I'm sorry if I've been boring you by going on and on about awards, especially with regard to the recent CBM awarded to Jay's Acriopsis liliifolia by the AOS.
Despite years spent living and breathing orchids, I have never had the slightest interest in awards. I'm really not bothered if clone A of Vanda X has slightly bigger, flatter or brighter flowers than clone B. I've been roped into a few OSSEA judging sessions where they wanted taxonomic clarification on a species; most recently for an Acacallis cyanea (Aganisea cyanea) where there was doubt about the species identity and the validity of a recently-published alternative name. However, I am concerned about fairness and equality. Let me explain. OSSEA is proud of the standard of it's awards. They are probably the highest in the world ... statistics show that it is harder for a clone to win an OSSEA award than an equivalent award from any other major OS; just check the number of AMs OSSEA has given in it's 75-year history. One reason is that it has long been OSSEA policy NOT to give a particular clone an inferior award if it has already received a higher award elsewhere. Another reason is that OSSEA won't give an award if plants in the same class (eg, blue Vandas) have reached even a slightly higher standard elsewhere than the plant they are judging. OSSEA judges therefore keep up-to-date on what is happening elsewhere, particularly at the RHS, AOS and Australia. Consequently, OSSEA judging standards are sky-high, most local growers are completely intimidated by the awards-judging system, and won't participate. Each year, the OSSEA Committee indulges in agonised soul-searching sessions about the purpose of award-judging. Generally, members fall into 2 camps; those who want to maintain the existing reciprocal-standard arrangement (even if it discourages our members), and those who think we should cut the external connection and generate our own regional set of standards. Please note that this second option does not necessarily equate to reduced standards .... in Singapore we grow many Vanda multigenerics (eg Mokaras) & Paraphalaenopsis to far higher standard than can be achieved in USA or Europe; the world's best Vandas are grown in Thailand, while Taiwan, Philippines and Malaysia each justifiably boast the world's best Phalaenopsis (different sections). When these discussions have been taking place, I've always been a disinterested fence-sitter. Hybrids ? I couldn't care less. However, 2 things have recently changed. Firstly, OSSEA has started sending judging teams to regional shows in an attempt to bring other countries into the system. Secondly, the 2011 WOC is coming to Singapore. The soul-searching sessions are no longer a pointless intellectual exercise, but have acquired a meaning. It was against this backdrop that Andy Easton stuck his poison keyboard into a casual but non-consequential exchange between Jay and myself regarding the AOS award to Acriopsis liliifolia. I reckoned that if I goaded Andy just a little bit, he'd end up revealing interesting information about the way AOS system works. And so it proved. If Andy is to be believed (a big "IF", even on a subject he's supposed to be a master of), then I learned the following: 1a) AOS only considers plants that have already been encountered inside the AOS system. All comparisons are purely internal. 1b) AOS judges are not expected to make reference to sources outside the AOS internal system. When viewing an "unusual" species, they are not expected to look at pictures (diagrams or text) of the species on websites or widely-available reference books. 2) the reciprocal-standard arrangement is a fraud (at least, with the AOS) because there is no reciprocity involved. 3) the AOS uses classes of award that don't exist elsewhere. OK, you can justify this within the system (thanks, Nik and Jose, I do understand), but the CBR is still an award .. the grower gets a certificate with "AOS Award" written across the top, and gets the buzz that comes with winning something. If these are true, then our local growers are at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to awards. Not only are there fewer ways that they can win an award, but there are far fewer genera with which they can participate at an award-winning standard (climatic constraints), they are expected to grow to standards that they may not be aware of (because they are foreign), and, in the case of "rare" species, these standards are arbitrary. And, finally, our judges may have an inflated idea of what these external standards are. No wonder our growers are discouraged. Next time OSSEA discusses award-policy, I'm going to come down from my fence and vote. Since we've started exporting our awards around the region, there is a real need to get the rationale correct. I would be very interested to hear from people within other systems (RHS, Australia) as well as AOS regions outside Florida about what happens in your part of the world, and how you set your standards, and how you ensure your growers get a level playing-field when it comes to awards. Cheers, Peter O'Byrne in Singapore _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) orchids@orchidguide.com http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
