apply a principle or notion such as that.
And as far as the AOS judging system goes, it has been around for 91 years. 91!!!
It is based largely upon the English system of the RHS, the Royal Horticultural Society. One major difference, the RHS does not employ an HCC.
And as far as the AOS judging system goes, it has been around for 91 years. 91!!!
It is based largely upon the English system of the RHS, the Royal Horticultural Society. One major difference, the RHS does not employ an HCC.
Well there is a life outside of the judging handbook, luckily.
That a system has been sinking over 91 years, at least regarding some awards given by some centers, is nothing to be proud of, after all.
It is a problem, because there are some judging centers where the awards are meaningful, and some others where it is more Home Depot plants.
Before, in all judging centers, there were highly qualified, both traders, breeders. In some centers much more so. They are nearly all gone, except in a few centers, where the awards still mean something...
Back in the 90's any deformed pollen, pollen caps missing, and the plant was eliminated. Any fatal flaw, and it was eliminated. There were basic, primitive rules, then the plant could be considered for an award, as simple as that. People taking a score card to make a final total and declare an award, simply because their score due to their lack of knowledge, matches with each other, is nothing really exciting or to be proud of.
It looks exciting indeed to study to be a judge, but it is like piano ( or harpsichord...), it is not because you learn by heart books about the subject, theory, and listen to some music that you can be a world class concertist... Some people are skilled, some are not. Some have experience, some will never have. There is a part of instinct to know what is good and what is bad.
As for the RHS, the judges are not trained. They are co-opted by people who are very skilled, and there is no training that allows to be an RHS judge. Alan Moon wanted me to enter, over 20 years ago, but I refused...
The AOS judging is not related in anyway to the RHS system. There are no point scores, and the RHS judges, who have the knowledge about the plant shown, vote if it is an AM or a FCC. If they don't know this variety group, they do not take part in the vote and say so. So, fatal flaws gone. They compare with previous awards, and an AM must be really something amazing. That one board member has seen a pot plant like that, or much better elsewhere, is discussed, and taken into account. That's why as well a FCC/RHS is much more important than a FCC/AOS. There are many less plants awarded, however.
I am not criticizing the whole judging system, just saying that there would be some improvement, and as well, maybe kill the hope that, everyone studying the AOS Judging Handbook and making a couple report is enough to be good at judging orchids. What collection do the judges have is another important point, or alternately what did they do to know orchids. Reading the AOS magazines or playing the socialites is not enough in my book.
There is a limit between awarding an FCC to a plant that might be a high AM, or either giving an award for an inferior pot plant, or giving an FCC to a joke rothschildianum.
The scandal of that rothschildianum forced the AOS apparently to cancel the award. I know of several others that were canceled in the same way.
I tend to get the best of the varieties, or do the best possible ( just look at my facebook, and yes I had quite a list of US orchid celebrities and others visiting me in the Netherlands and in Vietnam... sometimes shocked by what they see...), and my comments are more about the fact that sometimes people need a cold shower to react...
As for the judges and judging centers, there are some exceptional ones, some good ones, that's for sure. But a pot plant Phalaenopsis should have been seen immediately, the low flower count and 2 flaws I pointed on the photos should have excluded it immediately, without any question...
tnyr5
Well-Known Member
It's actually quite possible for it to be an unintentional mericlone via protocorm proliferation when the cross was initially in flask. Happens pretty often, I'd say. I recently got to see an AQ group where it was pretty obvious to me that a few of the plants were "flask twins."
Of course that's possible but again that's a flimsy justification for passing on an awardable plant. What are the odds that a protocorm proliferated, both clones survived, one ended up in Baltimore and one in the midwest to end up being exhibited a year apart with one being an HCC and one being AM quality? That's some serious mental gymnastics and again the judging team that came up with this silly mericlone theory awarded a known mericlone grocery store Phal just before this. If that's the sort of nonsense the AOS is going to accept from their judges they may as well just pull the plug on judging now instead of further embarrassing themselves.
tnyr5
Well-Known Member
Honestly, the odds are not as bad as you think, but it depends who made the flask, who grew it out, and who sold the offspring. I'm just saying it's possible and I've seen it happen. All of this is moot in my opinion because I don't think it deserved an award anyway
.(At the same time, I'm not fond of disparaging plants without proof. I kept my mouth shut on the AQ situation.)
Indeed flasks clones from seed are quite common, even for some Paph species.
The odds are very low, and the fact that judges who award a pot plant phal see it, the odds are basically nonexistent...
Technically, it is quite common. A lot of labs have poor germination records, especially some of the largest ones, so they proliferate the protocorms to reach the final customer's orders.
I have several breeders who ask me to make flasks for them, cymbidium and odontoglossums mostly. They used to order 1000-2000 seedlings out of each cross, and always got them. At a point they found that several labs in Thailand have very low germination rates, and always make up the quantity by proliferating the protocorms, so there are 2000 plants, but only 10-20 different varieties in the flasks...
For others, when they do not have the proper technic, odontoglossum make clumps of tiny shoots per protocorm. They divide that, replate the requested number, and done, but in fact there are not so many different plants in the large 'seedling' batch...
When I do for them, some entire capsules had non viable seeds under the microscope, but fully sown, I got sometimes 30, 80, 100 seedlings out of the entire capsule... Sometimes 20.000 as well...
Paphs are the same, protocorms of many species, including rothschildianum, tend to make side shoots readily and proliferate. So, in theory 'clones' in a seedling batch are much more common than we think.
The odds are very low, and the fact that judges who award a pot plant phal see it, the odds are basically nonexistent...
Technically, it is quite common. A lot of labs have poor germination records, especially some of the largest ones, so they proliferate the protocorms to reach the final customer's orders.
I have several breeders who ask me to make flasks for them, cymbidium and odontoglossums mostly. They used to order 1000-2000 seedlings out of each cross, and always got them. At a point they found that several labs in Thailand have very low germination rates, and always make up the quantity by proliferating the protocorms, so there are 2000 plants, but only 10-20 different varieties in the flasks...
For others, when they do not have the proper technic, odontoglossum make clumps of tiny shoots per protocorm. They divide that, replate the requested number, and done, but in fact there are not so many different plants in the large 'seedling' batch...
When I do for them, some entire capsules had non viable seeds under the microscope, but fully sown, I got sometimes 30, 80, 100 seedlings out of the entire capsule... Sometimes 20.000 as well...
Paphs are the same, protocorms of many species, including rothschildianum, tend to make side shoots readily and proliferate. So, in theory 'clones' in a seedling batch are much more common than we think.
littlefrog
Hop-meister
I can certainly see the possibility of one of the big wholesalers cloning something good without ever showing it... Why pay the AOS for an award? It won't help sell the plants that much more quickly. Then it is just a matter of selling a few hundred or a few thousand and waiting for the inevitable confusion at orchid judging.
Practical suggestion, that won't be followed. If it is good enough to clone or to breed with, give it a clonal name. And take a picture for your studbook (I confess I fail that second part fairly frequently). Don't wait for an award, just give it a clonal name. Let the name follow the plant.
Practical suggestion, that won't be followed. If it is good enough to clone or to breed with, give it a clonal name. And take a picture for your studbook (I confess I fail that second part fairly frequently). Don't wait for an award, just give it a clonal name. Let the name follow the plant.
Just read this thread. The plant in question, C. Pink Diamond, was made and registered by Peter T. Lin of Diamond Orchids in California. He has been producing some incredible mini and micro Cattleyas. I purchased several seedlings of various crosses from him. In my opinion, I am almost 100% certain that this is not a clone. Peter makes his money by speaking and selling his own production.
I'm facebook friends with the owner, he got this plant from SVO as a seedling.
I am a big fan of Peter T Lin and have several of his crosses including Pink Diamond. If interested there is a good article about Peter T in the last Orchids magazin.
Judges.
