Gloria Naugle 'Crimson Beauty' 89.4 AM/AOS

[paphioland]

All I can say in congratualtions and sorry you got robed. It is a great plant that any one of us would be happy to own. You and I both know it is a great example of that cross.

Thanks Bob.

 

[neo-guy]

They need a system similar to judging in the olympics where the highest and lowest scores are removed thereby minimising the impact an individual judge can have on the overall score.

David

Please note that within the AOS judging system there is a rule that if there is more than a 6 point spread between scores, the score sheets must be passed back to the judges to be rescored. If the team does not resolve the variance, the plant then goes to another judging team. The judging handbook also states that if there a one score that is unduly out of line with the other scores, that judge may reconsider their score.

It is unfortunate that the score ended up at 89.4. If there truly was a point score variance, it would have only required one judge to increase their score by one point to round up to 90 points.

It does happen though....
Pete

 

[paphioland]

Please note that within the AOS judging system there is a rule that if there is more than a 6 point spread between scores, the score sheets must be passed back to the judges to be rescored. If the team does not resolve the variance, the plant then goes to another judging team. The judging handbook also states that if there a one score that is unduly out of line with the other scores, that judge may reconsider their score.

It is unfortunate that the score ended up at 89.4. If there truly was a point score variance, it would have only required one judge to increase their score by one point to round up to 90 points.

It does happen though....
Pete

I wasn't there but this is what I was told. It was low scored by one judge significantly. Then he was given the option to rescore. He made his score so that it got and 89.4 so that it would not be an fcc because he felt that pouch was too big.

Yeah it happens but if true it was a poor job done by that judge. The plant is obviously an fcc based on past standards of awards.

 

[slippertalker]

Please note that within the AOS judging system there is a rule that if there is more than a 6 point spread between scores, the score sheets must be passed back to the judges to be rescored. If the team does not resolve the variance, the plant then goes to another judging team. The judging handbook also states that if there a one score that is unduly out of line with the other scores, that judge may reconsider their score.

It is unfortunate that the score ended up at 89.4. If there truly was a point score variance, it would have only required one judge to increase their score by one point to round up to 90 points.

It does happen though....
Pete

What you say is true........There can only be a 6 point spread, so if this guy gave it an 85 and others scored 92 it would be out of range. I've seen cases like this where one judge was out of range, its was rescored and several judges actually increased their scores. An FCC does require a leap of faith since it approaches perfection which is entirely subjective. Something like this is generally discussed prior to scoring so a consensus can be built.

 

[Scooby5757]

It was a beautiful plant. There was a lot of discussion, and I know my heart broke a little when the score was read.

Thank you for letting your friend bring it. It was a pleasure to see, and who knows, maybe now that some of the judges have seen it, they'll think back to this Gloria Naugle when they see the next. I doubt anyone will forget it.

:clap:

 

[John M]

I thought about that rule where a point spread can't be more than 6 points; but, just assumed that the rule had changed. So, how'd this situation come to pass if the 6 point rule is still in place?

Also, I like the idea of the highest and lowest point score being dropped. If that had happened in this case, the guy with the grudge couldn't have messed up anything and the plant would've got the WELL DESERVED FCC. In my case with the Dominianum, the guy with a grudge against me wouldn't have been able to stop my plant from being awarded. It may not make the judging process perfect; but, it is a vast improvement over the way things are now.

 

[paphioland]

What you say is true........There can only be a 6 point spread, so if this guy gave it an 85 and others scored 92 it would be out of range. I've seen cases like this where one judge was out of range, its was rescored and several judges actually increased their scores. An FCC does require a leap of faith since it approaches perfection which is entirely subjective. Something like this is generally discussed prior to scoring so a consensus can be built.

It doesn't have to approach perfection it is based on the standard for the species or hybrid established by precedent.

 

[paphioland]

I thought about that rule where a point spread can't be more than 6 points; but, just assumed that the rule had changed. So, how'd this situation come to pass if the 6 point rule is still in place?

Also, I like the idea of the highest and lowest point score being dropped. If that had happened in this case, the guy with the grudge couldn't have messed up anything and the plant would've got the WELL DESERVED FCC. In my case with the Dominianum, the guy with a grudge against me wouldn't have been able to stop my plant from being awarded. It may not make the judging process perfect; but, it is a vast improvement over the way things are now.

I wasn't there. What I heard is that the score was very low, rumored 85 or below. So he was given the chance to rescore. I believe he rescored the plant to get to 89.4 but not over and would not budge based on the pouch or a grudge. I don't know. Was someone here there? Or really know what happened. I only know from the friend who took it and someone else who was there.

 

[paphioland]

It was a beautiful plant. There was a lot of discussion, and I know my heart broke a little when the score was read.

Thank you for letting your friend bring it. It was a pleasure to see, and who knows, maybe now that some of the judges have seen it, they'll think back to this Gloria Naugle when they see the next. I doubt anyone will forget it.

:clap:

Thanks. Were you there?

multiple judges I know thought it was an FCC.

 

[WolfDog1 (C. Williams)]

Looks to be a fine example of Paph Gloria Naugle that received a very nice AM from the AOS.

Congratulations


Craig

 

[slippertalker]

It doesn't have to approach perfection it is based on the standard for the species or hybrid established by precedent.

An FCC approaches perfection on the score sheet based on the background of the cross. Of course, perfection is a very subjective concept. They are by definition the best of the best.

The scale is always changing based on improvements in hybridizing, therefore an FCC in 1990 is almost always surpassed by an FCC in 2009. Most plants from 50 years ago won't get a second look with some notable exceptions.

I find it interesting that people always seek nefarious motives in judging. I have never seen such personal bias, if there is a bias it is more that some judges prefer certain genera to others and score accordingly, or they are by nature conservative or liberal with their scoring.

 

[NYEric]

Without being there it really is hard to say what is FCC material from a photo.

That being said, it looks terrible! I'll PM you my address and you can sent it to me! oke:

Congrats on the award and sorry the clown got the better of your effort.

 

[Scott Ware]

I find it interesting that people always seek nefarious motives in judging. I have never seen such personal bias, if there is a bias it is more that some judges prefer certain genera to others and score accordingly, or they are by nature conservative or liberal with their scoring.

That's the way I've always seen it too. I can't recall ever seeing an actual case of malicious scoring to prevent someone from getting an award. I suppose it could happen, but AOS judges work too hard for their accreditation and they are expected to uphold a standard of ethics. I don't know if there is a disciplinary system in place or not, but if there is, I would think the aspect of losing everything they worked years to achieve would serve as strong motivation not to violate those ethics. The old saying comes to mind, "Never ascribe to malice, that which can easily be attributed to incompetence." And while I am not ready to pronounce incompetence in the case of orchid judging, as nobody would be more incompetent than I, it seems reasonable to assume that each judge may be influenced by their own personal preferences. We are human after all, and while a set of standards and guidelines exists, judging flowers is ultimately subjective.

Several years ago I had been nurturing a group of seedlings from (what I considered) a very fine paph species outcross I had made. After hours of careful packing, a long drive and a speeding ticket, I barely got the 14 plants to the judging center on time. Optimist that I was, I was holding on to the delusion that I might walk away with an AQ. Then I overheard one of the judges on the team groan to his colleagues in a tone reminiscent of Eeyore, "I hate Paphs." Now he didn't know who I was at all. But it was clear that he wasn't a paph fan and I suspect that is why his score sheets were consistently the lowest among the three nominated cultivars in the group.

It didn't take another plant to judging for about 16 years but finally dragged one down there a couple months ago and was pleasantly surprised to come home with an award. Oddly enough - I think I recognized that same old turd of misery from 16 years ago sitting off to the side. His comments were still negative and not constructive - he hadn't changed his tune at all. So he is, if nothing else, consistent!

 

[Wendy]

Of all the times I have attended at our judging centre I must say I have never seen anything 'off colour'. I will admit that I always hope for certain judges when my plant is up for judging....not all of them like Paphs...but they do seem to be fair. I am always invited to sit in on judging and am even allowed to score plants along with them...although my vote sheet doesn't count. It is fun to see how I point the plants compared to the real judges and is very educational. They alway take time to explain things to me too which makes it a real learning experience. :clap:
I am hoping to join the judging program this winter, maybe spring.

 

[toddybear]

It's a stunning bloom regardless to what the so-called experts say.

 

[Elena]

Ouch, it's a shame the flower wasn't properly scored whatever the reason. Still, congrats on this beauty. I, for one, cannot wait to see the updated photo with two flowers. Bet it's a show stopper.

 

[fcabarle]

The AOS should have sanctions for judges that are truly '
out of line'.

 

[slippertalker]

There are very specific provisions in the AOS Handbook for judges that are ethically challenged. Ethics are commonly discussed and even a hint of a question of impartiality or personal bias is firmly discouraged.

Having a different opinion is very different than being a bad apple. In the case that Scott mentioned, that judge isn't unethical, he's just cantankerous, obstinate and difficult to move from his position. Fortunately that is pretty unusual for a judge since judging is a teamwork consensus. That same judge questioned my Phrag besseae that received an AM because he considered it a "lateral award" even though it was larger in most respects than all but one prior award. Others on the team scored it high enough to offset his reluctance.

 

[orcoholic]

I saw this paph before the judging. It was stunning. So clearly the best Gloria Naugle that to not give it an FCC was a crime.

I didn't see the actual judging, but if there was a 7 point difference and the 85 wouldn't come up, then the 92's must have come down, or it would have gone to a small group of judges to decide the final score. I'm not sure if that's how all judging centers do it, but this one does.

Anyway, take it to another center next year and get the 90++++ it deserves.

Where and when did you get it? How are you growing it? It was truly spectacular. I've seen a lot of these and none has even approached it.

Mike

 

[paphioland]

I saw this paph before the judging. It was stunning. So clearly the best Gloria Naugle that to not give it an FCC was a crime.

I didn't see the actual judging, but if there was a 7 point difference and the 85 wouldn't come up, then the 92's must have come down, or it would have gone to a small group of judges to decide the final score. I'm not sure if that's how all judging centers do it, but this one does.

Anyway, take it to another center next year and get the 90++++ it deserves.

Where and when did you get it? How are you growing it? It was truly spectacular. I've seen a lot of these and none has even approached it.

Mike

Thanks Mike. It was definitely a crime. I agree it may just be the best. Who cares if it is not it is the best the AOS has ever seen and the hybrid has been around for some time. To not give it an FCC is crazy. I can guarantee no judge there has ever seen a better one.

I think he may have come up on the 85 to make sure it got exactly an 89.4. At least that is what I am told. Not to give this flower an FCC was absurd based on the previous awards and the average gloria naugle. Not only did this one have great color, substance and form, it is huge!

In the write up there is a sentence about the pouch being large with a but before it like this was a negative-this is from the comments of the paph challenged judge. Duh the whole flower is large. Larger in every dimension than any ever awarded, including the pouch. I am sorry the judge who said the pouch is large is a moron when it comes to paphs and its hybrids. He has obviously never seen a micranthum. A large pink pouch is desirable in micranthum and its hybrids.