All –
I do not care for the term “historic miniatures,” for these flowers were not hybridized to be a “miniature” back in the day, as “miniatures” is a very recent designation.
Further, if a daff doesn’t meet the (current) size requirement any longer, it isn’t a “miniature.” If the date of introduction is changed, then it’s no longer “historic.”
That said, the old issue/argument came about for (saving/promoting) old flowers that were given the boot from the “miniatures” designation. So the issue was with the change in size parameters, not age parameters.
Thus, the issue, to me, ought to be resolved within the size realm, not the age realm.
That said, for educational purposes, I like the idea pitched by a couple of miniatures growers on the Historics listserve of having a separate category for delisted, albeit “historic,” miniatures – to illustrate the evolution of miniature hybridizing in regard to size, form and color. These could have a separate designation added to them to signify their former status. And it could capture the post-1940 flowers booted from the list, to the same end.
Sort of like the “History of Pinks” banner – what did hybridizers start with, how did they get to what’s the pinnacle now of miniature hybridizing.
Which is one of the values of the “Historics” table – this is where daffodil hybridizing started, and if a show breaks down the Historics by a timeframe (say pre/post 1900), then the hybridizing timeline/evolution becomes even more apparent. And visitors get a kick out being walked thru the history lesson.
My half-cent.
-s
—