hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Cult: hafts

  • Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Cult: hafts
  • From: Autmirislvr@aol.com
  • Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:40:27 EDT

In a message dated 6/6/2005 9:27:55 P.M. Central Standard Time, jgcrump@erols.com writes:
Especially if we are judges.  So, cultivars without hafts become the "in" thing, and hafts become "bad". 
Griff, lack of haft marks must be retro!  
 
When I started, hafts were NOT desirable. The idea was to produce selfs with little or no haft marks!  I was told (honest) not to use plicatas with selfs because they would give ugly busy hafts. 
 
Then Joe Ghio introduced NOTORIOUS and hafts were "in" again! 
 
As in other styles, if you wait it will all come back. 
 
Though in all honesty, I don't think we are talking about the same critter.  The hafts of olden days were the dark lines at the shoulders that gave discord to the overall beauty of the bloom.  Anything extending beyond the beard isn't really on the "hafts!"  (??)
 


Yahoo! Groups Links



Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index



 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement