Return to the Rose Exhibiting Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Posted by rosesnpots z8 Tidewater area VA (My Page) on
Mon, May 18, 09 at 19:30

I took a few roses to a rose show this past weekend and one of them is not listed in the current Rose List supplement but is listed in the Modern 12 that is online on the ARS website. Can you show a rose that is listed in the Modern 12 but not in the current Rose List Supplement? My rose was almost DQ'ed because of this and I have quite a few roses that are in the Modern 12 but not currently listed in the 2009 Rose List supplement.

Thanks


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

The Modern Roses 12 online database is the official list of roses that can be shown. If your rose shows up there with an AEN, you can show it. If it shows up there, but without an AEN, you can't show it. The only recognized supplement to MR12 is the Combined Rose List, which can list some newer roses not yet in MR12.

What list are you refering to when you say the 2009 Rose List supplement? If you mean the list produced by Ron Schwerdt, it is not an official list recognized by the ARS and should not be used by judges in rose shows. If you mean the 2009 Official List of Approved Exhibition Names produced by the ARS, then it should be identical to the MR12 database with the exception of some very new roses.

What rose did you enter that was DQed?


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Thanks for the answer back, I ment to say the 2009 list (small booklet). The rose was a Peter Beales' Rose 'Happy Memories'. They did not DQ it, but they did not look at it either (I guess because they could not neither comfirm or deny?). Yes the rose does have a ARS exhibit name of Happy Memories and is listed as 'S' for shrub.

Thanks again for answering me back. Do you think I sould print out the page for each rose from the Modern Rose 12 just in case for next time?


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

The judges really should have at least the 2009 Official List published by the ARS. If none of the judges have it, the show committee certainly should. It only costs $20 and contains all the same roses listed in the MR12 database as of January. If they don't have even this resource it probably would be a good idea to print out the pages for the roses you are worried about.

I'm sorry to hear you are having this problem. Your show committee is not doing their job if they don't have even the OL available.


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Phil

I think I will make a book up with all my roses using the pages from the MR12 online data base. I may even buy the Offical List if the general members are able too.

Thanks again for your help


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Anyone can buy a copy of the Official List of Approved Exhibition Names. The book is there to help judges and exhibitors, but anyone can buy a copy. Good luck with your future shows.


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Rosesnpots

The small book referred to is ARS Handbook for Selecting Roses. As its editor stated on several occasions, "We need to remember that the primary purpose of the "Handbook for Selecting Roses" is to help the general rose grower in deciding upon roses to purchase and grow. Its primary purpose is not to assist judges and exhibitors. That is the purpose of the Official List of Approved Exhibition Names "AEN". Two entirely different publications, with entirely different purposes". Also, "Judges should not be using the Handbook for Selecting Roses, to decide if a rose is eligible to be shown. It only includes about 10% of all the eligible roses."
After the ARS Board ruled that the Modern Roses 12 online database is an official publication as part of Modern Roses 12. "Since it is always the latest publication, it is the one shows should rely upon. There won't be much difference between it and the 2009 Official List, but there could be." Yet in the short span since the 2009 OL was published; approximately 55 new introductions were added. (See the latest posted Rose List Supplement)
Since MR 12 database is now considered ARS latest publication, it is the one shows should rely upon. The Official List of Approved Exhibition Names "AEN" no longer is ARS latest publication verifying an AEN. The change wouldnt be so bad, if the database was up to date. At present youre still required to purchase the 2009 CRL, to find many 2009 rose introductions, and if changes occurred in the 2008 Official List etc. Since January 2009 publication many changes have taken place in the 2009 OL. Missing from the database are approximately 1586 unregistered roses, which ARS has never published any official data. As for the Combined Rose List (CRL) being the only recognized supplement to MR12, like most printed reference material, it also obsolete the day printed.
Staying updated on the latest AENs, without Modern Roses 12 and its database publication, is to purchase ARS 2009 Official Rose List of Approved Exhibition Names (AEN), and use it in conjunction with the 2009 Official Rose List Supplement posted monthly. Keep in mind "it is not an official list recognized by the ARS and should not be used by judges in rose shows", It is a reliable supplement to ARS 2009 Official Rose List. Does it really matter to you if ARS sanctions it or not, as long as it contains the latest additions, changes and corrections to registered roses with an AEN? While not official per se, all information it contains is from ARS own publications. If you wish, I can e-mail you monthly lists.
Ron Schwerdt


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Ron, when you mention 1,586 varieties, you are quoting from the Combined Rose List introduction, are you not? Let's look at the number to see what it represents.

1. There are usually 300-500 new introductions every year that have not been registered but are listed in the CRL. Those are roses that were not in the 2009 Official List. However, some of them are in the Modern Roses 12 database and all of them will be before too long. Further, most of them are new European and Asian introductions that no one in the U.S. will be growing and showing yet, so their mention is meaningless in this context.

2. This number includes hundreds of "found" roses which are listed under study names or commercial names in the CRL. Since they are not eligible to be shown in any class that gives ARS awards, this number is misleading. Yes, shows can have a class for "found" roses that doesn't give ARS awards, but whether the listings in the CRL are accepted for that show is up to the person writing the show schedule. We intentionally don't include "found" roses in the Official List of Approved Exhibition Names since they don't have AENs.

3. There are some names listed in the CLR that we know are not correct, or that are synonyms for other names and not shown as such in the CRL. I have not attempted a count to know how many, but we know there are some. The CRL accepts the name the nursery uses without doing a great deal of immediate research to see if it is a truly unique variety.

4. It is hard to know whether the 1,586 number was based upon the 2008 OL or the 2009 version. I would guess it was the 2008, since including the 2009 OL data would have been difficult given the publication dates and lead time required. Clearly the 2009 version has many more names than the 2008.

All in all, I think it is misleading to imply that 1,586 names that should be in the 2009 OL are not there. I would bet if the list of 1,586 names was produced, we could eliminate many hundreds of them.

I would also suggest that your supplement, which you continue to push, is missing many of the same unregistered new roses from Europe and Asia, plus having other problems I won't bother to spell out here.


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Phil, The primary purpose of my thread was to explain to rosesnpots, why many roses are not listed in the 2009 Handbook, which you failed to point out.

1) Why would you tell rosesnpots to purchase ARS 2009 Official List of Approved Exhibition Names (AEN), without noting it is not considered ARS latest official publication?

2) My published monthly rose lists, only list roses having an (AEN). It makes no sense to list unregistered or "found" roses etc, without AENs in the SUPPLEMENT rose lists? It was never indicated, that all roses in the CRL should be in ARS 2009 OL.

3) Is this paragraph correct? To stay up to date on latest AENs without spending extra money each year. Is simply purchase the latest ARS Official Rose List of Approved Exhibition Names (AEN), and use it in conjunction with the Rose List Supplement posted monthly. Keep in mind as Phil pointed out, "it is not an official list recognized by the ARS and should not be used by judges in rose shows". Yet in reality, is a very reliable SUPPLEMENT to ARS 2009 Official Rose List. Does it really matter if ARS sanctions it or not, as long as it contains the latest Corrections/Additions/Deletions to roses with an AEN? While not official per se, information contained is from ARS own publications.

4) Why do I publish supplement rose lists? Because without additional cost each year, all Corrections/Additions/Deletions of AEN,s, are available to members on a timely basis. Would you please let the public know when ARS latest publication, ARS 2009 MR 12 database is up to date? Thank You

Ron Schwerdt


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Ron, let me reply to your questions.

1. The Official List is less expensive than Modern Roses and includes virtually every rose someone is likely to exhibit. It is true that some exhibitors who like to exhibit the very latest roses might have one that isn't in the OL, but I didn't feel the person asking the question was in that small group.

2. I mentioned the "found" roses because you quoted the 1,586 figure from the CRL and said they were missing from the database. That implies they all should be there. If you knew the 1,586 included "found" roses that didn't belong in your list or in the OL, why did you mention the number? It was completely misleading.

3. Your list does include some roses not in the OL. However, I do see some errors in your posts. I hope they don't lead to someone being DQed, but it is possible. Judges should not be using your lists, since they are required to use the approved sources listed in the Guidelines.

4. I will let you know when I have managed to enter all the new roses listed in the CRL. As I said previously, almost all of them are from Europe and Asia and some of those are florist roses. It is unlikely anyone will be entering any of them in our shows this year.


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Just an update. I have entered roughly 200 new roses so far. That's about half the eventual total. The vast majority of these 200 come from two sources - either new roses from Asia (Japan, India, Australia) or florist roses from Europe. None of them are going to be entered in shows in the U.S. this year. In fact, I would be surprised if any of them are being grown in the U.S. this year. I would guess there have been 5 or 6 new roses being sold by U.S. nurseries.

By the way, the reason it is taking some time is because I don't just enter name, class and color. I go to nursery websites and try to gather as much data as possible. It has been difficult especially with some of the Japanese websites, since I don't know Japanese and they have nothing more than the name in English. I have been using online translation services to try to get a feel for what they are saying, but it is difficult and time-consuming.

Where the nurseries don't have a website, particularly from India, I have requested a catalogue and will be adding more data when it arrives.


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Just an update. I have now finished adding the roughly 400 new roses from the CRL that were not already in the MR12 database. I added as much information on each one as I could find in catalogues, websites, by email contact, etc. I would estimate only 10 or less were being sold in the U.S. this year, since we had already added many new ones through the registration process, because I had received catalogues earlier this year, etc. The largest number came from Japan and India, with quite a few florist roses coming from European sources. There were also quite a few new garden roses in total from European and South African nurseries, but none of them were available in the U.S. this year.


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Phil,
Thanks for the update.
Ron


 o
RE: Roses not in 2009 Rose List supplement?

Phil,

Would you share this list with me like I share my lists with you?

Ron


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Rose Exhibiting Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here