You be the judge

[Tony]

I don't know that we could have a judging system without commercial growers involved, who else has the dedication to orchids and the financial freedom to participate? I don't see many people being deep enough into the hobby that they want to become a judge without also growing enough plants to have to operate at least a boutique online nursery.

 

[Tom-DE]

I don't know that we could have a judging system without commercial growers involved, who else has the dedication to orchids and the financial freedom to participate? I don't see many people being deep enough into the hobby that they want to become a judge without also growing enough plants to have to operate at least a boutique online nursery.

Are you saying it is a rich men's world? (just kidding!) Financially, I probably can afford to be an orchid judge but long ago, I chose not to get involved/support it for various reasons...I grow orchids(from the very beginning) for their beauty which I enjoy tremendously. I don't need someone to tell me or pay to prove that I have a nice plant or flower... Having said that, for those who choose to get involved, I do admire them for going through the long process of becoming a volunteer as an orchid judge...however, being a good judge is a different story, especially in an imperfect system...

 

[My Green Pets]

An appeals system could be helpful for having a second set of eyes re-evaluate a questionable judging. Wonder if that would ever fly.

 

[big923cattleya]

It might stand a much better chance of flying if the re-evaluation was being requested by some one within the system. Of course, just my opinion.

 

[Tom-DE]

And please let’s not forget about the obvious ethical issues in the judging system that call into question many awards. Peer review helps address some, not all, of the glaring ethical deficiencies and problems with AOS judging. Then we can move on to the obvious lack of adequate knowledge on the part of some judges...

What Frank said!

 

[big923cattleya]

"Obvious ethical issues"?
"Glaring Ethical deficiencies"?
"Obvious lack of adequate knowledge on the part of some judges"?
Some pretty strong accusations being made from outside of the system. Why criticize from the outside? Why not join the program to improve things? There are so many things I would like to reply to this but I won't. From a simple post about an orchid with two flowers on it, it has come down to this?

 

[Tom-DE]

If you don't see the problems as an insider, you are part of the problems then! Well, think "Emperor's Clothes Story"....They are real existing problems not just accusations.
I told you it was a good educational thread...What did you expect when you started this thread? The way you reacted to other people's posts didn't help either.

Why not join? -- besides some personal reasons...I also give myself a better excuse: why I should support a system that is so cliquish among the members, almost like a hierarchy.... Public criticism from outside probably will change the system faster since the "insiders" are too blind to see the problems.

 

[Ray]

Personally, I think the system needs to understand the perception of outsiders.

One of the issues facing the AOS is membership, and if non-members perceive the system to be 'clique-ish", they will not join.

 

[Ray]

As people are just using the same stances back and forth and are apparently not willing to accept the other views, I'm considering stopping responses to this thread.

Any support or objection to that? I mean that seriously - y'all haven't quite gotten to the "Jane, you ignorant ****" stage, and it still might.

 

[big923cattleya]

I am not going to post about this anymore. In fact, I dropped my support for this site financially.
I guess I am “pulling a Bill Engvall”.
I am undecided as to whether or not I’ll post anymore, period.

So Ray, just do what you think is best Sir.

 

[Tony]

Personally, I think the system needs to understand the perception of outsiders.

One of the issues facing the AOS is membership, and if non-members perceive the system to be 'clique-ish", they will not join.

I've been growing since the 90s and didn't submit a plant for judging until 2020 because of the judging system's reputation. Luckily the Carolinas Center has a fantastic group of judges that uphold the ideal of fair and impartial judging but I've seen plenty of complaints regarding other centers and the AOS has a lot of work to do to convince hobbyists that judging has something to offer them.

 

[spujr]

I have tremendous respect for judges and also to you as well @big923cattleya . You always are willing to offer advice on various forum questions and while I and others may not always see eye to eye, I think we will agree that an active discussion is better than a silent forum.

As for "clique-ish" judging system, sure, I could see people having this impression. I'm also sure there is room for improvement in the system. However I do admire the time they put into it and my own experience with the local judging folks has always been positive.

 

[big923cattleya]

Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

 

[Ross]

I generally hesitate to weigh in on these discussions, but I thought I'd share my perspective as a small grower and Paph hybridizer. I have been hybridizing for 20 years, and have submitted many plants for judging during that time. Initially it was useful for helping me set standards for acquiring and evaluating plants for breeding. Later submitting my own creations helped to validate that I was on the right track in my breeding. Do I always agree with judges? Of course not, but I always appreciate their input.

Are there mistakes made in awarding or not awarding plants? No doubt. I have seen pictures of awarded flowers that were head scratchers, and also submitted plants that I was surprised that were not awarded. Judges are human and make mistakes, but taken as a whole the judging system has helped advance the quality of the orchids we enjoy. I do not take it personally when a plant of mine is not awarded. The plant is being judged, not me. Patience sometimes helps, especially with my specialty, miniature complex Paphs. I have resubmitted plants that were not awarded initially, but on subsequent bloomings were awarded. Beauty is a subjective evaluation. For better or worse, the AOS judging system attempts to put objective standards to what is a very subjective judgement.

One final comment: I beleive that all awards are good. A plant awarded an HCC is generally still a beautiful plant. I can generally see the differences between an HCC and an AM or FCC, but it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the HCC. The same thing is true of older awarded plants from the 60's and 70's. They most likely would not be awarded by today's standards, but are still beautiful and some of my favorites, such as Paph Via Luna Este 'China Doll' AM/AOS, awarded in 1978 and Paph Harbur 'Perfection' HCC/AOS, awarded in 1969. One of the finest miniature Paphs, Paph Little by Little 'War Eagle' HCC/AOS was "only" given an HCC.

 

[SelectOrchids]

"Obvious ethical issues"?
"Glaring Ethical deficiencies"?
"Obvious lack of adequate knowledge on the part of some judges"?
Some pretty strong accusations being made from outside of the system. Why criticize from the outside? Why not join the program to improve things? There are so many things I would like to reply to this but I won't. From a simple post about an orchid with two flowers on it, it has come down to this?

Actually yes there were ethical issues, in some judging centers, by some judging teams. There was a flock of awards from at least 2 centers I know of that were sold at top premium prices to some foreigners, simply because they were awarded. It was obvious that the flower quality was poor to disastrous. At a point too the judging system needs to admit its faults, there were judges that were revoked, awards that were rescinded, etc.. over the years. One FCC rothschildianum was actually so awful that it was obvious there was no point score involved at any stage. The award was eventually canceled, and only some traces exist on Facebook of this amazingly beautiful flower...

Inadequate knowledge, well it varies too. Some judging centers are pristine clean, some did award mass propagated pot plant, below the pot plant B2 grading standard, so of course for the reputation, it is not the best... As well, quite a few awarded plants have fatal flaws, surprisingly, in the older/old awards, there are way less fatal flaws that can be pointed out. Awards from the 80s and 90s rarely have something like a reverted dorsal, or 'windows' between the petals and the dorsal for Phalaenopsis, etc... Of course the breeding improved, and there has been progress in breeding, in many genera. This said, some AM or FCC from the 70s or 80s are still to their standard, even today.

From the outside, it appears very opaque, sometimes there are plants awarded where hundreds of hobbyists and commercial growers alike have seen way better, everywhere. Of course, few people today have handled a vast number of plants, crosses, seedlings, etc... Those people were from another era. There are a few nurseries in the USA that do active breeding, and give great results for sure, like Paph Paradise. But, thinking well, the judging teams 30 years ago had a lot of commercial growers ( that are essential to the judging system, as they see hundreds of thousands of plants in all kind of shape, colors, etc...), where a hobbyist do not realize at all the vastness of the possibilities, or what really exists, outside the AOS awards database, and posts on Facebook, which do not represent everything that exists.

Giving an FCC to a hangianum with a non-flat flower and narrow, twisted petals is an absolute no-no when one has seen a few thousands hangianum in bloom, as an example. Nearly every single one would be better than the plant submitted for the FCC.

As to 'why', well there are policies, The Orchid Zone had a double policy regarding awarded plants. They did it, very rarely, for a few things, to 'warn the customers' or improve the value of the plants. According to Terry Root himself though, the AQ/AOS rothschildianum awarded got their quality award at random, some low grade being FCC, and some HCC being simply amazing. The second reason is that, including for my business, when people see the photos or my plants in person, that the plant has an FCC or nothing has no importance on the sales, or the price, at all. I got quite a few AOS judges who visited me and may well vouch for that.

As for the AOS judging system, it would be important as well to append the judging center to the awards, and when there are 'hiccups' ( we will call it like that, and I know exactly what I am talking about...), like corrupt judges that are fired, or awards that are canceled, etc... that it is made public and clear. Transparency is essential for the survival of any judging system, whether for orchids or screwedrivers...

If there are 'good' or 'bad' judges, yes there are for certain. There are some judges for sure that I would fully trust if they say ' it is an AM'. Some others, well, sorry, but it is like a doctor. Do you want your surgery done at Mayo Clinic, or at a dispensary in Kabul? Note well, they are both surgeons, and both got their medical diplomas... That is another point that cannot be avoided.

This said, making to AOS members the database of awards 'public' allows as well everyone to maybe criticize, that's not an FCC, this one is crap, etc... but as well to see with our own eyes what we can expect of this cultivar or that cultivar. Sometimes there are weird things, like some HCC that are worth way more, AM or FCC, and some FCC that are worth a pot plant notation. That's life... but with the pictures, measurements, and experience, it is possible to distinguish the gems from the common things...

 

[SelectOrchids]

FYI the rescinded FCC rothschildianum was that one :

 

[tnyr5]

I was being silly before, and I admit I like to heckle judges because, well, because it's fun, but here's my honest answer:

There are some cliques and some obstinate judges (some of which are no longer judges fyi); award fees cost way more than they should; and I personally think the training system needs to be streamlined (which is currently happening); but really, AOS does a pretty good job of being impartial and uniform. I've met most of the judges from the centers within a 250 mile radius of where I live, and I can't think of any currently judging that I wouldn't be happy to see. A few I can genuinely say are among my best friends. They rarely make bad calls, and on the rare occasions they do, I gleefully call them out because, as I said, it's fun .

It's important to remember that AOS does not consider awards given outside of its own jurisdiction when judging. It's not hubris or elitism, it's comparing apples to apples. Temperate-climate growers can't compete with open-air, government-subsidized mega nurseries in the tropics any more than a champion sprinter can compete with a cheetah. Once in a while, someone comes along who can do it (OZ) but if they don't submit their plants, then AOS can't raise the standard. I assure you that most judges are intimately aware of how amazing Taiwan multifloral paphs are compared to most of what they see in America, for example. They are simply stuck between two bad options.

The "value" of an HCC depends upon the plant that earned it. An HCC to a bulldog Paph, or a complex corsage type Cattleya, both competing against a general standard refined over decades of breeding, is a heck of a feat. An HCC on a new species with no record? Not so much, but an AM wouldn't be any better. It's low-hanging fruit, and the judges can't just say: "These will be full & round & flat six generations from now, so we're not going to award this one today." Not how it works. So too does the AOS not expect every submission to exceed the previous best one ever seen. It's a standard to be met, not a record to be broken. The standard rises imperceptibly over time simply because the general quality of what's submitted gets better; they don't hold a standard-raising meeting lol.

As for scoring, biases, and the like, all I can say is don't believe everything you read on the internet. I've seen stories on here about judges changing their scores after the fact to prevent an fcc and other similar scenarios. I assure you, these are flat-out lies. Judges' scores are submitted via secret ballot and cannot be changed once submitted, unless they are out of spread. Giving ridiculously low scores to prevent an award is also against the rules, the judge in question would simply recuse in such a case.

From a breeding standpoint, none of this matters. The breeders just look at the traits they want and try to get them all on one flower, even if they have to use dogs to get it.

In short, AOS, for all its faults, keeps the poop to shoe-level. Look at the wild-west, free-for-all, whatever-we-can-get-away-with attitude of the reef aquarium hobby to see what orchid growing in the US would look like without them.

 

[Tony]

Giving ridiculously low scores to prevent an award is also against the rules, the judge in question would simply recuse in such a case.

I've experienced this one personally, one judge wouldn't come off 74 when the rest were in the mid 80s. Went to the backup team and they told me to bring it back when it blooms again. Overall I agree with your assessment though.

 

[tnyr5]

I've experienced this one personally, one judge wouldn't come off 74 when the rest were in the mid 80s. Went to the backup team and they told me to bring it back when it blooms again. Overall I agree with your assessment though.

That's kind of a toughie. Technically, they did what I said: the problem judge was removed from the equation. It's a shame the second team got cold feet. Sometimes it's just bad luck.

 

[Tony]

That's kind of a toughie. Technically, they did what I said: the problem judge was removed from the equation. It's a shame the second team got cold feet. Sometimes it's just bad luck.

If all goes well I'll be taking it back this summer with two spikes.