CARNATION EXHIBITS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1726, 29 March 1905, Page 69 (Supplement)

CARNATION EXHIBITS.

WRUNG WAYS OF SHOWING

I feel that I shall be expressing the views of a great number of the lovers of our beautiful garden Mowers in the following lines, when I plead tor more natural arrangement of certain exhibits of cut flowers for competition at the many shows throughout the kingdom. It is more especially on behalf of the carnation that I make this appeal, and I wish to express, in the most emphatic way, my disannroval of the whole svstem of dressing the blooms, and in ‘particular G f the use of that miserable absurdity the paper collar, so generally used in exhibiting tlie.se flowers. Wbat could be more distressing to- those- who can see its natural beauty in every well grown flower than survey the batte i: ‘o?n of mutilated specimens' arranged tn stiff rows, each with the pet ;'ls 1 tautened and arranged on a round white card with geometrical precision? What chance has one of forming any opinion as to the merits of

these flowers (other than colour and form of petal) or ‘of the habit of growth or constitution of tlie plants on which they were produced, from such mangled remains—for they are little else? Almost the. entire stalk is cut away, the calyx is split and turned back all round, and any petals that cannot be arranged in accordance with the dresser’s strict ideas of symmetry are extracted, while those that are left are pulled about and arranged, like slate® on a roof, for the absurd reason, that this is considered necessary before they are ready to enter for a “fulldress” competition. Now there may be a certain number of enthusiastic growers of this lovely flower who delight thus to- exhibit and make ridiculous the results of their skill and untiring care, but I think the majority of exhibitors, do so simply because they are obliged' to, and not because such methods appeal in any way to their sense of what is artistic or beautiful. These practices are calculated to lower the standard of the carnation by allowing such great defects as a weak stem or a bursting calyx to be effectually hidden, and I contend that the object of bringing flowers together for

Comparison in. oom petition is all but defeated if such defects can pass unregarded. If the so-oalled show flowers are not good enough to compete for a prize in their natural form as they grew, would it not be infinitely better to leave them at home and endeavour to grow something better? But if they possess the natural beauties of form, colour and last, but not least, scent, then why not let us see them i-n all their natural beauty? One can understand that the judges have tot give their decisions in conformity with the accepted rules, for they are only the administrators of the law. .Public taste has not been considered, and I think I may say that most ©xbiters would welcome the abolition of paper collars and tweezers, with •all. the little subterfuges of the dresser's arr, and the substitution of a more open and unartificial method of procedure. Unfortunately, it is the confiding public alone who are deceived. When they see these flowers they think they can he grown in the same form as they appear on the show bench, and their disappointment is acute when they come to* realise that such results are only to be produced by careful manipulation of the flowers, which, perhaps, without the necessary knowledge of the art of dressing, would be shapeless and disappointing to a degree.

To whom, then, are we to look for the much desired reform? Are the members of the committees of the different societies who arrange the shows afraid to make a change? I cannot think that they are unwilling. Let them consider the matter well, and for the sake of argument suppose that “dressing” were not permitted and paper collars had not previously been heard of. Can you imagine an exhibitor bringing his 'Rowers so decked out for the first time to show where all the other flowers were exhibited as grown? What would he the result? Not sufficiently encouraging to warrant a repetition of the experiment, I think. The converse of this has happened to me. I wished to enter some seedlings for certificates at one of our largest carnation shows, and was told that I must nut up one “dressed” and one “undressed” bloom in order to conform to the rules. I have never dressed a bloom and never intend to. So I did not stage my blooms. Sbrely this is not as it should be. Is it contended that it is easier to judge of the merits or defects of a flower that has been dressed than one that has not? If dressing is to he encouraged, would it nob ho quite reasonable to allow a bloom to be entirely manufactured, taking the best petals from numbers of blooms and placing them on the card without troubling about the calyx, and such apparently unimportant, details. This would call forth even more skill at the hands of the “dresser.” The classes for so-called “undressed” blooms staged in threes are becoming more popular. This is a good sign and a step in the right direction; but there is room for some reform even in the rules applying to this class of competition. Bands and ties are allowed to he used provided they are removed before the show, a little dressing of the petals is not objected to 1 , and to all practical purposes the flowers are fakedv A burster may be prevented from bursting, and a badly-shaped flower may he pulled into shape; this is not what we want. I should not be content until all flowers are shown as they grow naturally. Let there he separate classes for show and border varieties, and by this I mean a class for those jdiat require the protection of glass, and another class for border varieties grown entirely m the open, hut in both classes let the blooms be exhibited, with their stems cut long, and accompanied in every case by their own foliage.. Then, and not till then, may we hopo that a stronger and altogether more satisfactory race of carnations will spring up, from which we shall be able with confidence to select a collection for growing either under glass or in the open.

At present tlie really good border varieties that will thrive and give an abundance of well formed and fragrant flowers in an ordinary garden and under ordinary conditions are only too scarce, but I think by encouraging the exhibition of flowers grown and shown naturally with long stems, say not less than 12 inches in length, we should soon find that there would be little room for the weak, thin stemmed, bursting varieties, which, although perhaps very beautiful in colouring, are of little use except for exhibition in the classes where such defects can be hidden. The disappointment that is annually experienced after nlanting carnations from lists of names taken at the shows where dressed blooms are encouraged jnust he very great. I have been told by a carnation grower that the reason carnations wore so pro lit able \v;i •; because people required new plan! s (. verv year! 1 think, myself, that morplo would buy and grow them if A y could rely on tlicir survhiiiy for ;• P-w years in their gardens. The Shropshire Horticultural t-Jr.-L : y has set a good example by oh'-;'ay-prizes for a collection of carnaiion- ; -t i piootees shown with their own ioirigo

and buds not dressed in any way. This gives encouragement to the really sound useful varieties, which the majority of garden lovers wish to find and possess. If other societies would follow this lead, we should, I think, find that a new race of carnations would spring up.— W. A. Watts in “The Garden.”