Re: JI Symposium - Stop burning the red-heads.
- To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: JI Symposium - Stop burning the red-heads.
- From: Irisborer@aol.com
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:16:53 -0600 (MDT)
In a message dated 97-10-16 17:18:17 EDT, you write:
>I am facinated, as I am sure Dennis Hager will be, by her remarks that
>we are "about 100 years younger than I expected". I just wonder what
>she had as an image!
Well.... when a person pontificates, one begins to think the 'pontiff' is on
the other end <VBG>. Seriously... you can't help but get an image of a
person when you listen to them day after day - whether it be radio or
newspaper or (these days) computer. I just pictured you and Dennis as -
ummmmmmm. Nope, won't go there. Let's just say I was astonished...
BUT... to the matter at hand. Judging.
After N.C., I concluded that the system
>lacked intellectual structure and that there were few standards by which
>to judge a flower. There is a a wide latitude given to personal opinion
>and this was confirmed by John Coble when he said that any three judges
>might select winners at a show but that another three judges at the same
>show might select entirely different winners.
I disagree that the judging system lacks intellectual structure. If you read
the judges manual you can see that there is very definate structure to
judging an iris.... but I think what John Coble was trying to express is that
by it's very nature, this can't be an exact science... but somewhere between
science and art. On the show bench, it's cut and dried... the plant either
does or does not display the character of that plant - and is undamaged and
fresh. Not rocket science at all. You have a standard against which to
judge the plant. Remember, you're not judging the plant for appeal, but how
it matches the standard set by the plant itself. In SEEDLINGS is where the
question of the plant's worthiness is judged - and of course, this can be
subjective since it's folks like you and me doing the judging.
>international ice dancing where the dancers know their final rank before
>they go on the ice (bribery plays a large part) and the only issue is
>whether they fall during their performances.
The equivalent of a petal tear on the show bench.
>At Burlington, we saw JI photos of what I can only call "unmade bed
>irises". No formal structure, no symmetry, just a mass of petals and
>deformed standards, etc. What are the rules to judge such a mess?
Ian... relax. This is the exciting part. We don't HAVE to count 3 petals
up, 3 petals down. The lovely thing about Japanese Irises (and Siberian
irises... and daylilies for that matter), is that we are still exploring the
breadth of the gene pool. Doubles don't thrill me, but I think I could put
that aside and judge one that had good substance, a regular and pleasing
bloom, branching and clean, upright foliage. The same way an a judge at an
art show can judge a still life done in the classical method, impressionistic
and abstract. They may not all please the judge personally, but she should
be able to judge them.
>John raised a more disturbing issue. He said that some JI plants can
>produce two distinct forms of flower from the same plant. One is
>exactly as defined in the registration and the other is a colour sport
>that can be very different. He said that a judge should know this and
>reject the sport as it is unacceptable. I had to leave for the airport
>at this point - which may have been a good thing! If that flower is
>perfect in every way except that it does not have the colour or colour
>pattern described in the registration, why would it be rejected?
The reason is simple... because in order to HAVE a standard for a plant,
there is a registration process. So, if a plant is registered as white with
purple speckling... and it throws a sport that is pure purple... well, then
that's a sport and not the plant as registered! To accept any less would be
chaos and would leave the registration process meaningless. I wonder if the
sport can be considered in the seedling class... and I guess it could,
whereby it would be judged for it's own merits. But on the show bench, we
are judging against a standard - and a sport would not fit the standard.
>is with the judging or the registration not the flower itself. Let us
>accept the facts and change the judging and registration description to
>be more accurate and scientific.
And how would we know which plants are biologically identical (but sports)
and which are total frauds?
So... I hope I explained and I hope I made sense. I know what I'm trying to
say, anyway - but whether that comes across is another thing entirely. What
I'm REALLY doing is avoiding ironing sheets for the speaker who will be
staying here tomorrow!
Kathyguest.... shifting to daylily mode.
In E. Aurora, NY with a big old moon smiling down... and where the speaker
who will be here tomorrow will be talking about a new class in daylilies that
he's promoting.... the EXOTIC form! Interesting