Re: another judging question: rebloomers
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: another judging question: rebloomers
- From: G* S* <g*@loop.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 21:29:38 -0700 (MST)
Tom Tadfor Little wrote:
>
> Here's another one. This has been on my mind for years, and I'd like to
> hear how different judges deal with it.
>
> 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.
In fact, I have heard of Silverado getting 100.
> If there is an otherwise identical iris
> that also reblooms, shouldn't it be given a higher score?
Yes.
>
> I know, of course, that point score is used primarily as a teaching tool.
> But the issue remains: should rebloomers come out better in garden judging
> than once bloomers? by how much? Should we vote the Dykes Medal to a
> reblooming iris that is slightly inferior (in form or branching, say) to
> its once-blooming competitor?
Like maybe a zonal blue iris that tends to fall over? Or a pink
that doesn't grow well in much of the country? Or another pink
(mother of the first) that grows better but whose form some
have called "tailored"? Or a yellow and blue that doesn't grow
well in many places?
All of which rebloom, at least a little????
I think their remontancy has had something to do with their awards.
Gerry, with 5 stalks of Thornbird up (first bloom just open)
--
gcsnyd@loop.com AIS Region 15
Warm, winterless Los Angeles
My work? Helping generate data for http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo
