Re: Re: OT: Color standards
- To:
- Subject: Re: [iris-talk] Re: OT: Color standards
- From: M* D* G*
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:37:34 -0700
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9146/0/_/486170/_/968528493/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
----------
> From: rainacre@aol.com
> To: iris-talk@egroups.com
> Subject: [iris-talk] Re: OT: Color standards
> Date: Saturday, September 09, 2000 9:19 AM
>
> 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.
As a printer by trade, color standards are only good for 2 years at the
most. The color will fade (whatever kind of ink used) after that making
them useless. Light on them will only speed up the fading. And the cost is
very high $100 +.
Mike Greenfield
redear@infinet.com
SW Ohio Zone 5b
