406 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
November 1,18M. 
LJM S 
Cheysanthemum Shows. 
As is usual at this time of the year we have received numerous 
intimations of Chrysanthemum shows which are to be held during the 
ensuing season. Space, however, can only be found for mentioning 
those that have been advertised in our columns up to date, of which 
the following is a list. We append the names and addresses of the 
respective secretaries. 
Nov. 2nd and 3rd.— Crystal Palace. —W. G. Head, Crystal Palace, 
S.E. 
„ 6th, 7th, and 8th, Dec. 4th, 5th, and 6th.— National Chrysan¬ 
themum Society (Royal Aquarium, Westminster).— 
E. Dean, Kanelagh Road, Ealing. 
„ 6th and 7th.— Leeds Paxton. — J. Campbell, The Gardens, 
Methley Park, Leeds. 
„ 6th and 7th.—B righton and Sussex (New).—M. Longhurst, 18, 
Church Road, Hove. 
„ 6th and 7th.— Watford. —Chas. R. Humbert, Watford. 
„ 7th and 8th.— Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale. —F. J. 
Patton, The Links, Ascot. 
„ 7th and 8th.— Bournemouth and District. — J. Spong, The 
Gardens, Lindisfarne, Bournemouth. 
„ 7th and 8th.— Wolverhampton.— J. H. Wheeler, The Gardens, 
Glen Bank, Tettenhall. 
„ 7th and 8th.— Liverpool. — W. Dickson, 7, Victoria Street, 
Liverpool. 
„ 13th and 14th.— Kingston and Surbiton. —P. J. Hayward, High 
Street, Kingston. 
„ 13th and 14th.— Kidderminster (St. George’s Institute).— 
H. Turley. 
„ 13th and 14th.— Plymouth (West of England).—C. Wilson, 4, 
North Hill. 
„ 13th and 14th.— Faeneam. —F. Weller-Poley, Waverley Abbey, 
Farnham. 
„ 14th and 15th.— Barnsley. — W. Earle, 20, Grove Street, 
Barnsley. 
„ 14th and 15th.— Hull and East Riding. —E. Harland and J. 
Dixon, Manor Street, Hull. 
,, 14th and 15th.— Birmingham, —J. Hughes, High Street, Harborne, 
Birmingham. 
„ 14th and 15th.— South Shields and Northern Counties, — 
B, Cowan, Harton, South Shields. 
„ 14th and 15th.— Herefordshire.— J. Ough, 7, Clifford Street, 
Hereford. 
„ 14th and 15th.— Bristol. —E. G. Cooper. 
„ 14th and 15th.— Rugby. —William Bryant, 8, Barby Road, Rugby, 
„ 14th, 15th, and 16th.—Y ork.—J. Lazenby, 13, Feasgate, York. 
„ 15th.— Birkenhead and Wirral.— W. Bassett, 23, Grove Road, 
Rock Ferry. 
„ 15th and 16th. —Winchester. — Chaloner Shenton, Westgate 
Chambers, Winchester. 
„ 16th and 17th.— Bolton, —James Hicks, Markland Hill Lane, 
Heaton, Bolton. 
„ 16ch and 17th.— Chesterfield. — A. H. Johnson, New Square, 
Chesterfield. 
„ 16th and 17th.—E ccles, Pateicroft, Pendleton and District. 
—H. Huber, Hazeldene, Winton, Patricroft. 
„ 16th and 17th,— Bradford and District. —H. R. Barraclough, 
383, Bowling Old Lane, Bradford. 
„ 16th and 17th.— Sheffield.- W, Houseley, 177, Cemetery Road. 
„ 20th and 21st.— Woking. — H. W. Robertson, Somerset Villa, 
Woking. ’ 
Chrysanthemum Hairy Wonder. 
When the hirsute variety Mrs. Alpheus Hardy first made its appear¬ 
ance a few years since, it was generally thought that a large nsmber of 
Chrysanthemums with hairy florets would follow it, and this has proved 
to be the case. In most collections it is now a common occurrence to 
find at least half a dozen such varieties, but in trade establishments 
where novelties are made a feature a much larger number than that may 
be seen. Mr. H. J. Jones, Ryecroft Nursery, Lewisham, has many of 
these curious varieties, and pmongst them is Hairy Wonder, Last week 
an award of merit was adjudged for this variety by the Royal Horticul¬ 
tural Society, and on the following day, the 24th ult., Mr, Jones secured 
a first-class certificate for it at a meeting of the National Chrysanthe¬ 
mum Society. The illustration (fig. 63), which has been reduced from a 
photograph of one of the flowers exhibited, depicts the character of this 
novelty, which is of a rich cinnamon buff colour< 
HINTS ON JUDGING. 
The remarks I purpose making on judging Chrysanthemums are 
intended for those who are commencing the arduous duties for the first 
time during the coming season. It is right that new blood, as it were 
should be imported into the ranks of Chrysanthemum judges ; the elder 
members are getting tired of the work, or less anxious to accept engage¬ 
ments than formerly. At this I do not wonder, entailing as it does 
much tax on the brain and anxiety of mind to do justice to all con¬ 
cerned, apart from the many long railway journeys incurred. A remark 
made to the writer some years since by one of our most experienced and 
respected judges—Mr. J. Wright—is opportune. “ When you have had 
as much of it as I have you will be less mad after Chrysanthemums 
than you are now,” Persons who have not previously acted as judges 
must of necessity feel some trepidation when making their first award, 
especially if the class is well filled with exhibits close in point of merit. 
Exhibits in some classes judge themselves, but when the competition is 
keen it is then that a good method of adjudicating is beneficial. Much 
more difficulty is often experienced in finding the third prize stand than 
there is in selecting the first. This class of prize deserves as much 
attention as does the first, and should receive its due proportion. 
Although these hints are intended for beginners I shall be all the 
more gratified if they are beneficial to older judges than myself. I 
fancy some might pick up a wrinkle or two if they would take the 
trouble to digest these remarks without prejudice. 
Popular as are Chrysanthemums in all phases of their culture, 
I think it must be conceded that at public exhibitions generally the section 
devoted to cut blooms receives the greater share of patronage. At the 
present time, when as many as 200 varieties of Chrysanthemums are 
encountered at one show, a different system must prevail of allotting 
the prizes than was the case twenty years since, when less than a third 
of that number were met with. The enormous increase of varieties in 
the Japanese section alone requires the adoption of a quick and at the 
same time a sure method of dealing out justice to exhibitors. Prizes 
are generally offered for a specified number of blooms, and not for a 
stand collectively, irrespective of its number. Every bloom should be 
judged upon its individual merits, or why specify a certain number ? 
There are various methods adopted of arriving at a definite issue as to 
the relative merits of exhibits, and I contend that all judges should be 
able and willing to give the reason why stand 44 is superior to its 
neighbour in the same class. It may not always be policy to do so, but 
when an exhibitor approaches a judge in a becoming manner for 
educational purposes then the adjudicator would do well to give the 
information required. There are some exhibitors, though, who do not 
always ask for information from this point of view ; these, as a rule, 
obtain such information as I think answers my purpose best; 
No one will deny that adjudicating on the many blooms placed 
before the judges is very much a matter of individual taste. There are, 
of course, certain facts and points about blooms which cannot be ignored, 
but when two stands of blooms in the Japanese section, for instance, 
with all their peculiarities of form, are considered to be almost equal in 
point of merit, the deciding point of balance must be very much a 
matter of individual taste. For instance, one judge may consider the 
broad florets of some variety represent higher culture than his colleague 
will admit, while the latter may have a leaning to forms of Japanese 
Chrysanthemums which his partner does not so much admire. 
Methods of Judging. 
As is well known to readers of the Journal of Horticulture I am a 
staunch believer in the point method of judging cut blooms. I allude, 
of course, to instances where the competition is close in point of merit, 
and maintain that it is the only way of meting out justice to all concerned. 
Many judges still stick to the method of judging by comparison. This 
system was perhaps all right many years ago when varieties were less 
numerous and the types of blooms fewer, but now we have such an 
enormous number of sorts representing almost all manner of forms the 
comparison method of judging does not do justice to individual character¬ 
istics. Apart from the justice of the case, the comparison method 
entails much unnecessary labour as well as loss of time. It is not 
possible for any set of judges to carry in their mind’s eye, as it were, 
the merits of a stand of twenty-four blooms, much less forty-eight, in a 
competition of say fifteen competitors, except, of course, where one 
exhibit is infinitely superior to all others in this particular class. To 
