Re: OT: Color standards
- To: i*@egroups.com
- Subject: Re: OT: Color standards
- From: r*@aol.com
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:19:06 EDT
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Spend your money on the things you enjoy…NOT your bills.
Join beMANY! get LOW rates on your long distance TODAY.
Click for details.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6840/0/_/486170/_/968516353/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
Looks like the Ridgeway color standards goes on my list of artifacts. In
practice I find the color standards difficult to use. Of course the iris in
hand never quite matches the samples because the samples, after all, are ink
on paper and not pigments in tissue. So we end up with descriptions which say
between A1l and A2l or redder than R3M etc. The other truth about color was
driven home to me when I started seeing my things growing in gardens in
vastly different climates. Colors tend to be completely different in Oregon
(better than in their home garden, it could be argued) and Texas than they
are here in Sacramento. And of course the color can vary from one year to
another depending on the weather. Another frustration is the Royal
Horticulture Society standard uses numbers and no names for the colors. This
does not result in motivational catalog descriptions.
