Happypaphy7
Paphlover
I totally agree!!
Disillusioned by AOS judging
- Thread starter My Green Pets
- Start date
Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:
I agree.
I’ve listened in on judging at our shows and others I was helping clerk at, plus collected images of our shows awarded plants. Most of the judges in the whole northeast/canada/midatlantic are pretty decent, at least who I’ve met, and would allow clerks to ribbon judge, while breaking ties and weighing in when judgement was unsure, explaining details of ribbon and aos judging.
There are many individuals involved, and often they have to drive long distance to judge and are going to be out the door very quickly to get home. I don’t think this affects judging quality for most, but likely may affect how detailed a description might be to a plant owner.
I probably wouldn’t tell someone to fertilize more, there’s much more to it than that. But, for screening before deciding to judge, those involved pretty much check flower size and number after they have scanned for eliminating flaws.
And if there are lots of awards then if a plant might be an hcc, generally they won’t award just to have another on the books. Pretty regularly plants nice get passed because they want to raise the standard of what is awardable, that is pretty ingrained into the exam and thinking.
And yes they realize that there will be many fewer awards given to certain things that have received many previously. Judges are people, unpaid volunteers who may not have taken a class on public speaking and relations
And yes, as someone who’s grown lots of species I believe there is a lack of good understanding about what is a good species representation, so that it could be judged on its own genetic merits and not passed for being wavy, unflat or un round
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are many individuals involved, and often they have to drive long distance to judge and are going to be out the door very quickly to get home. I don’t think this affects judging quality for most, but likely may affect how detailed a description might be to a plant owner.
I probably wouldn’t tell someone to fertilize more, there’s much more to it than that. But, for screening before deciding to judge, those involved pretty much check flower size and number after they have scanned for eliminating flaws.
And if there are lots of awards then if a plant might be an hcc, generally they won’t award just to have another on the books. Pretty regularly plants nice get passed because they want to raise the standard of what is awardable, that is pretty ingrained into the exam and thinking.
And yes they realize that there will be many fewer awards given to certain things that have received many previously. Judges are people, unpaid volunteers who may not have taken a class on public speaking and relations
And yes, as someone who’s grown lots of species I believe there is a lack of good understanding about what is a good species representation, so that it could be judged on its own genetic merits and not passed for being wavy, unflat or un round
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tnyr5
Well-Known Member
Maybe nobody else is going to say it, but I am. Cambria, I'm sorry for what happened to your thread, you deserve better.
Since this is devolving into fake-news ( yes, fake news) slinging and ego-stroking, I will not reply to this thread again.
Still, you deserve a more thorough answer since you took the time to post a pic.
Let me preface this by first saying that it is a lovely and well grown plant! I'm sure all the judges thought the same. I'm about to nit-pick it to death, but when "lovely" is a given, this is exactly what the judges must do.
I believe in another thread you showed this flower as having a vertical spread of about 28cm. That's the first problem. While it is true that size is only 10 points and the sizes of awarded flowers vary greatly, yours is significantly smaller than the recent awards to this species, in some cases, it is more than 12 cm smaller. It can't be that far off.
Problem number two is the color. it has nice color in and of itself, but the awarded plants appear to be significantly darker than yours (One could argue that this is a photography problem). If your flower could compete with the awarded ones size-wise, this might have been okay; they'd have docked a few points and moved on. Conversely, if it were smaller, but much darker than the awarded ones, they might have tried to find a way to award it for color ( maybe a JC).
The third problem is the petals. Yes, the apical recurvature is normal for echinolabium, but we are not looking for "normal". There are awards on the books to flowers about the size of yours ( and the judges would have specifically sought those out for comparison to yours), but most of the ones that are that size also have petals that are pretty much held flat. ( Also, side note: If you see an awarded flower and think: "That's not awardable! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!??", the judges often think the same thing, which means they probably won't use that flower for comparison purposes when newer awards are considered. This is a problem for the grower if his/her plant is only better than that low-hanging fruit.)
The final nail in the coffin is that most of the awards which are somewhat comparable to your plant are HCCs of 76-78, which gives the judges no wiggle room as far as scoring is concerned.
Given all this, we can see that, condescending and self-serving or not, the most likely reason the judge said what he said is that he thinks there's a chance the flower might be awardable in the future, if you can "beef it up", so to speak.
Hope that helps.
Since this is devolving into fake-news ( yes, fake news) slinging and ego-stroking, I will not reply to this thread again.
Still, you deserve a more thorough answer since you took the time to post a pic.
Let me preface this by first saying that it is a lovely and well grown plant! I'm sure all the judges thought the same. I'm about to nit-pick it to death, but when "lovely" is a given, this is exactly what the judges must do.
I believe in another thread you showed this flower as having a vertical spread of about 28cm. That's the first problem. While it is true that size is only 10 points and the sizes of awarded flowers vary greatly, yours is significantly smaller than the recent awards to this species, in some cases, it is more than 12 cm smaller. It can't be that far off.
Problem number two is the color. it has nice color in and of itself, but the awarded plants appear to be significantly darker than yours (One could argue that this is a photography problem). If your flower could compete with the awarded ones size-wise, this might have been okay; they'd have docked a few points and moved on. Conversely, if it were smaller, but much darker than the awarded ones, they might have tried to find a way to award it for color ( maybe a JC).
The third problem is the petals. Yes, the apical recurvature is normal for echinolabium, but we are not looking for "normal". There are awards on the books to flowers about the size of yours ( and the judges would have specifically sought those out for comparison to yours), but most of the ones that are that size also have petals that are pretty much held flat. ( Also, side note: If you see an awarded flower and think: "That's not awardable! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!??", the judges often think the same thing, which means they probably won't use that flower for comparison purposes when newer awards are considered. This is a problem for the grower if his/her plant is only better than that low-hanging fruit.)
The final nail in the coffin is that most of the awards which are somewhat comparable to your plant are HCCs of 76-78, which gives the judges no wiggle room as far as scoring is concerned.
Given all this, we can see that, condescending and self-serving or not, the most likely reason the judge said what he said is that he thinks there's a chance the flower might be awardable in the future, if you can "beef it up", so to speak.
Hope that helps.
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. I was very disappointed on judging day but this helps me to swallow the pill more easily. This particular judge also just irritates me in general from previous interactions, so that certainly played a part in my reaction.
Again, many thanks for helping me make some sense of this.
Again, many thanks for helping me make some sense of this.
That's a helpful, educational critique.
StreetVariety
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2016
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 4
Only exceptional plants should be awarded. It sounds like AOS judge did his job.
Great post tnyr5. I have been watching this thread, and feel compelled to speak.
I am not an AOS Judge. I have been growing for 35 years, and twice I have been poised to enter the student program- but opted out because my career path does not work well with the incredible demands on a Judge's time, even as a student.
That said, I have clerked at a significant number of shows over the years, as well as observed at monthly judgings, plus in my high school and college days I repped for Carmela and other vendors at shows.
I have not stepped into those AOS Judge shoes (yet), but I think I have about as much experience and observation of the process as a person can claim without being an AOS Judge.
All my life I have heard tales about judges blackballing certain people, or coming to plant sales tables and expecting free plants before the judging starts, giving awards to friends etc.
And I have to say I have never once personally witnessed any such behavior, or anything close to it. Not saying it is impossible- but AOS Judging is certainly not a corrupt or broken system.
I will also note most of these tales of terror have come from vendors and breeders- i.e. those whose profits are very directly impacted by whether certain breeding stock or potential candidates for cloning receive an award.
The perception of arrogance or dismissiveness is legitimate- and sometimes it is in reality just what it seems to be.
But often it is not. Consider that judges are expected to travel outside of their regions to judge, and regularly. It is not uncommon for a judge to fly or drive hundreds of miles in a single day to judge a show, and then come right home after in the middle of the night rather than spend $200+ on an overnight stay.
Also- I have seen a number of cases where exhibitors openly questioned and argued with judges over their decisions, and in front of large groups of people. That is a no-win situation for a judge, and a display of disrespect and childishness on the part of the exhibitor that undermines the civility and perceived integrity of a process that relies on years of unpaid labor and personal expense by the person sitting in the judge's chair.
It would be a wonderful thing if everyone could get the kind of explanation tnyr5 gave a couple of nights ago. Unfortunately, there is seldom time- and while you Cambria have been very graceful and receptive to the answer you got, a lot of people are not so gracious. And it is hard for a judge to know in advance what reaction they will receive.
I am not an AOS Judge. I have been growing for 35 years, and twice I have been poised to enter the student program- but opted out because my career path does not work well with the incredible demands on a Judge's time, even as a student.
That said, I have clerked at a significant number of shows over the years, as well as observed at monthly judgings, plus in my high school and college days I repped for Carmela and other vendors at shows.
I have not stepped into those AOS Judge shoes (yet), but I think I have about as much experience and observation of the process as a person can claim without being an AOS Judge.
All my life I have heard tales about judges blackballing certain people, or coming to plant sales tables and expecting free plants before the judging starts, giving awards to friends etc.
And I have to say I have never once personally witnessed any such behavior, or anything close to it. Not saying it is impossible- but AOS Judging is certainly not a corrupt or broken system.
I will also note most of these tales of terror have come from vendors and breeders- i.e. those whose profits are very directly impacted by whether certain breeding stock or potential candidates for cloning receive an award.
The perception of arrogance or dismissiveness is legitimate- and sometimes it is in reality just what it seems to be.
But often it is not. Consider that judges are expected to travel outside of their regions to judge, and regularly. It is not uncommon for a judge to fly or drive hundreds of miles in a single day to judge a show, and then come right home after in the middle of the night rather than spend $200+ on an overnight stay.
Also- I have seen a number of cases where exhibitors openly questioned and argued with judges over their decisions, and in front of large groups of people. That is a no-win situation for a judge, and a display of disrespect and childishness on the part of the exhibitor that undermines the civility and perceived integrity of a process that relies on years of unpaid labor and personal expense by the person sitting in the judge's chair.
It would be a wonderful thing if everyone could get the kind of explanation tnyr5 gave a couple of nights ago. Unfortunately, there is seldom time- and while you Cambria have been very graceful and receptive to the answer you got, a lot of people are not so gracious. And it is hard for a judge to know in advance what reaction they will receive.
