Re: Cult: hafts
- Subject: [PHOTO] Re: [iris-photos] Cult: hafts
- From: "jgcrump" j*@erols.com
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:24:29 -0400
Laurie -- I think it's
undeniable that some flowers look very nice without haft
marks. I think the progression has been from with-haft-marks to
without-haft-marks, so, falls without haft marks represent an
"improvement". We're all for improvements, aren't we? Especially if
we are judges. So, cultivars without hafts become the "in" thing, and
hafts become "bad". At least, that's my theory on how we got to
where we are. It's sort of like the fashion world. Yesterday's
knockout is today's old hat. But beauty is beauty, as far as I am
concerned, and if haft marks contribute to the beauty of a flower, they are
welcome. One of our great musicians (Lionel Hampton? Duke Ellington? )
said it best: "If it sounds good, it is good." So, if it looks good,
it is good. -- Griff
zone 7 in Virginia
|
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cult: hafts
- From: L* F*
- From: L* F*
- Re: Cult: hafts
- References:
- RE: Cult: hafts
- From: L* F*
- From: L* F*
- RE: Cult: hafts
- Prev by Date: RE: Cult: hafts
- Next by Date: Re: Cult: hafts
- Previous by thread: RE: Cult: hafts
- Next by thread: Re: Cult: hafts