486 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 8, 18S7. 
in the other column, bringing the total to 40s. 3d., or 
4points. What could be simpler? And what would 
have been the probable result il the points had not been 
divided ? As there was not a bloom in the row or in the 
shoAV considered perfect in all points—size, depth, sym¬ 
metry, solidity, breadth of petal, freshness or colour— 
the total would, in all likelihood, have been thirty-eight 
(as the last bloom would no doubt have counted five), or 
a loss of 2^ points. It may be said, however, and with 
some degree of plausibility, that the loss would have been 
in the same proportion in the back rows of competing 
stands, so the result would still be fair to all. But that 
is not invariably so, as I find in corresponding rows in 
two stands one gains four points in the second column, 
while the other only gains If; indeed, from an examina¬ 
tion of the recorded value of upwards of S00 blooms before 
me, arrived at on the system advocated, I am more than 
ever convinced of the soundness of the proposition that 
“ in all cases in which the relative merits of competing 
stands are not clearly shown by one denominator two 
should be resorted to, and then the chance of a mistake 
would be reduced to a minimum.” 
As evidence that that f point is determinable and not 
without effect, a circumstance maybe alluded to as occur¬ 
ring at Sheffield. After the classes were finished the best 
bloom in the Show had to be found, incurved or Japanese. 
After a rigid search the honour was accorded to a fine 
Queen of England in Mr. Mease’s 48-stand. On sub¬ 
sequently looking through the points of 144 blooms in the 
class, this was the only one credited with 5-9 or 5f points, 
so that the f point told sufficiently to win the .National 
Society’s certificate, which was the prize in question, 
'there were several 5J point blooms, and few below 4 
points, so that practically, in good competition, there are 
only 4 points to work from 3, 4, 5 and 6, which renders 
subdivision the more necessary in accurately gauging the 
merits of the blooms. Nor does the two-denominator 
system take up more time than one, but rather takes less, 
and for this reason. Look at the list above given. The 
Judges examine No. 1, it is not perfect, and they hesitate 
whether to do it a little more than justice by giving it 
6 points or a little less by only entering n. Suggest half a 
point and they decide in a moment, 5‘6 being jotted 
down. No. 2 is seen at a glance to be of the same value, 
and is entered accordingly. No. 3 falls a little short of 
No. 1 (the same variety), and is quickly debited with 
half a point less. No 5 falls a point. No. 6 rises again, 
being equal to No. 2. No 7 comes down, but is a trifle 
better than No. 5 (the same variety), and No. 8 is appre¬ 
ciably better than No. 7, and gets J point more because it 
deserves it, the whole being completed in less time than 
in writing these lines, and in less time also than would 
be consumed during the pauses in determining on full 
points in each case, while there can be no question as to 
which plan is the more accurate. 
Do not let it be supposed that pointing is advocated 
throughout a show. Aothing of the kind is suggested. 
It would be altogether superfluous in the vast majority of 
cases, and a waste of time. It is only in large classes 
and close competition when it is necessary to resort to 
the plan; it should then be adopted without hesitation, 
conducted with the utmost care, and completed in the 
best possible manner. Much time is often lost by judges 
marching backwards and forwards, and sometimes getting 
more or less bewildered, then after all having to resort to 
figures. It is better to begin at the outset in cases of 
doubt in large classes. Pointing was not called for this 
year in the chief contests at Kingston, the Crystal 
Palace, Hull, and the Veitch Memorial class at Liver¬ 
pool, but was absolutely essential at the “National,” 
Portsmouth, Sheffield, another great class at Liverpool, 
Putney, and some other shows. As sli.ht evidence that I 
have no “ weakness ” on the matter, I have shared in 
judging at the least 500 stands of blooms this year, and 
pointed less than twenty, but the majority were forty- 
eights, and composed of half Japanese. Stands of 
twelve blooms and less can usually be judged by com¬ 
parison, as can the majority of eighteens and twenty- 
fours; but not all, as in the Putney contest. Space 
precludes giving particulars of this here, but something, 
will perhaps be said about it in the forthcoming 
“ Chrysanthemum Annual.” 
Judging by a general and, so to say, unsystematic 
inspection, of large mixed stands of nearly equal merit is 
not a safe course to adopt, for two reasons—1, the 
“ chance ” of deciding wrongly ; 2, the absence of material 
for showing the accuracy of the awards in meeting a 
possible protest. As has been stated in referring to the 
unfortunate Hull case last year, the protest was lodged 
on the ground that judging was not done by points ; and, 
assuredly, if it had not been, all the work would have had 
to be done over again on the pointing system, and what, 
that involves in a crowded hall no one knows only those 
who have experienced the difficulty. Let it be said in 
reference to the losing stands on that occasion that they 
contained splendid blooms beautifully set up. The first 
prize blooms were staged too low for creating a favourable 
impression at the first glance. They were in fact rather 
better than they looked, while the others looked rather 
better than they were; and therein, I suspect, lurks the 
sequel of the whole affair. The second prize stands did 
“ look ” better than the first, and in case of an equality of 
pointing would no doubt have had the casting vote in 
favour of superior staging ; but no one, I presume, would 
place this higher in merit than superior cultivation. It 
is not suggested that the winning blooms were badly 
staged, for they were not; they were somewhat low, and 
the exhibitor has staged a trifle higher this year, his 
stands having consequently a more imposing appearance. 
The blooms were subjected to close individual examination, 
and only in that way could their true merits be ascer¬ 
tained. 
In these days of close competition the flowers should 
be represented to the best possible advantage, for though 
experienced judges will find their value, there is the pos¬ 
sibility in close contests of losing points for faulty staging, 
and thus losing prizes. Exhibitors should newer forget 
that judges look for faults, and sometimes are glad to find 
one or two to justify them in their decision. Occasion¬ 
ally a stand is found in the south in which the blooms 
are staged rather too high, giving them a stiff or stilted 
appearance; but we do not find this in the north, the 
fault there tending in the other direction, and is often 
very apparent in the amateur classes. 
Reverting to the process of judging, so long as the 
intrinsic merits of blooms are held in the highest regard 
the point system must be resorted to in large mixed classes 
and close competition, and when this is very keen indeed 
it seems to me that the points must be divided, so that 
the smallest gradation in merit can be recorded. The 
method described has been tested by Mr. N. Davis, Mr. 
G. Gordon, Mr. J. Udale, Mr. C. Gibson, and Mr. W. 
Kipps. There is no sentiment about such men as those. 
They followed the plan because they found it easy and 
satisfying. In less than tv r o minutes every one of them 
could take the lead in indicating the value of the blooms 
