And some that have horizontal falls are really wide at the hafts, but never let go enough at the connective point and end up looking more narrow than they would if they made a 'fall' instead of 'daybed' for spiders.

Donald Eaves
Donald@eastland.net
Texas Zone 7b, USA

--- In iris-photos@yahoogroups.com, Linda Mann <lmann@...> wrote:
>
> Definitely.
>
> The impression of width also comes from the angle of the sides of the
> falls at their base (those that are rounded or close to straight look a
> lot wider than those that are even slightly convex), how "flat" the
> falls are when fully open (as opposed to being arched up even the
> slightest bit, which can hide a narrow base), and how ruffled the
> standards are (which can also hide a narrow base).
>
> And smaller flowers aren't as wide as bigger ones ;-)
>
> My rule of thumb for determining width is my thumb. If the space
> between the hafts of adjacent falls is more than a thumb's width, it's
> not an "improvement" of haft width in the lines I'm working with.
>
> I don't actually like really wide (especially overlapping) falls, but
> don't care for the narrow ones, so am usually hunting for breeding
> material to add width, or, like you say, the impression of width.
>
> This one certainly has more than it needs ;-)
>
> <Do you ever find that haft width is deceptive? That is, that the
> impression of some blooms is of having wider hafts than some that
> actually have wider widths? I do, and I think it's caused by how the
> standards sit over the falls.
>
> Donald Eaves
> donald@...>
>