Daffodil Types, Historics, Miniatures

“historic Miniatures”

by  •  • 4 Comments

Dear members……… to clair fly ‘Historic Miniatures

At the Board Meeting of April 7, 2005 it was resolved that miniatures not on the CURRENT list  be allowed to be exhibited in the HISTORIC SECTION……… Those miniatures listed in the ADS Journal vol 28 No. 3, 1992 pages 157 & 158. and Vol. 30 No. 2 Pages 95 and 96 are considered eligible.r

Joe Hamm


4 comments for ““historic Miniatures””

  1. You lose the significance of the Historical aspect of  the miniature and how over time it as progressed to the standard established.  If the old guard cannot be exhibited you are dooming them to existence.

    It is an educational tool for th public…….. this is the miniature that was, this is the miniature that is today!

    As a judge you may elect not to judge the “old” cultivar, if you are so prejudiced

    Joe Hamm


  2. Joe, my understanding is that you can only enter the “old” miniature in the Historic Section, not the regular Miniature Section.  So when it’s in the Historic Section, in the class(es) for miniatures, and it was listed as a miniature at one time, the Judge may not decline to judge it.  If it’s exhibited in the regular Miniature Section,
    Do you have any idea of how many of the “old” ones are still being grown?  Many of them were removed from the Approved List of Miniatures because they were thought to be extinct.  I could only find a few on the lists you suggested that were Historic and no longer on the Miniature List:  Agnes Harvey, Cobweb, Little Prince, Morwenna, Rockery Beauty, Rockery Gem, and Sea Gift.  Have I missed some?
    Good to see you back on Daffnet.  :-)
    Mary Lou

  3. Sorry, seems I neglected to finish the last sentence in the first paragraph.  If it’s exhibited in the regular Miniature Section, the judge may decline to judge it; I’d let a note for the exhibitor that it’s no longer on the Miniature List.
    Mary Lou

  4. Joe, and others,
    I never would decide to “not judge” something because of any prejudice. I don’t operate that way.
    There are few occasion where I would elect to not judge an exhibit.  They would be – if I absolutely know that the exhibit is named incorrectly, or if I see that the bloom has been manipulated to correct some fault, or it is placed in an incorrect class.  I believe in following the rules, even when I don’t agree with them.  However, I do believe in trying to change the rules.  If it has been removed from the miniature list for being too big, it does not regain that designation just because of it’s advanced age by moving it to the historic section.  I feel that the former miniatures should be shown in regular classes and take their chances.  A perfectly grown and groomed W. P. Milner can beat a bad specimen of Beersheba since the most points are given for condition in the historic classes.
    Where now do we show those newer cultivars that have been removed from the miniature list?  They can be shown in standard classes.  Since more points are given for characteristics other than condition, those cultivars have much less chance to win a blue ribbon than those former miniatures that are old enough to be considered historic. 
    If showing the former miniatures truely is an educational tool and is intended to show the now and then aspect, the exhibits should reference the other or be placed in the show near each other, or be in something like an educational exhibit that shows that you intend this.  Otherwise, your argument is rather empty.  Just sitting them on a table is not education.
    Donna


Comments are closed.