Re: another judging question: rebloomers
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: another judging question: rebloomers
- From: m*@tricities.net (Mike Lowe)
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 15:03:40 -0700 (MST)
Tom asks...
>Garden judging criteria are based on the presumption that irises bloom
>once, during the spring. Although it is possible to reward an iris for
>reblooming by rating it high of floriferousness, gardenability, or period
>of bloom, an iris does not need to rebloom in order to satisfy the
>published criteria in these areas. In other words, a "perfect" once-bloomer
>could score 100 on point scoring. If there is an otherwise identical iris
>that also reblooms, shouldn't it be given a higher score?
Just as in ski jumping, figure skating, dressage, etc.; in iris judging
something should always be held in reserve. An almost perfect iris
cultivar, IF point judged, should score in the 90's.
The judge who gives a cultivar in this row a perfect 100% may well find a
cultivar two rows, two gardens, two states or two countries over, that
would merit an impossible 110%. (We will disregard our sports heroes who
always "give a hundred and ten percent!")
To delve into the past, on the first AIS Judges' Symposium in 1923, the
judges were admonished "to keep a 'perfect' score for a cultivar seen this
year down in the 'middle nines' (out of 10.0) as they very well might
expect to see better plants next year." Good advice for present day judges!
If remontancy in iris is the path to the future, judges must reward it.
This implies that a judge would rate a cultivar lacking rebloom as
deficient in floriferousness, gardenability, and period of bloom. There is
a steadily growing belief in, and acceptance of, iris that rebloom. Stay
tuned for the next _Handbook for Judges and Show officials_
Mike Lowe 'playing hooky' from an "almost ready for the halftones" ROOTS.
