Cymbidium awards

[Bill Zimmerman]

Thanks guys, for responding in a constructive manner. These sorts of things should be considered if the present scale system is discounting the dominant features of the genus. If the standard scale for cymbidium is not working for the bulk of the plants, then it needs to be updated.

One thing I noticed is that most of the most recent AM awards are primary or near primary hybrids. Most of the HCC's were standard type cymbidiums with a couple of exceptions. With such a large genus, it seems that the scale isn't working or that the judges simply aren't impressed with cymbidiums.

[K Barrett]

Originally Posted by djanvrin

Though I am a judge, the cym. section I prefer to grow is the Jensoa (the so-called Chinese cymbidiums - though they appear to be nearly pan-Asian). They're small, the forward-thrusting petals are practically un-judgeable, and the lips are often curled like salami on a tray of antipasto. An inability to meet judging criteria is not a good reason not to grow and enjoy them.

David Janvrin

Martin Motes has successfully challenged the standard with the species vandas that do not fit the Vanda standard. I believe the latest Handbook allows species vandas to be judged on the general scale, not the Vanda scale which was set for Euanthe. Check it out: 7.1.10. In fact, any judging team can decide to judge a non-standard flower, such as Jenosa vs Cymbidium, on the general scale. See 7.1.1 You've always had the power to get home Dorothy, *G*.

Start showing your orchids. Hold a training session on the general scale vis a vis Jenosa at your next business meeting or training session, or write your comments for the AQ.

K Barrett

[Kentucky]

Interesting thread, but I think it's about to lead the unknowing astray. Susan you make a good point about dog standards, but the orchid standards are really the previously awarded plants. There is no general round,full, and flat requirement as some seem to suggest. The RFF requirement is limited to certain genera where that's a reasonable possibility and, in my experience, only strictly applies to hybrids, especially complex ones.

I do agree that some tweaks might help the situation. It looks to me like the standards as they currently exist were really aimed at hybrids while not intending to include species (or primary hybrids) at all. So you take a cupped Phal like mariae or a star shaped Phal like braceana to judging you just hope and pray that judges have adjusted their judgements to consider what nature built. In my experience they have, but I think some support in the written word would be appropriate.

The actual question was about Cyms. Since they don't grow over a wide area most of us never even see one, but my opinion from looking at pictures is that most are same old, same old. I readily admit to the possibility of being completely wrong, but I think a whole lot of judges would share that opinion. So if it's wrong there needs to be positive publicity put out about great and progressive these things really are. Susan, as a 30 year veteran of the dog show world I think I can say that publicity about a breed or an individual dog is what drives the contest. You most likely agree. Some breeds just never win a group or BIS. They aren't even in the running...same deal.

There is something to be said for Greg's dig at Paphs (or Phrags). I don't see that same issue with Phals, but maybe it exists. It would be interesting to see some valid statistics about the percentage of entered plants being awarded at each level versus the entry numbers.

I guess if I were to look for curious details about judging it wouldn't be this one. It would be why the percentage of FCC's is so high in Florida versus the whole country.