I know this has become a tired subject, but I'd like to state my own reasons for discontinuing my membershipin the AOS:
Consider the renaming of the 'AOS Bulletin' to 'Orchids', along with the format changes. The renaming is indicative of the general dumbing-down of the magazine. 'The AOS Bulletin' sounds too educational, not for popular consumption. The new name implies the desire on someone's part to remake the publication into the 'People Magazine' or 'USA Today' of orchids. More image, less substance. Mixing the ads with the articles, instead of at the back of the magazine, must have been an attempt to raise revenues. Changing the size of the magazine was an undesirable break with tradition that collectors must have found frustrating, at least in that it called for greater spacing between existing shelves in the library. So much for uniformity. Collectors of National Geographic would likely recoil from a similar resizing. The content of 'Orchids' reflects the general dumbing-down approach previously mentioned. Instead of photos of the very best orchids, we are treated to an ego-fest of selections from an elite group of growers, AOS sycophants and advertisers. One regular article features the collection of a respected photographer who can't resist the temptation to highlight his own growing prowess. Often readers are subjected to articles from wealthy patrons that could all be subtitled 'Orchids I Saw on My World Tour While You Were Working to Feed and House Your Kids'. Many articles include pictures of the luminaries of the orchid world, often hobnobbing with the jewel-encrusted, over-tanned snobs who delight in their status as American aristocrats. Save that for the society pages! English language orchid publications far superior to 'Orchids' are available internationally, including 'Orchids Australia', 'Richardiana' and the 'Australian Orchid Review'. In the U.S. 'The Orchid Digest' is easily the best orchid publication available. In terms of substance, it offers more in four quarterly issues than 'Orchids', a monthly, provides in a full year. The AOS judging system has serious flaws that only become increasingly apparent over time. Many growers feel that the fees associated with receiving an award are both excessive and extortionate. Pay the price or lose the award. What are the costs associated with adding a line to a database and printing a certificate on a word processor? The costs associated with producing slides were hardly substantial, but even these costs could have been reduced had the AOS not so tardily joined the digital age. Judging venues throughout the country are dominated by the decrepit who have long since lost their enthusiasm for orchids, but who can't resist playing the authority in spite of their apparent incompetance. Many judges, who should be constantly on the alert for superior plants, disregard all plants lacking a formal request for judging. So many judges seem to be in a hurry, as if their time is too valuable to waste on plants that don't measure up to their own (supposedly impeccable) standards. Yet they don't hesitate to dish out awards to their fellow judges, even while pretending that they don't know who grew the plants. How does a judge bring a plant in for judging without being seen by all those already present? Many judges even travel to judging in the same vehicles. Why is it that so many growers and breeders of orchids, unless judges themselves, show such distain for the AOS judging system? Who is more qualified to judge an orchid: a professional grower, who has spent years pursuing improvements in size, color and form, or some retired schoolteacher who misses the opportunity to lecture to others as if they were children? Why is it that AOS judges passed out numerous (at least 10) FCC's for Paphiopedilum armeniacum (first described in 1982, first FCC in1983) within 5 years of its published description (1982), even though they had no standards by which to evaluate those blooms? A review of the dimensions alone of some of those FCC armeniacums reveal that some of them were of a size that today would get them screened before they were even scored. Presumably the judges involved were dazzled by the color, but brilliant yellow is typical of nearly all armeniacums. Perhaps they were confusing armeniacum with primulinum flavum. Is it any wonder why so many knowlegeable and enthusiastic growers decline to enter the judging system, in spite of their devotion to orchids and their cultivation? One further wonders how truly knowledgeable and competant judges (and there are many) continue to participate. With respect to the AOS Forum, I have never ventured there, assuming that is dominated by shills for the AOS. Nothing I have heard from others has contradicted that assumption. The AOS proclaims its efforts at furthering the cause of conservation. Whatever efforts made in that regard are laudable, but if we don't put a stop to global warming and unrestricted growth no amount of micromanagement of the environment will save the orchids or any other living things. Thanks for tolerating this rant. Rick Barry
_______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
