Re: TB:Form

Betty and Dana,
 
I've been to a couple of judges training sessions in the past few years, and I too was told that the standards and falls had to be of equal length. Drawn sketches to further illustrate the point were used. As a result - - I look to see if it is balanced and I won't grow the iris if it looks lopsided.  I've noticed that some newer introduction in the past several years more seem to be being introduced. 
 
But, this iris different, it is almost like a "novelty" (if I can use that term), because the standards were about half the length of falls (as I remember) and more of a bubbled-look to the lacy standards. It gave the word "iris" an all new look about it. (At least it did to me) Is it possible this would/or could be considered a "novelty"?
 
Margie V.
Oro Valley, AZ.
Zone 8/9
IrisLady@comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 5:51 AM
Subject: [iris-photos]TB:Form

In a message dated 1/4/2005 12:34:58 A.M. Central Standard Time, IrisLady@comcast.net writes:
the shorter lacy standards seemed to make this one quite different.
This quote is from Margie V's comment about Mid-America #12.  I agree that it is an absolutely gorgeous iris. 
 
Several recent introductions appear to have shorter standards than falls.  I was taught, 20 years ago, that the standards and falls should be of equal length.  A plant was inferior if there was a noticeable difference. 
 
I've quickly scanned my judges training book and can't find this under either balance or form. (garden section) Is there anything in the book about short standards?  Something I'm missing?
 
 
 
Yahoo! Groups Links
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index