546 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 22, '.887. 
man." One of my objects in writing on this subject is to see if by 
thoroughly discussing showing and judging we can bring about a better 
state of things, as if we could it would be advantageous both for judges 
and exhibitors. I am not sure that I am competent to discuss con¬ 
trasts or shades of colour, and it is not the object of this paper to do so, 
as tastes differ so very much in this respect ; but I will pass to Mr. 
J. R. Chard’s letter, and will take the dinner table first. I know the 
exhibit to which he refers, and I will, if you will allow me, give the 
exact particulars. There were three entries—two were from amateurs 
who had never before exhibited in competition in such a class, and the 
other was Mr. Chard. The schedule reads thus :—■“ For a dinner table 
10 feet by 4 feet 6 inches, laid out for ten persons, and arranged so .as 
to show the b st means of utilising fruit and flowers in its adornment.” 
Mr. Chard has done his work in his well-known style, but having other 
exhibits to see to in a stronger competition, and seeing he had nothing 
very strong against him in this class, he was decidedly careless, hence 
his inability to protest. One of the others was a very weak copy of Mr. 
Chard’s table ; but the one that had the first prize had three very heavy 
stands, chiefly of Marguerites and Grasses, with four dishes of fruit, two 
of each kind, a Pine, and a Melon. I pointed out to the referee Judge 
(the two Judges could not decide) that the table was not according to 
the schedule. He said he did not care, it was first. If I had been the 
Judge I should certainly have withheld the first prize, as they were all 
so bad. Now in this and Mr. Chard’s case of the competition, where the 
large bouquets took the first prize in a 10-inch bouquet competition, I 
am quite certain the judging was wrong, and could have been upset. I 
once exhibited at the Crystal Palace when the limit was 9 inches, which 
is too small. A very large beautiful bouquet was shown by a London 
firm, but was marked “disqualified, too large.” If all the judges would 
do the same without fear or favour I am certain it would soon be the 
means of making the exhibitors more particular. 
A word as to the value of the bouquets exhibited. Mr. Chard, I 
think, has only himself to blame for the present state of things. I could 
name one very good exhibitor of bouquets, whose method in making a 
bouquet for shows was always to take into consideration the value of 
the first prize, and to exhibit a bouquet about that value, but Mr. J. R. 
Chard in his endeavours to beat that exhibitor began to show costly 
bouquets. After a time someone else came on the scene with more costly 
ones still. I do not see how that state of things is to be altered except 
by haying judges who would altogether ignore the value of the bouquet 
and give the prizes to the best made ones. 
As to the size of a bouquet, I have seen a few, and it should be the 
practice for all shows to have one uniform size ; and the most fashion¬ 
able and handiest size is a bouquet with flowers and Fern 15 inches in 
diameter, or including paper not to exceed 18 inches. That would meet 
all requirements, as if no exhibitor showed a bouquet more than 10 or 
12 inches across, the difference between that and the largest would not 
be much, and they would altogether have a more uniform appearance. 
Have “ not to exceed 18 inches ” inserted in the schedule, and give the 
judges instructions to rigidly carry out the wording of the schedule, also 
Mr. Robson’s rule 1. I think I have said all I can on the subject, and if 
some other of your readers can assist with any suggestions in carrying 
out.the above what a happy future there is in store for judges and ex¬ 
hibitors (the winners of prizes especially) ; and I will conclude by wish¬ 
ing them, judges, exhibitors, readers, and yourselves a Merry Christmas 
and a Happy New Year.— A Learner. 
UNDER GARDENERS AND EXHIBITORS. 
“ A Lover of Justice ” has opened a large subject on page 495, 
and despite his signature, I think he is scarcely just to all. But to start 
fairly, let us look at some of the side issues. First, he says, “ in many 
cases the under gardeners have all or the bulk of the work to do.” 
Perhaps so. I have found that is the case in all places of any size, 
whether exhibiting is done or not. The head gardener has enough to 
do the brain work properly, without attempting anything else, and if he 
leaves some of the latter to the foremen, it is to their advantage to 
exercise their heads a little as well as their hands. If ever our friend 
gets into a good head place he will probably find there is more to do in 
that way than he expected. As the pressure of the times increase this 
increases also, and if exhibiting is done it adds to this enormously. 
If the men work overtime, whether for exhibiting or anything else, 
they ought certainly in all cases to be paid a fair wage for it. I never 
would ask a man to work overtime if it were possible to avoid it, as it 
is wrong in principle. Twelve hours is long enough for anyone to be at 
their work and meals. They ought to have some relief to the mind ; and 
besides, if overtime is made one day, the next day’s work has to suffer 
for it, whether such overtime is paid for or not. I must say I like to 
see any of my men come in the garden occasionally for an hour after 
tea if any little thing wants attention. This tells me they take an 
interest in their work, and are studying my interest too, and therefore 
most certainly their own also. I wish all young men put as much value 
on their spare time as your correspondent does. But is it not possible 
for a young man to get anything besides money from exhibiting ? Most 
certainly they can ; that is if they like to profit by experience, for if 
anything is to look well on the exhibition table it must be grown to the 
greatest possible perfection. 
Again, he says, “the gardener gets all the credit.” This is not true in 
many cases, and as an instance, I owe my situation, which is one of the 
best in the kingdom, to the fact that when my present employers came 
to look round the gardens where I was then foreman, they saw, to put it 
in their own words, “ there was a good foreman.” Depend upon it no 
extra exertion on the part of a subordinate is lost to himself. It makes, 
a better man of him, and spurs him on to greater exertions, which are 
sure to tell in his favour eventually. I have served under some of the 
worst masters in this country, but always found that they appreciated a 
man who took a decided interest in his work ; and besides, if a man gets, 
the terms he agrees for it is his duty to do all he can. How many do 
we find do that ? I know some do, but often have reason to wish more 
did, both for my sake and theirs. As to the cases mentioned where the 
young men had their own expenses to pay, surely the best way would, 
have been to explain the case to the master. Probably it was an over¬ 
sight, or if not, I can safely say such instances are very rare. If a young 
man keeps his eyes open at a show he will gain knowledge that will 
eventually be of more use to him than the cost of his train fare, or the 
show will be a very poor one; and as to the gardener “ being allowed to 
show and have what he makes,” possibly your correspondent did not, 
know all the facts of the case. It is not well to put everything in print 
that we know, or much more might be said on this point. And now as 
to sharing in the prizewinnings. Taking exhibitors as a whole class, 
there are, of course, some who do better than others, but I find when all 
expenses are paid, taking one year with another, there is not a great 
deal of money left from exhibiting. I am quite ready to admit the. 
young men deserve some encouragement, according to the interest they 
have taken in the matter ; but how about sharing in the expenses in 
cases of failure, which happen to the best of exhibitors ? Perhaps that 
did not occur to your correspondent.—A Head Gardener. 
CHRYSANTHEMUM NOTES. 
AMY FURZE. 
Your correspondent “ T. W.,” page 532, considers that this variety 
should (1) either be confirmed as a reflexed kind, each flower to be 
judged on its merits and not subjected to be either passed or lose points ; 
or (2) it should be relegated to the Japanese class ; then (3) he suggests 
a reclassification in which such varieties as Elaine and Dr. Macary 
may be transferred to the reflexed class. Let me briefly reply to these 
propositions. 
1. The flowers are now judged on their merits as reflexed in reflexed 
stands, and if they are faulty why should they be treated differently 
from all other varieties, which are “ either passed or lose points,” accord¬ 
ing to the degree they fall from the standard of excellence ? 2. The 
suggestion that Amy Furze should be placed in the Japanese class is 
confirmatory of my views, that it is not a reflexed variety, therefore the 
more it displays its Japanese origin the more it must weaken a reflexed 
stand. 3. The proposition, if carried out, would make confusion worse 
confounded, and it is earnestly hoped the National Chrysanthemum 
Society will resolutely refuse to move on the lines suggested. The Com¬ 
mittee, I should think, would be much more likely to provide a class for 
reflexed or hybrid Japanese, as in the case of Japanese Anemones. 
Speaking to an experienced Judge the other day he put the matter 
in this form—“ True reflexed Chrysanthemums are of Chinese origin, 
and have flat florets lying flat on each other ; and when large blooms of 
Amy Furze develope, as they admittedly do, the Japanese character, and 
proclaim their Japanese origin, they are out of place in stands of 
reflexed blooms of the true Chinese type.” But though out of place 
in such stands they are judged on their merits when in them, as reflexed 
blooms with flat imbricated florets, and just in proportion as they 
“grow out” of this character and become spreading Japanese, in the 
same proportion they lose points as reflexed flowers. Judges will not, 
disqualify varieties of indefinite character unless specially authorised 
to do so by the schedule ; but they estimate them in accordance with 
the standard of excellence of the class they are intended to represent, 
and in doing this wherein do they err 1 — A Judge. 
CHALLENGE VASES. 
The question raised by your correspondent Mr. Win. Bardney, is 
opportune at this season when societies are about to arrange their 
schedules for next year. A challenge vase under the usual conditions 
cannot be as attractive to the majority of exhibitors as a prize of the. 
same value to be won once and for all. No one wi'l dispute this point 
with your correspondent. Exhibitors will, as he says, “be attracted to 
those shows that offer the greatest advantages but societies are limited 
by their income when arranging their schedules. One that would be 
able to offer say a prize of £15 in each with a challenge vase value £15, 
might not be in a position to offer the vase as well as the money prize 
to be won in one year. 
If challenge vases are to give place to prize cards to be won in one. 
year, then I apprehend the value of the latter must be reduced in com¬ 
parison with the former, and the question arises, Would exhibitors pre¬ 
fer this ? But taking higher ground, the competitor who estimates the 
value of a prize in proportion to the difficulty of winning it is possessed 
of those qualities which will make him successful in whatever direction 
he may compete. To be the holder of a prize won against all comers for 
two years in succession is an honourable distinction which cannot 
be claimed by the winner of a prize in one year. The winners of 
trophies under such conditions as those in force at Kingston, Hull, and 
Liverpool should not be placed on the same level as those competing 
under less difficult conditions. 
Chrysanthemum societies are formed to encourage and promote the. 
cultivation of our favourite autumn flower in the neighbourhood where 
