Paph (Whitemoor x Ravenhunter)'SPL Orchid Loft'

[Ross]

I got this division from an AOS Judge who told me it had been provisionally awarded an AM quite a few years ago pending registration of the cross. The hybridizer declined to register the cross, so the award was never registered, either. Still a nice flower. The pouch is twisted slightly on this blooming.

 

[Candace]

Nice coloration.

 

[Roy]

Niiiiiiice!!! Well worth an award. Shame it was never ratified. It would have been nice to see a complex Paph given an AOS award that was worth it.

 

[Ross]

Niiiiiiice!!! Well worth an award. Shame it was never ratified. It would have been nice to see a complex Paph given an AOS award that was worth it.

Roy, several times you have made derisive comments about AOS awards. Upon what observations do you come to the conclusion that the AOS awards inferior plants? Do you subscribe to "Awards Quarterly" (which is now sent out as an update to the AQ Plus computer program)? Most of the awarded plants that I have posted pictures of have been from plants awarded 30-50 years ago. They do not represent the current state of complex breeding.

 

[toddybear]

Very round!

 

[slippertalker]

It is interesting that the hybridizer refused to register the cross. Of course, the owner of the plant could have asked the hybridizer if he (owner) could register the cross. In doing so, he could have his name on the cross and the award....
The flower has a nice oval shape and as you say the pouch is a bit skewed. The most distracting thing about the flower is the transparent etchings on the dorsal and ventral sepals. Does it always bloom this way? The ruffling isn't a negative in my opinion and it adds some character.

 

[Ross]

It is interesting that the hybridizer refused to register the cross. Of course, the owner of the plant could have asked the hybridizer if he (owner) could register the cross. In doing so, he could have his name on the cross and the award....
The flower has a nice oval shape and as you say the pouch is a bit skewed. The most distracting thing about the flower is the transparent etchings on the dorsal and ventral sepals. Does it always bloom this way? The ruffling isn't a negative in my opinion and it adds some character.

This may not be right, but I believe that the hybridizer was also the owner of the plant at the time it was awarded.

After struggling with this plant for 6 years, I finally have it headed in the right direction. This is the first time it has bloomed for me.

 

[NYEric]

Upon what observations do you come to the conclusion that the AOS awards inferior plants?

Did I miss something in this thread?

 

[Ross]

Did I miss something in this thread?

Reread Roy's quote. I was mainly asking Roy if he had seen pictures of the AOS' recently awarded complex Paphs or if he is basing his opinion on those that I and others have posted here, which are several generations removed from the current crop of complex Paphs being awarded. While many of the awarded complexes I've shown are nice flowers even today, they may not be award quality under today's standards.

 

[Greenpaph]

Ross,

Fantastic!

I really love the presentation of the petals!

:drool:

 

[Roy]

Roy, several times you have made derisive comments about AOS awards. Upon what observations do you come to the conclusion that the AOS awards inferior plants? Do you subscribe to "Awards Quarterly" (which is now sent out as an update to the AQ Plus computer program)? Most of the awarded plants that I have posted pictures of have been from plants awarded 30-50 years ago. They do not represent the current state of complex breeding.

I have approx' 30 years worth of Awards Quarterly here and it is very interesting try and understand the criteria set down for AOS Judges and the results pictured in AQ. There are some Orchids that clearly pick themselves as awardable orchids, yet the very next picture shows a plant ( same genara and style ) with the same or higher award that is clearly inferior to the other. Any grower with a knowledge for quality can/could see the variation. Example, AQ March 2007, page 31, P. Buena Bay 'Maha' HCC, Pg 44, Jamboree Knight 'Mojave' HCC & Irish Lullaby ' Crystelle' HCC, Pg 51, Silent Knight ' Crystelle" AM & Pg 52, Silent Knight 'Krull-Smith' AM. The first & last Paph if presented here would rejected quick smart, the Irish Lullaby would be discussed & may get a HCC, the Jamboree Knight & Silent Knight 'Crystelle' are only just awardable in my opinion as an AOC Judge. The application of consistancy and application of Judging standards is extremely varied. Compare the 3 HCC's with each other & the 2 AM's together, its like chalk & cheese. Remember as I/we have to do, personal preference must be forgotten. The Judges here are not immune from this problem either BTW.

 

[Roy]

Reread Roy's quote. I was mainly asking Roy if he had seen pictures of the AOS' recently awarded complex Paphs or if he is basing his opinion on those that I and others have posted here, which are several generations removed from the current crop of complex Paphs being awarded. While many of the awarded complexes I've shown are nice flowers even today, they may not be award quality under today's standards.

Some of the Paphs, particularly this one, in particular, would in my opinion still be worthy of an award. Take the plant you show here, its Round, has good petal positioning, size & shape, the ventral is near exact giving a great back drop to the pouch, the color and balance of the flower is fair to good. The stem length appears to be reasonable, size ??
If you look at 'current breeding trends' many of these features are few. I suggest putting this orchid up against much 'current stuff' would win hands down. I think the AOS awards are fair across the board with most genera but when it comes to Paphs, Catts & Cyms there seems to a great lack of consistancy in recognising quality or cross referencing to previous awards to see what is up for consideration is equal to or better than those. Its no different here.

 

[Ross]

Thank you for the excellent explanation of your position, Roy. So what you are saying is that the award standards are too low and there is a lack of consistency in applying those standards. Is this correct?

Are there any judges, AOS or otherwise that would like to discuss Roy's points?

 

[Roy]

Thank you for the excellent explanation of your position, Roy. So what you are saying is that the award standards are too low and there is a lack of consistency in applying those standards. Is this correct?

Partially correct, what I am saying is that the standards are most likely adequate or better but the implementation or understanding of them falls down badly with "some" judges +/or panels. It may be that these judges don't see enough of a particular genus to assess it properly and don't research the available AOS records for guidance. Maybe they just want to give an award.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not critical of the system, its just that these ( as mentioned in a previous post ) inferior orchids being awarded tend to lessen the value of the quality blooms.

 

[Bob Wellenstein]

Ross, the clonal name SPL would indicate that your plant was presented to judging by Herb Schiffer, who would have aquired it from Stan (sorry memory is not working for last name) who had the orchid loft collection. Stan left the "hobby" at least thirty years ago, so it's not surprising it wasn't registered.

Roy, I would think you would be wary of judging flowers from pictures, I've seen FCCs made look like trash by bad photographers, and garbage plants made look great by those in the know. Award photography in the US was very spotty (most of ours were photographed by a man who confessed to me he couldn't see anymore!). Beyond that, yes there is going to be a lot of variation, it has gotten so bad in our current days of fear of litigation (ie you can't reject a student) that the whole system is or already has become pretty irrelevant, and it won't change soon.

 

[slippertalker]

I agree with Bob, photos don't always tell the whole story. Lighting, camera angle, backdrop, etc can all affect the picture drastically and accent various features of the flower positively or negatively.

Regarding judging of such flowers, the ability of the team involved will always range depending on the judges strengths and weaknesses. As a judge, while I agree with many awards that are, like you say, pretty obvious there are others that are a bit more marginal. Flowers in the low HCC range are of particular concern and also flowers at the cusp of AM/FCC are limited due to reticience to stick your neck out.

No matter what judges determine, there are always people that feel they were wronged or overlooked in some manner. I, for one, am a bit more selective and refuse to award mediocrity but everyone has an opinion and it's a team affair. It is amazing how often people are surprised that their plant was not awarded even when it was nominated and reviewed for awards.

Databases like AQPlus and OrchidWiz have made it quite simple to check prior award information, but nothing compares to experience and seeing a lot of flowers, following breeding trends, and having the curiosity to constantly educate yourself.

 

[Roy]

Bob, I don't disagree with what you say about the pictures. I look at AQ as do judges around the world for referencing on orchids. AQ, is basically the only means we have of viewing your awards and by that evaluate the merrits of some orchids that may be new to us. If the photo +/or judging is flawed, it reflects badly on the whole system which is not good for anyone. This rule applies here to. Isn't the AOS in a position to re-enforce the rules of photography or appoint a qualified person to do it.?

 

[Ross]

Bob W., thank you for the information on the plant. Roy and everyone else, please continue the discussion, I find it very interesting.

How can regional differences in judging centers be accounted for? I know that Frank Smith is an excellent hybridizer and is probably a great person, but lately the Paph section of Awards Quarterly looks more like a Krull-Smith catalog. Is Mr. Smith really that far ahead of other hybrizers or is the judging of Paphs a little different there?

 

[Roy]

Paphreek, you know how to ask the big question!!! Maybe you've hit the nail on the head with the judging, maybe the quality OR The orchids he is presenting are " The flavour of the Month" OR it would be interesting to research awards given by various panels and check whether similar trends occur there with various exhibitors. I believe that if you have a particular standing with some judges, awards are not uncommon & the reverse.

 

[Roy]

Databases like AQPlus and OrchidWiz have made it quite simple to check prior award information, but nothing compares to experience and seeing a lot of flowers, following breeding trends, and having the curiosity to constantly educate yourself.[/QUOTE]

This is a very correct statement. The one thing that I find difficult is "Breeding Trends". I am of the opinion is that Judges are too quick to award "new" types of flower forms from seedlings. Unless a flower is presented with exceptional qualities ie diplaying in the judges opinion, the finest qualities of the parents and can exhibit a prime example of what could be expected from the cross, all awards should be provisional, 'benchmarks' until a specific number from the cross are exhibited to gain a broad knowledge of what the average flower will be like.
I am a firm believer that breeding trends should NOT influence judging, nor judging influence breeding. As you said Bob, education into what is being produced and recognising the best by knowledge of the parents will result in good awards being given, not awards because its different.