Questions & Answers on Orchid Judging and Shows

[kmarch]

Some good questions were raised in another thread about judging orchids, what judges look for and who sets the criteria for judging. These were good questions and some bay be interested in or benefit from some answers and discussion so rather than go off topic on that thread I'm posting the questions and answers in this new thread.

Originally Posted by PhalPal

'Judging' in any capacity comes down to what is trendy or seen as the challenge of the times. (i.e. clear yellow phals, the elusive black orchid) . . . A Golden will never win BOS because they are considered too 'common'. Me, I'm sticking with my Goldens and phals and it doesn't bother me how common they may be!

I'll address the last part first. While I am keen on judging and showing orchids, I will be the first to agree and preach the message that we should all grow the orchids we love and that do well in the conditions we can provide. For some folks this happens to be orchids for showing. In my view it's like steak vs seafood. Some love one, some love the other and there's no "better" or "worse," just "different." Maybe a better analogy is horseback riding. Some folks have just a couple of horses for their own pleasure riding, some have a business with lots of horses for riding where folks come and take them out for a day, and some folks are after the triple crown. And it's all good.

I've been asked by folks in orchid clubs and at shows if the commonly found orchids are judged harder or if judges don't like them because they are common. Maybe judges like the unusual things better?

It might be helpful to clarify what we mean by commonly found or commonly seen orchids. One possibility is mericlones. A good example of this is Guaritonia Why Not 'Roundabout' (formerly Cattleytonia Why Not 'Roundabout'). It received an Award of Merit (a flower quality award) of 80 points from the AOS (AM/AOS) back in 1982 and someone thought it had qualities that would make is sell well on the mass market so it was extensively cloned. All of us who have 'Roundabout' in our collections most likely have a clone of this plant (possibly a division of the original but that would be rare). Judges see lots and lots of these at shows and because they are clones of the original, they carry the same award designation as the original plant. In the AOS, in order for a flower that has already received a flower quality award to receive another award, it must be an award higher than the one it already has (keep in mind we're talking only flower quality awards here). So if any Why Not 'Roundabout' were to receive another flower quality award it would have to be an FCC (90-100points). This is a big feat to accomplish and rarely happens. I think only once in my years in the AOS program did I ever see an upgrade in a flower quality award and it was from an HCC (75-79 points) to an AM (80-89 points). In that instance I think it's original award was 78 and its upgrade was 82. Because all of the 'Roundabouts' are clones, judges are effectively seeing the exact same plant over and over again.

Now to look at the first part of the post about judging being all about what is trendy or challenging. If current breeding interests are considered "trendy" then judges are certainly always dealing with what's trendy because they are constantly seeing new hybrids. But being new or trendy does not automatically make a plant more likely to be awarded. Actually to the contrary, flowers resulting from a new trend in hybridizing are often passed over for flower quality awards because the "bugs" have not yet been worked out. A good example of this is the Harlequin Phals. Many of the first generation harlequins were passed over for flower quality awards because their forms were not awardable forms. Now we're into our 3rd, 4th generation of harlequin breeding and the flower forms are to the point where the flowers can be awarded. This illustrates the point that judges have certain qualities they look for when judging for flower quality and that some trendy breeds have those qualities while others do not.

The question of whether an orchid is a challenge to grow is not a factor in judging for flower quality. It is considered when judging for a cultural award, but judging for culture is more concerned with how well the plant is grown and flowered. Even if a plant is extremely difficult to grow in cultivation it still must be well grown and flowered in order to be considered for a cultural award.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by janet_a

...who gets to set the criteria of what's awardable in an orchid?

Good question. Award criteria are set by the award agency which is different in different countrys or sometimes even within one country.

In Australia - the Australian Orchid Council (AOC)
In the US - The American Orchid Society (AOS)
In the UK - The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS)
In Japan - the Japan Orchid Council (JOC)
Internationally - The Cymbidium Society of America (CSA) - judges and awards only Cymbidiums.

Each of these award agencies has a panel the establishes and reviews judging criteria periodically or as deemed necessary. The criteria can differ widely between the different awarding agencies.

Originally Posted by janet_a

...is bigger always better?

I'm not crazy about the term "better" because folks seem to take that word quite personally. They get the impression that an awarded plant is "better" or "worth having" and by the same token then that judges are telling them the plant they have in their own collection which is not awarded is therefore "not as good" and/or 'not worth having." I personally do not believe those paradigms are useful or constructive so I try to avoid them. I would prefer to use the term "awardable." When judging, judges (including myself) do use terms like "better" but what we specifically mean is "more awardable" not better in the universal sense. So with that in mind, I'd rephrase the question to read:

...is bigger always more awardable?

No, bigger is not always more awardable. In the AOS system only 10 points out of 100 is allotted to flower size for flower quality awards. You could have a huge flower that receives 10 out of 10 for size but fails to receive enough points in other areas to reach an awardable score. Flower size is not considered when judging for a cultural award.

Originally Posted by janet_a

...it seems to me (and i speak only from looking at pictures of awarded plants) that judges are looking for more and larger flowers all the time. does that mean the plant itself is better?

Again, no. More and larger flowers are not necessarily or automatically more awardable. "Floriferousness" is the term we use to describe how well flowered a plant is. In flower quality judging, only 10 points out of 100 are allotted for floriferousness so just as with flower size, you could have an extreemly floriferous plant and yet still fail to reach an awardable score. I've seen dozens of very large plants covered in flowers that are passed by for flower quality awards.

With cultural awards it is different. 30 points out of 100 are allotted for floriferousness. One of the reasons for this is that it usually takes a healthy, well grown plant to produce lots and lots of flowers, so a well-flowered plant is a sign of good culture.

Sometimes you will see a plant that has an unusually high number of flowers per inflorescence. I was once on a team that judged a Leptotes bicolor. It seemed to have a lot more flowers than usual. We looked at a published botanical description of the plant which indicated (if I remember correctly) that the plant typically bore 3-5 flowers per inflorescence. This one had 5-7 flowers per inflorescence. s I recall we gave it a JC (Judges Commendation - given for a distinctive characteristic of importance) for an unusuially high flower count. Instances like these are quite rare though.

Originally Posted by janet_a

...are those plants stronger, hardier, longer-lived?

With regard to cultural awards where 50% of the score is given for the size and cndition of the plant, an awardable plant must be in excellent health. Certainly strong, hardy plants produce better both in terms of quantity and quality. Eventhough there are no points allotted for plant condition in judging flower quality, in the AOS system, the plant must still be in good health and must be free from disease and/or bugs to qualify for an award.

Originally Posted by janet_a

or is the criteria "more and bigger flowers, right now when the judge is looking at it"?

Judges in both the AOS system and AOC system are asked to judge the plant as it stands before them at the time of judging. I would imagine it is the same with other systems as well.

[janet_a]

Award criteria are set by the award agency which is different in different countrys or sometimes even within one country.

-head hurts-

any movement afoot to standarize things internationally?

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by janet_a

-head hurts- any movement afoot to standarize things internationally?

Hopefully your headache will go away soon.

To my knowledge there is currently no movement afoot to standardize judging criteria internationally. Given that the countries/regions served by different agencies have quite different ideas about what is awardable and that these regions are largely working with their own agencies on their own standards i doubt that any international standards will come to fruition in my life time.

Here's an example of fundamental differences between the AOC and AOS systems that would have to be overcome if there were to be an international standard: In the AOC many judges consider peloricism to be a deformity, even peloricism that occurs naturally in species. For this reason very few peloric orchids are awarded in the AOC. In the AOS system peloricism is viewed as a variation in form, not as an undesirable deformity so peloric flowers have just as good a chance as any other flower of being awarded.

This is the kind of differences that sould have to be ironed out if there were an international system.

On a personal note, at this point, I don't believe an international system is necessary or desirable.

[Orchidflowerchild]

Originally Posted by kmarch

On a personal note, at this point, I don't believe an international system is necessary or desirable.

I agree. Judging criteria are influenced by the breeding trends of a region, and should be pretty much independent from country to country. Even within regions of a given country, breeding trends and what is exhibited regularly can be widely different. In Seattle, they award scads of Masdevallias and Miltoniopsis, but how often do you think a Masd or Mtps ends up on a show bench at Miami's JC? But then, what would a judge in seattle do with a Motes Vanda? On a more international scale, think how uncommon Sarcochilus are in the States. Now imagine how refined the trained ey of an AOC judge would be to the qualities of what makes an exceptional Sarc....

I just feel that each national/regional orchid society should have it's own judging program, if for no other reason than to reflect the cultural differences of it's members, judges, and of course the variation in plants for their part of the world.

-Cj

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Orchidflowerchild

I agree. Judging criteria are influenced by the breeding trends of a region, and should be pretty much independent from country to country. Even within regions of a given country, breeding trends and what is exhibited regularly can be widely different.

I would be of the opinion that this is more true between different systems (like AOC vs AOS) and less true within a single system (like AOS). It also depends a lot on what is meant by "influence."

When I was a student judge in the AOS system our judging center saw zillions of Pleurothallid Alliance plants because one of the biggest growers of Pleuros in the country lived only about an hour away and was also a judge in our center. So we were certainly well trained in judging Pleuros and we had amassed quite a bit of experience judging them. This was in Michigan where we didn't see many Vandas, some but not many. Yet we were still expected to be able to judge Vandas just as well as someone in Florida. We studied them and they were included in our reviews of recent awards so we certainly had knowledge of them, but admitedly not nearly as much experience.

Because this learning expectation is placed on all judges in the AOS regardless of their location, because even certified AOS judges must participate in ongoing continuing education activities, and because research and benchmarking are a large part of the process of judging, it was really quite remarkable how consistent judges scores are from center to center. For example Phal scores for comparable plants in Maine and California are remarkably similar/consistent.

[Bolero]

This is an interesting discussion and a good one to start.

My understanding of judging as probably stated earlier is to gradually improve on plants through line breeding or hybridising. This is essentially so that an awarded plant can be bred from with another superior plant and continue the improvements moving forward. So let's say a plant blooms well one year out of 10 really well but for the other 9 years it doesn't bloom as award quality. So is that plant worth awarding? Is it worth breeding from? Will improvements in breeding come from such a plant?

I just wonder about this aspect of it. What do you think?

Or am I off the mark?

[Anton]

Isn't the awarding done on the plant presented at the time ? (more of a statement)
So, you are being judged on the plant sitting in front of the judges, and if it just happens that it is that 10th year that that flower is being presented then you should be juged on how it looks at that time.

Does it really matter that the other 9 years it isn't in pristine show condition, provided of course no-one presents it for showing in it's less than tip top condition.

I have a Dockrillia linguiforme which my dad bought over 30 years ago and it has only flowered 3 times in that period, the first time, on the day of his funeral. Should it be judged any less because of it ?

Mind you I have never seen it in flower myself as my brother has had it since dad passed away 24 years ago until he gave it to me last Xmas. To me this plant should be awarded more because of it's rarity in flowering.

[Orchidflowerchild]

That's just it, though...flower quality awards onle evaluate FLOWER quality. If the plant is an inconsistent bloomer or breeder, that matters very little as the judging team will not be seeing the plant on a bad blooming and will likely not be breeding with it (for the most part). For example, there are plenty of awarded plants out there that later turn out to be triploids. They have large, heavier-substanced flowers like a tetraploid, but they don't breed for beans. That does not mean that the flowers are not quality flowers. After all, the ward goes to the plant, not the owner, not the progeny of the plant, but just that plant. And even without being a breeding plant, a nice award tacked on to the end of a clone makes it much more commercially viable as a meristem because there ARE those people who collect awarded plants.

That is not to say that the judging systems are geared toward making everyone a collector of awarded clones. Plenty of people sit at home with their shelter-adopted mutts and watch Westminster....

As for breeding improvement, flower quality awards are given based on "improvement" over the parents and what is expected from the cross. Also, clones are awarded based on qualities over and above the qualities of other clones of the grex that have been exhibited and awarded. Awards aren't really meant to drive line breeding or hybridizing, in my opinion, but are more geared to rewarding the efforts of the breeder. Granted, only a few awards are granted to the grower, but who among us wouldn't like to be the deft hand that first made a hybrid that recieved a number of awards on various clones? I feel that the judging program is more driven by the breeder, than vice versa. If it weren't, novelty crosses would be awarded MUCH less frequently. THe way judging works is that each plant is judged based on what one should expect from the cross, not against every other thing being awarded. ANd much like dog or cat judges, orchid judges are expected to live and breathe the current trends of breeding and have a general working knowledge of where breeding is going in most all groups of orchids. That is precistly why, as Kevin mentioned, judges from the student right on up to emeritus are expected to keep up-to-date on as much orchid info as possible. Every monthly judging starts off with a slideshow of recent awards and the description of each is read off to the whole JC.

I suppose some people think of orchid judging as pretty superfluous, but then, there are plenty who think of orchid growing in general as pretty superfluous. It's a matter of perspective. Personally, I think one of the best ways in the world to have a working knowledge of the orchid world in general is to be a judge. Of course, you still have your preferences and specialities, but you are expected to be able to fairly and confidently judge any orchid put before you, whether it is 'your thing' or not. For example, despite my general distaste for complex hybrids, I can look at a floofy-butt Phal and see the direction and improvement of breeding.

-Cj

[Orchidflowerchild]

Oops, sorry for the double-post.

-Cj

[janet_a]

In the AOC many judges consider peloricism to be a deformity, even peloricism that occurs naturally in species. For this reason very few peloric orchids are awarded in the AOC. In the AOS system peloricism is viewed as a variation in form, not as an undesirable deformity so peloric flowers have just as good a chance as any other flower of being awarded.

innnnnnteresting.......

[Bolero]

I agree that it's presented and judged according to how it looks that day. But my point is that judging is a result of the need to breed progeny and I just wonder if the award really reflects the quality of the plant. As a student judge myself I understand the concepts of judging but wonder if the judging results in a quality plant that can be bred from.

And to be honest I can't remember plants (well not many) I judged 2 or 3 years ago. But you are right, it is of course how the plant looks when presented.

[Orchidflowerchild]

Originally Posted by Bolero

I agree that it's presented and judged according to how it looks that day. But my point is that judging is a result of the need to breed progeny and I just wonder if the award really reflects the quality of the plant. As a student judge myself I understand the concepts of judging but wonder if the judging results in a quality plant that can be bred from.

And to be honest I can't remember plants (well not many) I judged 2 or 3 years ago. But you are right, it is of course how the plant looks when presented.

Well, I suppose, in theory, yes. AN awarded plant in the hands of a hybridizer is probably more likely to be used, as a seedling is more desireable to some if both parents are awarded. However, for my part, I wouldn't necessarily let awards dictate my breeding. My answer, I guess, is that theoretically, yes, the awards system encourages continuance of breeding lines. I would contend, however, that the hybridizer/breeder has a goal in mind for his or her breeding. So does the award really continue the line or does the award just reinforce the hybridizer's vision?

As for the breedability, I can't imagine that the award does relect any sort of real quality as a parent. If it did, we'd have to have our plants tested to verify ploidy, at the least, before an award is made official.

-Cj

[Bolero]

Good point Cj. And you have answered my question nicely.

[kmarch]

Originally Posted by Bolero

...So let's say a plant blooms well one year out of 10 really well but for the other 9 years it doesn't bloom as award quality. So is that plant worth awarding?

In my humble opinion, yes. Afterall, as we're constantly being told by our fellow AOC judges, we're judging what's before us on the day. But that "rule" isn't the only reason I'd answer "yes" to your question. The main reason (again in my opinion) is that only a plant that posses award quality genes can produce an award quality flower. I'm speaking only of flower quality awards in this instance. There are so many other factors that can affect the quality of a flowering: moisture, temperature, time of year that it blooms, light conditions, whether it's generally a good season or a bad one, etc., etc. If any of these factors are unfavorable, it could prevent a plant with award potential from realizing that potential. If these factors are favorable, a plant with award potential could well produce an award quality flower.

However the opposite isn't true, if a plant does not have award potential in its genes, not even the most perfectly ideal conditions will enable that plant to produce an award quality flower.

So for this reason, I would award a flower (assuming it is an award-quality flower) even if i knew for a fact (which a judge rarely if ever does) it did not bloom award quality every year, if on the day of judging it was worthy of an award.

Originally Posted by Bolero

Is it worth breeding from?

I would say "probably.&