Re: AIS Awards (Clarence's suggestions)
Tom Tadfor Little wrote:
>
> :There is a strong sentiment for "fixing" the situation where at present there
> :is only one tall bearded iris, i.e. the latest Wister Medal winner, on the
> :Dykes candidate list.
>
> Yes. I think it would be proper to have all AM winners in all classes
> eligible for the Dykes after a uniform waiting period. The Dykes winner
> would automatically also receive the special medal for its class.
>
It would be interesting to see the results of this. Off hand, with the
current
percentage basis for HMs and AMs, it would seem to penalize TBs simply
because
there are so many introduced. It might end up being unfair the other
way. ;-)
> :I have two issues I think should also be considered. One is to put bearded
> :irises on the same "time" rules as beardless irises, i.e. at present
> :beardless irises cannot be considered for an HM until the 3d year after
> :introduction...but bearded irises can be considered for an HM the 2d year
> :after introduction. I think 2 years does not give enough time to properly
> :evaluate in different geographic areas and climates.
>
> Yes, the waiting period sould be uniform, and the longer the better (within
> reason). We're so obsessed with novelty that we forget we are making a
> recommendation to the gardening world that endures for decades. We can
> afford to wait an extra year to be sure we're making the right decision.
>
But the reason for the current timing difference is valid: the bearded
ones
(tend to) get into circulation faster.
> :
> :A second issue is the number of votes judges may cast in various categories.
> : In areas where there are lots of introductions, e.g. tall bearded, standard
> :dwarf beard, it has come to be next to ridiculous. We judges should not have
> :85 votes to cast for TBs for an Honorable Mention award in my opinion! I
> :think this situation acts to demean the award system.
> :
> I'd say the cheapening comes from the total number actually awarded,
> rather than the number of votes each judge is allowed to cast. I guess
> I feel that an appropriate number of HMs is something less than 5% of
> the total introductions in a year. I'm not sure where this number would
> fall these days. Anyone with figures handy who can help out?
>
I don't understand the question. 10% of intros win HM; 10% of HMs win
AM.
Did I miss something???
> :Another issue, but one I do not feel quite as strong about, is the name of
> :the HM award....
>
> I like Lloyd's "Highly Recommended".
The only thing that bothers me about the names is that in HM, AM, and DM
the "M" has three different meanings.
Gerry (gcsnyd@loop.com) a novice judge trying to be a good one
