148 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
t February 21, 1889. 
doubt whatever that greater accuracy is determinable by this plan 
than in “full point” judging, though in the majority of cases this 
answers very well ; indeed, in perhaps nine cases out of ten point¬ 
ing is not called for either in judging Chrysanthemums or anything 
else. The plan is perfectly applicable to fruit and vegetables, as 
1 have found by experience ; but in respect to those an uniform 
standard of value should not, in my opinion, be adopted, otherwise a 
dish of Gooseberries might gain, if good, as many points as a pair of 
first-rate bunches of Grapes. On another occasion I will show what is 
meant by varying the standard of value in an example of judging 
cottage gardens and allotments, though in that case there was no 
necessity for two denominators in recording the awards, and it may be 
said the higher the number of points as the standard the less becomes 
the necessity for any further division in judging anything. I am no 
faddist in this matter, and do not resort to point judging in any form 
when it is obviously not required, though it is applicable to almost 
everything but judging groups of plants arranged for effect and table 
decorations. 
As to placing the points awarded to each exhibit on the stands, 
tables, or dishes, if it were practicable I doubt if it would be desirable. 
Personally I should not object as a judge to disclose the points of merit 
awarded. Indeed I think I am the only individual who has published 
them, and if anyone wishes to see them he can do so in “ Castle’s Chrys¬ 
anthemum Annual for 1888,” in return for Is. Id. sent to the publisher 
at this office, as I think there are a few copies still on sale. The inno¬ 
vation was criticised, as might be expected, but that was of no conse¬ 
quence, though a group of critics wrangling over the points exhibited on 
cards in a flower or fruit show might be inconvenient, not to say 
obstructive, to visitors, and the practice, if adopted, possibly end in a 
multiplication of disputes. — J. Weight. 
I have read Mr. Mclndoe's suggestions with respect to the judging 
of collections of fruit at shows. His proposals so far as marking each 
prize exhibit with the number of points awarded are valueless, because 
the nature .of the prizes clearly indicates the various values of the 
collections in the judges’ minds. Assuming that a first prize collec¬ 
tion obtained 5J points, and a second prize collection 5^ points, 
what would it tend to scothe the disappointed competitor placed 
second if the number of points reached were marked on his card? 
Very likely it would lead only to endless squabbling and the greatest 
possible irritation. As it is, the proposed method of judging is not 
at all infallible. If two or three men agreed that a dish of Peaches 
were so close to perfection as to merit 5^ points, a dozen other judges 
might hold them fully worthy of 5| or even 6 full points. There 
can be no system of prize awarding satisfactory which is made to 
depend upon the likes and dislikes, the personal predilections, or the 
judgments, of ordinary men. Assuming that Mr. Melndoe were an 
exhibitor in a competition of the kind he refers to, and were placed 
second when he fully believed he should be first, would the marking of 
his card with the number of points awarded by the judges satisfy him 
that he was wrong? Of course not for a moment, neither is it natural, 
as to him his own samples would be superior to those of others. The 
awards of. judges must be of an inexorable kind, and if the exhibitor 
has. no faith in the capacity of the judges he should refrain from ex¬ 
hibiting. So far at least there is no coercion. As to the non-cutting of 
Melons the proposal is absurd ; appearance and perfume go for little, 
and judging by the look alone the poorest flavoured fruit may get the 
prize. No man worthy of the reputation of a judge would ever take the 
quality of a Melon for granted as he may of a Pine Apple or a Peach. 
—A. D. 
Exhibitors will be g’ad to see Mr. Melndoe taking up this subject, 
which stands so much in need of revision, and I consider from his 
great experience in exhibiting he is well qualified to promu’gate a 
system of judging that might be acceptable to all concerned. I quite 
agree with his remarks as to judges being unwilling to give reasons 
when asked as to the results of adjudication, but the explanation of 
their unwillingness may be found in the fact that they have no system 
worthy of the name to guide them, each one having a way of his own, 
often leading to disagreement, when a decision from a general survey 
has ultimately to be given, so that under these circumstances it is 
impossible to give a satisfactory account of their deliberations. 
Mr. Melndoe brings forward Mr. J. Wiight’s method, which is considered 
a good one for judging Chrysanthemums, and applies it to a collection of 
ten dishes of fruit. But however useful this system may be in judging 
a number of varieties of the same species, it is not suited for judging 
mixed collections of fruit where several species of different values are 
combined. According to his mode of procedure a good dish of Apples 
or Plums is as valuable as a good dish of Grapes or Pine Apple. I 
think it will generally be admitted that this would not be an equit¬ 
able mode of administering justice to dishes of unequal value. Conse¬ 
quently I beg to submit a method which I think will meet the view 
of exhibitors generally, by giving to each dish its intrinsic dietetic and 
commercial worth. 
This system will be illustrated in the subjoined tables in judging 
two collections of fifteen dishes of fruit, comprising two dishes of Pines, 
three of Grapes, one Melon, two of Peaches, one of Nectarines, one of 
Figs, one of Apricots, one of Pears, one of Apples, one of Plums, and one 
of Cherries. These shall be judged by two denominations—namely, 
marks and points, four points being the value of one mark The maxi¬ 
mum standard for Pines being seven marks, for Grapes six, for Melons 
five, for Peaches, Nectarines and Figs four, for Apricots, Pears, Apples, 
and Plums three, and for Cherries two. Collections named A and B, each 
consisting of two varieties of Pines, three of Grapes, one Melon, two 
of Peaches, and one dish each of Nectarines, Figs, Apricots, Apples, 
Plums, and Cherries. 
COLLECTION A. 
Kinds. 
CO 
r* 
S3 
Points. 
Remarks. 
Providence . 
6 
3 
Inferior quality, large. 
Queen . 
7 
— 
Good 5 lbs. fruit. 
Muscat ot Alexandria . 
5 
2 
Not well coloured. 
Madresfield Court . 
6 
— 
Good. 
Black Hamburgh . 
5 
1 
Deficient. 
Hero of LockiDge. 
4 
2 
Undersized. 
Stirling Castle. 
3 
2 
Below standard s’ze. 
Barrington . 
3 
3 
Not well coloured. 
Pine Apple . 
4 
— 
Ex ra gooh 
Negro Largo. 
4 
— 
Fine large. 
Large Early. 
2 
3 
Fair fruit. 
Williams’ Bon Chretien . 
2 
2 
Wanting in colour. 
Irish Peach . 
2 
3 
Good. 
Green Gage . 
2 
2 
Small. 
Elton. 
1 
8 
Fair. 
Total . 
62 
2 
COLLECTION B. 
Kinds. 
00 
c3 
a 
Points. 
Remarks. 
Queen. 
6 
2 
Undersized. 
Smooth Cayenne . 
6 
2 
Good 6 lbs. fruit. 
B. Sweetwater. 
5 
2 
Extra fine. 
Muscat Hamburgh. 
5 
8 
Extra fine colour. 
Gros Colman . 
5 
2 
Wanting in bloom. 
Blenheim Orange . 
5 
— 
Good. 
Royal George . 
8 
3 
Fair. 
Noblest e . 
4 
— 
Good, large. 
Pitmaston Orange . 
8 
2 
Deficient in size. 
Brown Turkey. 
3 
1 
Very deficient. 
Moorpark . 
3 
— 
Extra good. 
Marie Louite. 
3 
— 
Extra. 
Worcts er Pearmain . 
2 
3 
Extra good. 
J fikrson . 
3 
— 
Extra fine. 
Bigarreau. 
2 
— 
Good. 
Total . 
63 
— 
Decided in favour of B by two points. 
From the above tables it will be noticed that the difference in 
cultural merit of the opposing dishes has been very little, so slight as 1 
that it has been settled within the value of a single mark. It is in 
competition like this that the necessity arises for such a system being- 
employed and also recorded for the satisfaction of interested persons.— 
Judex. 
IN EAST ANGLIA. 
BURT ST. EDMUNDS. 
“ Here at last 1 jump up,” was the greeting of Mr. Edward Luck- 
hurst, who sat on the box of his shandrydan awaiting my arrival at. 
Bury St. Edmunds. Tired with the rush about Ipswich, however, anik 
not of the small skip-jack order ot humanity, I am afraid it was more of 
a scramble than a jump to reach the position assigned to me. “ At 
last 1” I repeated, “ Why, how long have you been waiting?”'. “ Oh, two 
minutes here perhaps, but for two years I have been expecting the ful¬ 
filment of your promised visit.” Long-bearded and bronze-visaged, Mr. 
Luckhurst is a typical land agent, surveyor, farmer, and gardener, alL 
under one hat—a white one of course, as becometh a man in such posi¬ 
tion. We were in the town in a moment—a quiet, stately, dignified! 
town, the abbey ruins and fine old churches telling the visitor it has a 
history, and that an ecclesiastical one. The abbey grounds are very 
extensive, a large part being formed into a beautiful garden, in which 
the beds and borders were more gay than any I had hitherto seen during 
the proverbially green summer of 1888. Though the rain may, as is 
commonly the case, have been less incessant than in the midland and 
western counties, and bright autumn weather set in sooner to the ad- 
vantage.of outdoor flowers, yet the abundant and attractive display was 
not the less creditable to the manager or curator, Mr. Pettitt. The sur- 
