I mentioned to my friend and client Grace Seward today about the discussion about dates on entry tags for OGR Roses. Please see Brenda's post about Rose de Rescht. Grace is 91, has been in the ARS for at least 30 years, is a judge and is NOT on the Internet. She said that it is an ARS rule to have dates on OGR entry tags. Is that true? Is it not an option for the schedule writer(Kitty?)? Grace said it is to make sure you have the right rose. But isn't it always the case even with HTs, Fls, Species, etc? It seems there are so many ways to be disqualified. Do we need one more?

Thanks,
Aprille :-) who might run a rose show herself next year(after 16 years!).

If the date was off a year or two, but was in the correct class, that was fine. We weren't going to D/Q an entry because they put 1852 instead of 1825.

But Phil is correct, the option of dates on the tags is strictly up the to RS and it MUST be clearly marked in the schedule.

I don't understand why requiring the date on the tag is supposed to help. Since exhibitors can make mistakes, if a rose is going to be given an award you check the date shown against the reference anyway. Why go through the extra step of requiring the exhibitor to show the date?

The problem is, not all roses eligible for the “Dowager Queen” Award in the “AEN” DATABASE, are indicated by ** after its name, indicating it is eligible for “Dowager Queen”. The Database requires updating.

Posted on this forum for Exhibitors and Judges on June 8, 2004 was a list of 277 roses eligible for the “Dowager Queen” Award, missing in past “AEN’s” including the 2004 “AEN”. The 2005 “AEN”, is still missing approximately 252 roses with out the ** after its name indicating it is eligible for the “Dowager Queen” Award.

The “AEN” Supplement Rose List for May, 2005 contains a list of the 252 roses eligible for “Dowager Queen” Award. If ARS believes this list of roses eligible for “Dowager Queen” Award is inaccurate, or requires a correction, it should advise ARS members using these lists.

Ron S.

We only only need to really verify the date before awarding the trophy.

However, I want to commend you for all the work you do with your lists and I look forward to the day when your lists and the ARS lists fully agree. I believe the day when they are very close is coming soon.

I truly appreciate your positive comments on the validity of “Rose Lists” posted. Yet most people who use them are well aware and as pointed out in the Rose Lists headed, are intended as a handy reference of information for judges and exhibitors. Information on “Rose Lists” contains additions, deletions and corrections to the 2005 AEN, all retrieved from past official ARS publications. Or (CRL), a source considered as a having temporary AEN, until officially published in an ARS publication. Lists are definitely not meant to supersede any official ARS publication, only enhance and used as a supplement to the 2005 “AEN” publication as its title indicates.

Phil would you not agree it would be much fairer to an exhibitor or judge, who has to judge weather a rose is eligible for the “Dowager Queen” Award. If a (DQ) rose not indicated as such in the 2005 “AEN”, exhibitors had a reliable source that verifies a roses date of existence, than denying an exhibitor the opportunity to exhibit it for such a prestigious award, only because of a lack of official information on ARS part?

True, you can find a date of a roses introduction by researching through years of past ARS publications as I have done, or carry all required publications when you judge. Or you could use the Rose Lists indicating the year of a (DQ) rose not listed in the 2005 “AEN”, new rose introductions or corrections in (Supplement Rose Lists) updated and posted each month on this Garden Web site.

The first “AEN” published in 2001 stated “ARS is responsible for meeting the needs of exhibitors and judges, with other publications by definition, taking second place to ARS publications.” “As well as eliminate, the need for supplement publications by other authors.” At the present time this has not happened nor will it ever happen using antiqued systems of publishing up to date information on roses. Until such time that ARS can live up to its statement in the 2001 “AEN”, ARS would be very wise to let members know about these Rose Lists containing up to date information on roses. As stated in a previous post would appreciate any corrections ARS finds, helping make these lists more accurate and beneficial to exhibitors. While not considered official by ARS standards, keeping posted Rose Lists one of the world’s big secrets is not helping ARS members, or enhancing ARS true image as an educational society.

Ron S.