There is no ARS rule requiring the date on the entry tags for OGRs. I was involved in reviewing the DQ rules before they were published and I can tell you this one never even came up. It is being done by local rose societies that either don't understand the ARS rules or that want to carry on a local tradition.

I go bonkers when this subject comes up. I won Dowager Queen in a show one time and then it was taken away from me by someone who noticed that I didn't write the date of introduction on the tag. It was early morning and I just didn't see it in the schedule.
The reason that was given was that the judges wanted to be sure a rose was qualified for Dowager Queen. If a judge didn't know that, he had no business judging OGR class. That is a clear case of ignorance support.
If my Dowager Queen was to be penalized for such a frivolous reason, it should have been disqualified altogether.
Vernon Johnson
Mesena,Ga.
I always see red when such pettiness comes to light.

I grow and exhibit and judge all types of roses. I have won Dowager and Victorian many times, and have had my share of roses disqualified because I forgot to put the date on the tag. But I have to disagree with the apparent majority of people on this issue. Since qualification for the Dowager or Victorian is strictly based upon the date a rose entered commerace, the dates should be required on the tags. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of old garden roses out there and its unreasonable to expect even the most knowageable judge to know them all or to delay the opening of the show while you look up dates. However, the date requirment should always be stated on the show schedule and once an award is made it should never be taken back.

The way to solve the problem is to rearrange the OGR classes. Either do away with the two awards of Dowager and Victorian, then give out more awards in the combined class, or divide up Dowager and Victorian by rose class. The way it currently is, you have to look up the date anyway to see where it goes, so you might as well write it down.

I have judged shows where dates were required or they wern't. Even if the dates are on the tag, we always checked the date to make sure that the rose was in the correct class prior to awarding the trophy.

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.

The Official List of Approved Exhibition Names includes every cultivar in the Modern Roses database and designates which ones are eligible for Dowager by the use of asterisks by the names. No great research is needed to see if a rose is eligible for Dowager. Just look in the OL.

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?

Is the Official List of Approved Exhibition Names actually correct on this? When the first edition was published, this was a major sore spot. About half the roses eligible for Dowager Queen were *not* marked as such. It was not corrected in the second edition, and I haven't heard positively that the problem has been fixed yet.

Phil is correct; all roses eligible for âÂÂDowager Queenâ (DQ) Award are in the 2005 Official List of Exhibition Names for Exhibitors & Judges, (AEN) publication DATABASE.

The problem is, not all roses eligible for the âÂÂDowager Queenâ Award in the âÂÂAENâ DATABASE, are indicated by ** after its name, indicating it is eligible for âÂÂDowager QueenâÂÂ. 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 âÂÂDowager Queenâ Award, missing in past âÂÂAENâÂÂsâ including the 2004 âÂÂAENâÂÂ. The 2005 âÂÂAENâÂÂ, is still missing approximately 252 roses with out the ** after its name indicating it is eligible for the âÂÂDowager Queenâ Award.

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

Ron S.

The trend here in S/Cal is to stop requiring the dates and type on the entry tags. Its just another step that if missed will cause a rose to be D/Q'd. Why make exhibitors jump through so many hoops?

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

Ron, I have little doubt that your lists are very good and have very few errors, if any. However, exhibitors are taking a risk if they use your lists in place of the ARS lists. If your lists have things that disagree with the ARS lists, they could easily have roses DQed because the judging rules and guidelines make it very clear the ARS listings are the official ones and the judges may not have the patience to check every ARS source before making a ruling.

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.

Phil,

I truly appreciate your positive comments on the validity of âÂÂRose Listsâ 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 âÂÂRose Listsâ 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 âÂÂAENâ 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 âÂÂDowager Queenâ Award. If a (DQ) rose not indicated as such in the 2005 âÂÂAENâÂÂ, 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 âÂÂAENâÂÂ, new rose introductions or corrections in (Supplement Rose Lists) updated and posted each month on this Garden Web site.

The first âÂÂAENâ published in 2001 stated âÂÂARS is responsible for meeting the needs of exhibitors and judges, with other publications by definition, taking second place to ARS publications.â âÂÂAs well as eliminate, the need for supplement publications by other authors.â 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 âÂÂAENâÂÂ, 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 worldâÂÂs big secrets is not helping ARS members, or enhancing ARS true image as an educational society.

Ron S.