Bob Husemann and Chriss Rainey have raised questions about beauty and staging for which I have no answers – some thoughts, yes, but answers, no.
The purpose of the scale of points is to try (and with some success we hope) to create an objective (or at least less subjective) measure of beauty. Richard Ezell has said the most beautiful flower should win. We hope the point scale leads us to the most beautiful flower. If it doesn’t, then it ought to be reconsidered. The ADS Handbook’s directive to select the collection with the highest level of quality has two implications. One is that flowers with higher scores are more beautiful. The other is that the collection with the highest scores is the most beautiful collection. As Bob and Chriss point out, there’s more to a collection than the sum of its individual flowers. I think there’s a statement somewhere that staging can be considered, everything else being equal. Of course, it’s hardly ever the case that everything else is equal. The situation is different overseas where staging is allotted 10% points. In those shows the judges first stand back to look at the collections as a whole. The balance and distribution of colors, the evenness of height, the uniformity of flowers diameters, and similar staging related attributes are assessed before judges pick up vases to scrutinize individual flowers. On Daffnet and in publications from overseas, you can compare the staging of collections in various countries, and you’ll see that U.S. collections are more haphazardly staged than overseas collections because we give no weight to staging. Whether we should and how we should is a matter that can be taken up in the next Handbook revision. By the way, I remember a South Island National show in New Zealand observing the judges score the various attributes of the top two collections in one of the prestigious classes and leaving the scores for the exhibitors and public to see. That way the judges are forced to leave evidence of what they saw and how they evaluated it and thus demonstrate that they judged the collections fairly.
Chriss had a simpler question about how we choose the starting flower for scoring. The idea is to pick a pretty good one, but it doesn’t have to be the best one. In fact we picked the one at the right end of the middle row in the first collection and assigned it 8. We could just as well have assigned it 7 or 9, but we shouldn’t assign 10 unless it’s the very best flower in all the collections being scored. Unlike the full scale of 0 to 100 which tries to derive an absolute score (of the beauty), the compressed scale of 0 to 10 is concerned only with relative degrees of beauty. We need only get the relative degrees right to be able to award the blue ribbon to the collection with the highest level of quality (according to the Handbook’s measure of quality).
Thing’s I didn’t mention last night (because I wanted to go to bed) was that the photos were taken after the judging. That means the flowers had been picked up and put down, thus destroying the exhibitor’s staging. I was thinking of some day using the photos and scores in a presentation on judging. That’s why I kept the scores and took the photos. The question on Daffnet caused me to post them now. The scores were the consensus of three judges. Once you get past the first flowers in order to establish a feeling for how big a difference 1 point should be, the rest of the scoring goes faster. The two collections were in hybridizer’s classes for which there was no requirement on how many different divisions must be included – the exhibitors just put in their 12 best flowers (knowing that staging wouldn’t count). Reg Nicholl first explained this method to me at the Belfast show in 1998 and led me through the exercise of scoring the top two exhibits in the Championship of Ireland class. We were not doubting or second guessing the judging. This was just practice for me to be sure I understood it. Just as you have to practice the piano rather than listen to lectures about it in order to get good at playing the piano, you have to practice judging collections.
Kirby Fong
All Categories
A discussion forum for daffodil enthusiasts around the world.
Once again Kirby brings up a good point. I have always felt very strongly that staging is like the icing on a cake and should get some form of recognition. I like the idea that our overseas cousins have i.e. 10 points set aside for staging and I must admit that I let staging influence me when I am judging. Marilyn and I also put in an inordinate amount of time into staging our own miniature collections and I note that most of the Californian exhibitors like Kirby, Spotts, Reading and castor etc., also have very well staged collections in our shows. In contrast a lot of the collections (but not all) photographed at other shows can be politely termed thrown together in an haphazard manner. The overall quality of any show would be improved if we paid more attention to staging. I propose that ADS should consider adding points for staging. Harold
At 09:51 PM 4/30/2010, you wrote:
Adding points for staging brings up another problem. – Using the same show properties for collections. I have seen shows where collections are shown in individual blocks, blocks of 3, 4 and 5 and various combinations. I have seen shows where 3 stems are shown in separate blocks and vases of 3 stems where they are competing with each other, (Vases hide more defects) I have also seen shows where both boxwood and yew have been used and of course, a printed cultivar name vrs a shaky hand-scrawled name on the tube would also change the score. What about colored (coloured for non-Americans) plastic tubes vrs. glass tubes or green vrs black (glossy or flat) show blocks? Should putting blocks on risers to accentuate short stems be rewarded or penalized?
I am not opposed to change. In fact, I would offer the following for staging changes.
Only beer bottles can be used to exhibit flowers.
Labels must remain on the bottle.
Entries with an attached resealable stopper will be rewarded with 5 additional points.
One bottle per stem.
16 or 22 ounce size for Standards (appropriate to flower size and stem)
12 ounce size for intermediates
6 or 8 ounce size for miniatures.
Species must be exhibited in bottles from weird Belgian herbal beers.
Bar napkins (serviettes for non-Americans) will be used instead of boxwood or yew.
Collections will consist of groups of 6, 12 and 24 bottles. (six-pack, 12 pack and case)
Country collections must be in bottles from the country where the cultivars are bred. Australian collections will be hard for me because I can only get Fosters Lager in cans and Mountain Goat and Emu beer sound suspect. Beer tours are offered in Latvia and I know there are several breweries in New Zealand, although what Kind of beer can a company called Yeasty Boys produce?
It seems that nobody takes pictures of shows in the Middle Atlantic and Northeast Regions where the greatest attention is paid to bloom selection and staging in large collections. These exhibits certainly do not present the appearance of having been “thrown together”. To the contrary, Richard Ezell staged the very finest Quinn I have ever seen (40+ years of judging and looking) at the Washington Daffodil Society show last month. He is not the only formidable exhibitor in the area. The East Coast takes great pride in the quality of its shows, many of which are held in botanical gardens where the attendees appreciate excellence in horticulture.
Kathy Andersen
—-
Denis,
Thank you for your clever ideas on beer bottle staging.
:)
The post below was sent in by Bill Pannill a while back. I saved it and refer to it from time to time. I never cease to have a good laugh when I read it. I’m sure Bill won’t mind if I share it with you all again.
Chriss
Murray Evans had a neighbor up on the main road. This man’s front yard was about 150′ by 150′. He planted beer bottles every 3′ over the entire yard. It would stop traffic for people trying to figure out if it was for beauty or what. The theory was that the wind would blow across the tops of the bottles playing a tune and making a vibration that would keep the moles away. He had a terrible time mowing his lawn. He also drank a lot of beer. Bill Pannill
Kathy brings up an important issue. The fact is we do not have dedicated photographers across the whole country who are willing to spend the hours and hours that Tom Stettner and Kirby Fong do which would allow photos from all our regions to be enjoyed on daffnet as well as being permanently represented in the ADS Journal.
And therefore, we see only what is within traveling distance of either Kirby or Tom, most of the time. I take a few photos, but I confess to being intimidated by Tom and Kirby’s fine skills and superior equipment, so I rarely post them. Maybe others feel the same as I do.
However, in Harold’s defense, it is undeniably true that some winning collections shown on daffnet lack the precision we observe in collections shown by our British and Irish friends, where their rules DO include points for staging.
When attending a show with my camera, I am less compelled to even snap a photo of a collection, even if it HAS won an ADS ribbon, in which the exhibitor has shown poor staging skill, or little to no artistic thought about placement and lineup of the blooms. When it comes time to press the shutter, I say to myself, will this group of flowers frame up to make a pleasing photograph. Sadly, many do NOT.
This is a problem that can be addressed in some good staging workshops, or seminars, or even perhaps, a DVD made of one of our seasoned exhibitors doing what they do best and explaining why. (Clay Higgins presented such a seminar at a recent convention and I know many have benefited from that, but more presentations like that are badly needed.) I think we forget what it is like to be a beginner and all too often assume that new people should know more than they do about how to stage flowers. Now that student judges are required to win a collection ribbon, we need to work harder at insuring they have the skills to do that. It takes more than luck and a few flowers that score 90.
I applaud the scoring method that Kirby recently mentioned as a good way to judge flowers. I think scoring flowers alone, however, is not all there is to judging the appearance of a collection of flowers. As Kathy has said, here on the east coast, “the greatest attention is paid to bloom selection and staging in large collections,” BECAUSE if your collection is not well staged, you aren’t likely to be the winner. It is a matter of that old saying, “all else being equal.” In the big shows in the Middle Atlantic and the Northeast regions, the competition among top notch growers and exhibitors is fierce and you can’t be good at one thing, growing, and not be good at the other, staging, if you expect to win a large collection ribbon.
Chriss Rainey
I am glad that Kathy brought to my attention, at least, that there are other regions that do also consider staging and do a good job. However, the best way to ensure that all regions pay attention to staging would be to have points allotted for staging even if it only a few points. It would be easy to institute this. After all that is what judging schools and updates are all about and judges can bring this to the attention of their societies and even discuss staging at meetings before the show. Staging would also make a great article for the journal. cheers Harold
Well, I was unable to check my email for two days, as we were entertaining for the Kentucky Derby. I was expecting a lot of (heated?) discussion on this topic, but it looks like everyone is in agreement with Kirby’s method.
Daffodil growers are a great group; I know of several other groups (flower or otherwise) who would have turned something mildly controversial like this into an epic battle to be waged over many months. Instead, there was quick consensus and a desire to do what’s best for the flower and how it is best presented to the public.
I would be in favor of allotting a certain percentage of points (5 to 10) for staging. This would be consistent with the recommendations for vases of three, in which the exhibit as whole is considered for uniformity.
One question – to satisfy the requirement that every bloom in a blue winning collection have blue ribbon flowers, is it necessary to make a preliminary judgment on a class of collections, eliminating ones that have obvious red or yellow ribbon flowers in them?
Mike Kuduk
PS – Will there be a first level judging school in 2011? I know of at least three people who would be interested…
This bring up a question for me to ask as well. Do you want me to attempt a more thorough representation of the Northeast shows? I usually attend two every year, and have been posting photographs from Northeast shows for at least the last three years. On my own, I have come to the conclusion that photographs of the large collections do not show any of the flowers properly, and so recently I have avoided that. Additionally, I decided to limit the number of photographs posted. I did not think that there were many people who would like to see a photograph from every blue ribbon winner. Perhaps I am wrong. In talking to daffodil society members at the shows who are not on Daffnet, many have told me that they would not appreciate their in boxes filled with 100 or more e-mails.
That also bring up another question. Would people prefer photos posted to a site such a FLICKR or PICASSA? That would allow one e-mail to direct people to a site which holds all photos posted from a show.
So, please do let me know your pleasure. More photos from Northeastern shows? If so, are there certain categories to stick to or avoid? Post a few major winners as well as some that the photographer finds interesting? Post the photos to a site like PICASSA or FLICKR which would entail only one e-mail to DaffNet? What do you want to see?
Thank you.
David Liedlich
Connecticut
A good discussion – just catching up. In British and Irish shows it is customary to allow 10% for staging and presentation. ie, in a 12 bloom class when eaxh bloom is judged on a 10 point basis (12 x10 =120) then 12 points are allocated for this purpose. Likewise for a 6 bloom class (6 x10) – 6 points are allocated. Shows should be primarily to attract visitors to enjoy the beauty and charm of daffodils rather than for ths self-glorification of exhibitors – accordingly I think attractive presentation is absolutely vital and should be included in the assessment process. I confess I’ve never understood the 90% rule – when we use a more sensible 10 point system as described by Kirby very few flowers ever achieve the necessary 9 points to achieve 90% – even in Engleheart and other major 12 Bloom classes in the British Isles has even the ultimate Best Bloom in show have been judged to have 9 points or 90% – 8.5 is more normal. On this scoring system I have seen hundredas of Blue Ribbon flowers flowers and by inference 90 point blooms that may score only 5 or 6 out of 10 or 50 – 60 %. But this is not wrong – if they were the best flowers in the class they should get the Blue – regardless of points! Judges are there to GRANT awards and not to WITHHOLD them. Brian
Donna,
There is a problem with that first look deciding which is the best. They may not be the best daffodils in the class.
Clay
Chriss,
I thought Kathy Anderson made a very good observation. We don’t get many of our pictures from the middle atlantic states on the daffodil net but we have some “Excellent” exhibitors that made some very nice exhibits on the show bench here in the middle atlantic. However, I’m the worst photographer that ever picked up a camera and Tom and Kirby have me totally intimidated.
You are correct about the excellent presentation that Kirby gave on judging. Unfortunately, many of our excellent judges that we see at the middle atlantic shows are not on daffnet and do not get the benefit of those issues discussed here. There needs to be another way to call attention to issues like this to the judges not on daffnet. We need it in NEON lights so that all judges can get the education.
As for staging, I have been at a number of shows where professional photographers have questioned why a collection was awarded the blue ribbon when another collection that did not get the ribbon was so much more beautiful. That taught me to look at the collection as if I was looking through the lens of a camera, and sometimes you can see some ugly stuff in a your own collection when you look at it that way. If you do, it’s time to start cleaning it up and get the presentaiton correct. That’s why I spend a lot of time with the staging of my collections so that the tubes will hold the flower the way I want it and so that the tube will stay secure in the block, as well as to make them pleasing to the eye. I think I use almost as much boxwood on securing the tube in the property as I put in the tube with the daffodil stem.
However, to tell on myself, I had one miniature collection of five this year that I must not have secured the tube well in the block. After the judging I was wondering why this collection had the daffodil on the left looking like it was 90% from center (in otherwords we were getting a side view instead of looking at it straight forward). I found that the tube was lose in the block and the daffodil must had been turned during the handleing by the clerks and the show committee during the adjustments made in the show bench before judging. Guess what, that one was put on the daffnet, where the others were not. Just shows you, make a mistake and everyone notices.
Clay
We show in the Midwest, and over the past five years I have never had an issue with the judging. There were some remarkable flowers in the Cincy show this year, and they all pretty much made it to the head table.
However, Clay has a good point. If you are going to use a reference bloom as a comparison to judge the rest of the class by, how do you select it? And to what, real or imaginary ideal, do you compare it? In the rose world, I know what a perfect Veterans Honor looks like, and so does every other judge and exhibitor, so creating a reference point is easy.
There is a lot of variation amongst daffodils, enough to make selecting a reference bloom a bit problematic. And in large collections which contain a variety of flowers, how do you select the reference bloom?
Mike