AOS Judging

[British Bulldog]

Paph size!

Yes but size is ONLY 10 points out of the full score.
Most certainly a wise Judge should look at parentage but are there many out there.:evil:
The mini Catt saga is certainly a case in point.
Here in the UK we had a problem with mini Cyms also as plant size on some lines were not "mini" growth.
I absolutely agree at the end of the day, no matter which system is used, personal preferences come into play.

 

[slippertalker]

I appreciate your comments, especially regarding wise judgesoke:

With new species being used in hybridizing, there will always be new tangents to explore, and new challenges for judges. Every judge has weaknesses and strengths, and I don't expect expertise in every genus. Hopefully, at the end of the day, a team of judges can share enough knowledge to properly discern quality. The ability to learn, share information and work as a team is paramount. That being said, mistakes will continue to be made.........A large majority of the awards are correct and most judges have decent decision making abilities.

 

[Ernie]

In judging complex paph hybrids, size is certainly a consideration. I consider with standard complex hybrids that shape, color and size are the primary indicators of quality. Size is the most important 10 points on the scoresheet as it gives a fuller flower with wider segments which enhances the shape, and the visual impact of a colorful flower of good size and full segments is greater. I look for these standards to work in concert; a big poorly shaped or colored flower is obviously inferior. A compact well shaped and colored flower would be superior.

Now, the parents always have to be taken into consideration, and miniature crosses are still judged according to full shape, good color and size according to the parentage. These criteria are always important whether the hybrids are derived from P. insigne, P. rothschildianum or P. helenae. A wise judge will always consider breeding lines and the effect of certain parents in a cross.

Slippertalker,

You make a great point that needs stressed: size can be interpretted as proportion in addition to (and more important than?... you decide) our "beloved" natural spread. Big, leggy flowers are no match for full flowers. I've said it before in someone's thread on Paph roths- watch for segment *width* as well as length. Most folks don't think of multifloral Paphs, for instance, as having "full" flowers, but they most certainly can be full if the dorsal, synsepal, and petals have sufficient width to them.

-Ernie

 

[littlefrog]

Symmetry is a big one for me. I have serious problems getting past an asymmetrical flower regardless of its other qualities. Some flowers aren't ever symmetrical, of course, (mormodes for example) that doesn't bother me. But it really is hard for me to overlook in paphs and phrags.

I don't even measure flowers anymore before I nominate, I decide based on its other qualities. I'll ask for measurements before I score, of course. Color is very important to me, as is form. Floriferousness is a big seller for me too, if I can reasonably expect to see it.

The more I think about it... Beauty in a flower is like beauty in a face. It is really hard to quantify. You know it when you see it. If you have looked at enough orchids, you develop a feel for what is beautiful and what isn't, and your feeling might be different than somebody else's. Same with beautiful faces. The size of the face is irrelevant, in fact, too big and it might be ugly! The judging process is really a divergence from the classical understanding of beauty. We award based on quantifying various characteristics, which we have learned how to do from experience. This leads to some interesting results. Very unattractive flowers may get high awards, just because they are better than the last unattractive flower. It is a pretty fair system, it awards good qualities and has had a great influence on breeding, but it isn't a beauty contest.

 

[rdlsreno]

That is the purpose of Orchid judging is recognize improvements in breeding better orchid species and hybrids. There is always room for improvement. Let us look at the species Paph, rothschildianum. The early awards (FCC) where beautiful then but look at the ones today (FCC) its far better than the old ones. The FCC before may not even be awarded as a HCC. In future, we see wider and flatter dorsal and syn-sepals. Wider petals and darker color even more flowers per stem. Man can never be satisfied he/she will find something to improve.

Ramon

 

[Marco]

Hey Ramon. Welcome to the forum!

 

[Candace]

Yeah, glad you popped in:>

 

[slippertalker]

That is the purpose of Orchid judging is recognize improvements in breeding better orchid species and hybrids. There is always room for improvement. Let us look at the species Paph, rothschildianum. The early awards (FCC) where beautiful then but look at the ones today (FCC) its far better than the old ones. The FCC before may not even be awarded as a HCC. In future, we see wider and flatter dorsal and syn-sepals. Wider petals and darker color even more flowers per stem. Man can never be satisfied he/she will find something to improve.

Ramon

I agree with your comments, but the species "purists" will say that hybridizers are artificially manipulating these plants into something different than nature intended. The same folks that decry selective breeding also purchase the same plants in lieu of poor quality plants similar to many jungle plants, so there is a bit of hypocrisy here.
The point is that breeders and judges have artificial standards that tend to "improve" the plants to their ideal, and the buying public loves them too.

 

[rdlsreno]

I agree with your comments, but the species "purists" will say that hybridizers are artificially manipulating these plants into something different than nature intended. The same folks that decry selective breeding also purchase the same plants in lieu of poor quality plants similar to many jungle plants, so there is a bit of hypocrisy here.
The point is that breeders and judges have artificial standards that tend to "improve" the plants to their ideal, and the buying public loves them too.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Maybe in the future reflexed flowers that are not flat is the standard. I think what the most orchidist likes will be the standard or the norm for beauty and that will be the basis of the criteria.

Ramon