December 3, 1885. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
485 
(it 
COMING EVENTS 
8 
Th 
Linnean Society at 8 p M. 
4 
F 
6 
s 
c ale of Bulbs at Protheroe’s Rooms. 
6 
SUN 
Second Sunday in advent. 
7 
M 
8 
TU 
Royal Horticultural Society—Fruit and Floral Committees at 11 a.m. 
9 
W 
Sale of Balbs at Stevens’ Rooms. 
REFLECTIONS ON JUDGING. 
NSTEAD of jotting down a few thoughts in a 
series of isolated notes, I will this week adopt a 
different method, and shall hope thereby to 
avoid criticism of a kind that provokes sharp 
retorts, which I have no pleasure in indulging 
in. In what I have written or may write there 
has been no intention, and will be none, of 
wounding the susceptibilities of anyone. It 
were far better not to write at all than to write 
with that intent. 
A good deal has been said of late about judging at 
horticultural shows—that is, judging the products, but we 
do not hear so much about judging the judges ; yet this is 
an established practice, and on the whole salutary. Reports 
of shows would be bald indeed and weary reading if they 
amounted to a mere register of the winners of prizes. Any 
clerk can accomplish that literary feat; but as the horti¬ 
cultural press attendants are something more than mere 
copyists they very properly endeavour to make their reports 
critical and suggestive. Readers of show reports desire to 
know something of the products that win prizes, and why 
they win, also to learn in what respect those which fail to 
secure a high position are relatively inferior. These points 
a practical reporter endeavours to indicate, and occasionally 
he may feel it his duty to question the strict accuracy of a 
verdict. 
The fact that judges themselves are judged, not by com¬ 
petitors at shows alone, but by press attendants, can scarcely 
fail to have a beneficial influence ; at least, they know quite 
well that if any errors are committed they are not likely to 
remain unrecorded. It is altogether creditable to the adjudi¬ 
cators at most important exhibitions that complaints are so 
few. The truth is, men who are really competent to estimate 
the merits of the products before them rarely make any 
flagrant mistake. No doubt some of the exhibitors, espe¬ 
cially those who do not win such high honours as they 
expect, think they do ; but then such individuals are neces¬ 
sarily prejudiced, while the judges are not, and in nineteen 
cases out of twenty good judges are right in their verdicts, 
whatever interested onlookers may say to the contrary. It 
is quite amusing sometimes to observe an individual throw 
up his arms in astonishment at a verdict, and point out how 
the awards ought to have been distributed. He judges the 
products in a minute—and the judges too—while these 
officials have bestowed infinite care and spent, it may be, 
half an hour in arriving at a fair and just verdict. The 
opinions of disappointed exhibitors cannot have any weight; 
but it is different with unprejudiced onlookers and practical 
men who are occasionally constrained to express an opinion 
adverse to the judges. 
It frequently arises that judges have much difficulty in 
arriving at a decision, so conflicting are the claims of the 
products placed in competition, one quality predominating in 
one case and another in another. This clashing of qualities of 
different kinds renders it no easy matter to strike a balance 
No. 284.-^01,, XI., Third Series. 
between them. In such cases the personal preferences of 
individuals cannot be subdued, and these may slightly vary ; 
still, when two or three men of acknowledged competence 
are unanimous in giving a verdict it is prudent to hesitate in 
expressing an adverse opinion. At times the contest is so 
close that it amounts to a mere “ toss up ” as to where to 
place the cards, and equal prizes are then awarded. This is 
an easy method of settling the matter, and from one point of 
view it may be right—namely, that both are worthy of the 
amount that is offered, but at the same time it is question¬ 
able if two exhibits are ever staged of absolute equality, 
Some such close competition appears to have existed at 
Bath, and it is quite evident the reporter of the Show was 
himself no bad judge when he had the courage to judge 
the judges. Whether they were right or wrong in their 
decision as to the relative merits of the Grapes, the 
admitted existence of those left room for remark, though the 
expressive term “favoured” may not have been happily 
chosen. Few, if any, however, will suppose that it was 
intended to suggest that anything more or less than strict 
justice was done according to the convictions of the adjudi¬ 
cators, and the word “ fortunate ” would have been less open 
to question. All the Grapes appear to have been good in 
some points, but Mr. Nash was the fortunate winner of the 
first prize. Then we come to the Pears, and we find what is 
to me quite a novel example of judging the judges. One 
evidently good judge says the finest collection, Mr, 
Bannister’s, was passed; another judge, whose ability as a 
cultivator none will deny, regarded them from a different 
standpoint, other fruits, though smaller, yet uniform in size 
and quality, being regarded as more meritorious. Yet 
the “ passed ” collection is stated (page 470) on the 
authority of the exhibitor of it to have been granted an 
equal first prize. The reporter of the Show was obviously 
ignorant of this, and Mr. Ward makes no mention of the 
circumstance in his letter. Someone else, then, other than 
the judges granted the “first prize” in question. This- 
proceeding cannot but be regarded as an extraordinary one ; 
and there can be little doubt that if committees of societies 
judge their judges in this way some difficulty will be 
experienced in obtaining the services of first-rate adjudicators. 
The new method also practically invites disappointed 
exhibitors to clamour for a revision of the awards—a practice 
that cannot be to the permanent advantage of any society. 
It is open to committees to make an extra grant to any 
exhibitor who contributes worthily to a show, in terms out¬ 
side those of the schedule, but to interfere in the awards 
of the judges without consulting them is an innovation that 
can scarcely be regarded as sound in principle, and is not 
calculated to increase the stability of societies nor win the 
approval of exhibitors. 
Another matter demands attention—namely, the principle 
on which products should be judged. This is a subject of 
far-reaching public importance. When a prominent gardener 
advances the principle of uniformity throughout a collection 
as being of greater moment than individual merit, either of 
Pears, Chrysanthemums, or anything else, it becomes neces¬ 
sary to ask if such dictum is sound. If, for instance, a 
collection of Pears is passed because of a want of evenness in 
the fruits, it will become necessary to withdraw the finest 
dishes of Pitmaston Duchess, Beurre Diel, and other large 
Pears, and add smaller and inferior examples to bring them 
more nearly to the size of smaller varieties; and in a 
collection marked for its uniformity containing, amongst 
others, Beurre Diel and Beurre Capiaumont, it is certain 
the last named must be extraordinarily large, or the other 
correspondingly small. As an example of the weight of 
general evenness of moderate examples over individual merit, 
or each being good of its kind or variety, a stand of Chrys¬ 
anthemums is introduced such as is not seen at exhibitions 
—namely, three large blooms and three Pompons in a 
collection of six varieties. It will be better perhaps to take 
No. 1940.— Vol. LXXni., Old Series. 
