268 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ September 23, lt86 
cup. Such a mistake as the one cited, therefore, means much more than 
the loss of a cup to an individual, for it represents the seal of authority 
stamped not on a true but a false standard of excellence, aDd the inex¬ 
perienced are thereby guided along the wrong path. 
A peifect Chrysanthemum bloom must embody several qualities— 
namely, size, depth, solidity, breadth of peta', finish, freshness, colour. 
That is the order in which they are placed by Mr. Molyneux. In prac¬ 
tice the qualities are grouped somewhat in this way : the judges take 
into consideration size, with symmetry, solidity, and freshness ; breadth, 
substance, and colour of florets, with the general finish of the blooms. 
The question of size is not dttermined by the circumference alone, for 
depth is never overlooked, or ought not to be, and the nearer the depth 
approaches the diameter of a bloom the more meritorious it is in point 
of “ build.” The presence or the absence of those qualities are perceived 
at a glance by the trained eyes of experienced adjudicators, and the value 
of each bloom can be determined in a moment and expressed in “ points.” 
Judges must, furthermore, be acquainted with the character of each 
variety and its capacity, so to speak. It is not possible, for instance, 
for a “little Cherub” to occupy as much space as a “ big Empress,” 
but that is not a sufficient reason that the latter should always 
receive a greater number of points than the former. The exact reverse 
would occur if the small, variety were better of its kind than the large one. 
That is the real question to determine, and to enable the actual merits of 
the blooms to be appraised the judges must have an ideal bloom or peifect 
example of every variety that may be under examination in their “ mind’s 
eye ” when engaged in their work. When all other qualities are apparent 
size carries the day, but if accompanied with roughness, hollowness, or 
dinginess, mere bulk fails to secure for the bloom a high position, and a 
full, fresh, solid, bright, and well-finished medium-sized bloom often wins 
five points when a considerably larger example, but otherwise defective, 
only scores three or four. When a prize is offered for the “champion 
bloom ” in a show, it is very seldom indeed that the largest example is 
selected. The honour usually fulls to one approaching it in size, but 
possessing other qualities that the t'igger one lacks. The points to aim at, 
then, in producing a perfect bloom are the greatest size combined with the 
highest quality attainable, so that the bloom when staged is in the most 
“ peifect phase of its possible beauty.” If an incurved Chrysanthemum 
bloom in the acme of its freshness is anything over 5 inches in diameter 
and 4J inches deep can be thrown across a room and caught like a cricket 
ball, yet still retain its contour, it is not far from being perfect. Blooms 
are not, of course, judged in that way, but the simile is introduced to 
impress on cultivators the importance of solidity. 
Mr. Newton, of the Inner Temple Gardens, London, has defined a good 
bloom as follows:—“It must possess symmetry—that is, excellence of 
form, all the parts of the flower being duly balanced ; it must possess 
firmness—that is, density of petals, each possessing sufficient substance 
to retain it in the desired position; it must possess colour and freshness— 
that is, the bright colours should be as bright as possible, and the light 
flowers clear and pure. Now we come to size. On this point 1 would 
say the larger the bloom is, provided it possesses all the above properties, 
the better. Of course, I mean size of bloom in relation to quality. For 
instance, a very large and loose bloom, with its consequent roughness, I 
should not deem equal to a bloom somewhat smaller, yet solid, bright, 
and smooth.” This is in complete accord with the above description of 
a superior bloom, and in no practical sense differs from the enumeration 
of “qualities” by Mr. Molyneux. 
As to the method of judging, this in close competition must be by 
prints, There is no other way in which justice can be done except by 
lucky guessing, nor the decisions, if questioned, defended. When 
25-guinea cups are at stake there must be no guessing in the matter, 
but absolute certainty of the accuracy cf the awards must be arrived at 
in a systematic manner, founded on the critical examination of every 
bloom, and registering its merits ; and if that is requisite in the case of 
valuable challenge cups it must of necessity be equally so when smaller 
prizes are at stake. Justice is not to be measured by money. It is as 
dear to the poor man as the rich, to the winner of a 5s. prize as to one of 
five times £5 in value, and the same method should be adopted, and the 
same care exercised, no matter what the value of the prizes may be. 
And, as a matter of fact, more time is often spent in awarding the prizes 
in a minor class than in one for which all the floral world is “ waiting for 
the verdict.” It is equally true also that judges are often much longer 
in deciding on the second and third prizes in a “ big cup ” class than in 
awarding the premier prize. This is not mentioned in the seme of 
praising men who want no praise, but to let second and third prizewinners 
and exhibitors in small or “local” classes know that the mere “ value ” 
of the prizes is never thought about by adjudicators of standing who offi¬ 
ciate at the leading shows, and they would not be worthy of the trust 
reposed in them if it were. 
In the rules formulated by the National Rose Society for the guidance 
of judges we find the following—“Judging shall be by points. Three 
points shall be given for the best blooms, two for mediums, one for those 
not so good, but not bad enough to cut out, and an extra point for a 
very superior bloom.” And again, “ When stands are equal in respect of 
blooms judges shall proceed to consider the general evenness, variety, 
arrangement, and setting up, the boxes being placed side by side and in 
the same light for that purpose.” Those “instructions” are applicable 
to judging Chrysanthemums, subject to one very important alteration. 
“Three points,” with an occasional “extra” thrown in, are quite in¬ 
adequate as a maximum number for a perfect Chrysanthemum bloom, for 
the simple reason that it is not possible to group the blooms into three 
defined orders of merit. Not less than six points should be allowed for 
perfect bloom3, as then the slightly differing gradations in merit of the 
others can be much better expressed than when three points only are 
allowed as a maximum. Even when the larger numbers are taken as a 
basis two stands of blooms occasionally “ point up” equal, then an extra 
point is sought for in evenness, colour, or arrangement. And, further, 
judges are often in doubt as to whether a bloom should have, say, three 
or four points—that is, they feel that three scarcely does it justice, while 
it is hardly worth four. What then? They usually “ strain a point, ’ 
and enter four, bearing the entry in mind, and doing the same in a case 
of doubt in respect to a bloom in the competing stand. That is judging 
by compromise, and not on a fixed scientific principle. To arrive at a 
true estimate of merit there should be two denominators—points and 
marks, twelve marks making one point, just as twelve pence make one 
shilling, which is easy enough to remember, and clear and simple enough 
in reckoning. If a bloom is not worth six points, yet five scarcely does it 
justice, why not enter it at 5 6, the six representing marks or half a 
point? similarly we may find the true value of the next 59, its neigh¬ 
bour 53, and another in the row 5'6. Suppose these represent the back 
row in a stand of twelve blooms, we have a total of 22 points, the 24 
marks making 2 points. If points alone were relied on the first bloom 
would probably be awarded 6, the second 6, the third 5, and the fourth 
6, or a total of 23 points, one point being gained not by the merits of the 
blooms, but the fault of the system. If one point can be gained in four 
blooms six can obviously be gained (or loBt) in a stand of twenty-four, which 
is certainly not a pleasant contingency ; and it is suggested that in all 
cases in which the relative merits of the competing stands are not clearly 
shown by one denominator that two should be employed, and the chances 
of a mistake occurring would then be reduced to a minimum. 
It does not follow that “point” judging should be adopted through¬ 
out a show. Common sense must be exercised in this matter. In many 
classes the distinctions between the competing stands are manifest 
at a glance, and it would be a waste of time to examine the blooms in¬ 
dividually ; but where the competition is at all dose the value of each 
bloom should be noted down and the added numbers will be the verdict. 
Nor is the process a slow one. Judges often spend twice the time in 
marching backwards and forwards, balancing the blooms in the different 
stands (and not infrequently getting confused in the work) that would be 
necessary for “pointing” them systematically. Good judges will deter¬ 
mine the value of the blooms almost as quickly as the figures can be put 
down, and a stand of 24 is often completed in three minutes. When this 
method is resorted to the blooms should be “ taken ” from left to right in 
each row, first completing the back row, then coming back to the second 
and front lines respectively. These should be done in all the competing 
stands in which “ pointing” is necessary before any of the rows of figures 
are added up. The totals are found in a few moments, and the work is 
done. If the press reporters, as most of them do, take down the names 
of She varieties in the same order in which the blooms are judged, the 
value of every one can be seen on comparing them with the judges’ figures, 
and thus these officials are fortified in case their decisions should be 
questioned ; and it may safely be said that in the event of revision the 
original verdict of experienced adjudicators stands in ninety-nine cases 
out of a hundred. It is not assumed that the best of judges are immacu¬ 
late, but it is a fact that if an error occurs it can usually be traced to 
hurried action through delay in staging, leaving not much more than 
half the allotted time for the completion of the work. In that event they 
must either “ rush through ” the collections too quickly, or be hemmed 
in by a crowd of visitors. In either case it would be little Bhort of a miracle 
if every award were absolutely correct, as it should be ; and if a mistake 
occurs under those circumstances the responsibility cannot wholly rest 
with the judges, but at least a large share must be borne by the officials 
of the show in failing to carry out the conditions of the schedule. In this 
respect a well-merited word of recognition must be accorded the direc¬ 
torate of the Kingston Show where everything is invariably in readiness 
at the appointed time, and the proceedings are conducted like clock¬ 
work. 
It is very impirtant, tint exhibitors exercise great care in Darning 
their blooms, or duplicates may be accidentally inserted. In that case 
the stands will almost ceitainly be disqualified, for careful adjudicators are 
in the habit of satisfying themselves that they are acting in accordance 
with the schedule. That is their plain duty, and they will do it however 
painful it may be to them to rule splendid stands “ out of competition.” 
One mistake is quite sufficient in a class, and no judges can be expected 
to knowingly make another, as they must do if they ignore the conaitions 
that are published for the guidance of all. 
In view of the practice of offering prizes for twelve blooms in eight 
varieties, twenty-f jur blooms in eighteen varieties, or forty-eight blooms 
in thirty-six varieties, awards have occasionally been made in favour of 
exhibitors staging the greatest number of varieties, while the blooms in 
the competing stands, in which there were necessarily duplicates, were, on 
that account, much superior. Such verdicts are not sound. The prizes 
are given, or ought to be, for the best bloomy and if in a class described 
as “ twenty-four blooms in eighteen varieties” an exhibitor stages the 
stipulated number of varieties (eighteen), and his twenty-four blooms are 
better than his opponent’s in twenty-four varieties, the latter cannot be 
jusily adjudged the prize, simply because he has exceeded the limitation. 
So long as an exhibitor meets all the stipulated conditions he does all that 
is required, and the merits of the blooms, not the number beyond the 
limit, should be considered by the judges ; indeed, in a class worded 
exactly as quoted, stands that exceed either the number of blooms or 
of varieties should be disqualified, just as collections of fruit or vegetables 
are disqualified that contain a greater number of dishes or varieties than 
