Dear Ron,

This is a topic that I happen to be very close to as I was one of the test growers for Ty. Robbie initially registered this rose as a miniflora. However, he changed the class of the Ty rose to that of a miniature well in advance of the National show due to reports from test growers like me who though it was a better fit in the mini class.

I specifically remember him writing me about it. I also know for certain that he made the change on the IRAR website and had a formal document in his possession at the Indianapolis show from Marily Young to prove this change.

Furthermore, Robbie also notified those in charge of the show (before judging) of the change and the document he had in his possession in case there was some question by the judges. He felt that some judges would rightly challenge the correct classification and wanted to make sure there were no questions that would unfairly disqualify the entry.

I hope this clears up the question of the classification of this rose. In speaking with Robbie recently, he mentioned to me that he agrees that there needs to be a better system in place to rapidly update the available information for judges.

I am sure that a better system will be in place soon what with people as diligent as you on the job.

Thanks, as always, Ron, for all you do.

Suzanne Horn

I was also a test grower of the variety TY. I also received notification on June 13th, 2005 that TY was now classified as a miniature instead of the original classification of mini-flora. Robbie notified everyone who had a plant of TY to make sure that they realized that it must be shown as a miniature. Marily Young made the change on June 13th 2005 on the IRAR website. It is very easy to view the IRAR database sorted by date. The most recent will be first. I will always print the most recent registrations to have for the judges whenever I serve as show chairman of our local society. You can print the whole list after sorting by date or just cut and paste the last few months into a new document before printing. I was not at the show but I applaud the judges for taking the time to make sure they were not DQ a rose by mistake.

Suzanne / Rosetech,

Thank you both for posting. I agree with both of you rose testers that Ty is a miniature rose, that was preciously the purpose of the post on the GW site on July 13,2005, making other judges and exhibitors aware of Ty’s new reclassification. It seems everyone who was a test grower for the rose was aware of the status change of Ty, but the general public and all judges at the show, including the show chairman of judges. Judges were not informed that Ty was recently reclassified as a miniature rose, and disqualified was based on the latest dated information ARS published. After Ty was verified as a miniature, my ballot was the first to be submitted to show chairman voting for Ty as miniature queen. Talking to Robbie that afternoon, asked him about the change on Ty’s classification. As Suzanne stated, on advice from test growers he made the change submitting it to ARS in June.

On July 11,2005 two days after the rose show, I sent the following e-mail to the ARS National Chairman of Registrations:

Phil,

Let me again repeat what was stated previously. As long as ARS uses an antiquated method of reporting on roses in the Rose, or ARS/IRAR web site, is not serving its purpose of providing the latest information to judges and exhibitors. As a matter of fact at the present time, no ARS publications regarding rosés have up to date information in them. Even the ARS/ IRAR web site is making it very inconvenient for judges or exhibitors to correctly identify roses, and may or may not be listing roses correctly. You have to ask why ARS makes changes corrections/ additions/ deletions to the AEN or ARS / IRAR web site, without properly notifying the public? Let me explain why.

This weekend at the Seventh National Miniature Rose Show in Indianapolis, Robbie Tucker won Miniature Queen of the show with “Ty”. But not before a short discussion on the roses true classification. The April Rose magazine lists it as a mini-flora, but no correction was noted in the July Rose magazine. ARS still lists it as a mini-flora on its web site judge’s page as of July 7, 2005 (that list was also to include, corrections/ additions/ deletions).

According to the ARS / IRAR web site it was originally registered on 3-3-05 as a mini-flora. Based on this and all other official ARS publications having identical information, “Ty” should have been classified as a mini-flora. Luckily the hybridizer was there and said he had reclassified it to a miniature over a month ago. Arriving home today, looked over a listing of approximately 623 registered roses, or 25 pages of ARS / IRAR web site listing over the years, found it is now registered as a miniature rose also on 3-3-05. ARS has two options to correctly this confusing situation with roses posted on the ARS / IRAR web site. Insist on the day of a show, the show chairman download the entire 25 pages of registered roses beginning April 2001, and have this current list available for judges. Or use common sense and post any change to a previously registered rose on the date the change was made, thereby bringing it to the everyone’s attention, as newly registered roses are. (In previous e-mail to the registration chairman about providing more timely data on roses, was told corrections / additions/ deletions are entered when the Registration Committee has time).

While it is true the ARS / IRAR web site can be considered a quicker means of proving the latest information on roses. It will only happen when it is properly managed with timely reports on roses. If they’re other roses typical to “Ty”, they should be brought to the public’s attention quickly. (As of the original post there was no highlighting of a rose having a change)

Ty can be considered one of the best yellow (dy) miniatures to date, clear color with slightly larger mini-flora foliage. Without doubt a Queen, classed as a miniature or mini-flora rose.
Ron S
July 11, 2005

Rosetech, while I do sort roses by date, it only show roses by the latest date of roses registered, but if a change is made you have to go thru the entire 625 registered (at the time of this particular incident) to find a change of a roses status. Than it dose not indicate what the change was and when it was made, this is where the problem lies. Preciously what I am trying to get ARS to address, that any change in the publication be brought to the viewer’s attention. Like Ty registered as both a miniature and mini-flora on the same date.

Believe me I have been trying hard to work with ARS, keeping judges and exhibitors up to date on roses, with publishing “Rose Lists” each month on the GW site, as well as many, many, many rose people belonging to the “Rose Group” that receive these lists by e-mail. Both Phil Schorr and Marily Young are on the e-mail list. In fact brought 30 of the latest copies of both to the national rose show, that was distributed so judges would be working with the latest ARS information.

Making several suggestions to the Registration Chairman about several changes they could make to alleviate the problem by making changes stands out. Now besides being highlighted; add a second line noting change and date it was made. Received the following e-mail from Phil: “I checked with Marily Young concerning the possibility of adding a second line with update information to RR website listing. She said it would require some programming work, for which she doesn’t have time currently. We understand your suggestion and the benefits it may have, but we have to prioritize our work for ARS, which already takes up many hours per week, and making a program change like this doesn’t rank very high on the list right now when we are beginning work on the next Modern Roses along with our duties on registration, RIR, and other ARS publications. I hope we can revisit it someday, since it is a good idea. Phil”

First let me say this is not something for me personally, it is necessary and for all ARS members. Being that both Phil and Marily are up to their necks in work, and have any time to address the problem at this time. Would it be asking too much, that until they have time to revisit it, they would they let me know of corrections / additions/ deletions to ARS publications that could easily be included on monthly posted “Rose Lists”. If something is working extremely well since the 2001, why would ARS not take advantage of the situation is beyond comprehension. The Combined Rose List is a non-ARS publication, yet a majority of the handbook and the AEN use it extensively.

Back to the question asked in the original post? (Test growers receiving inside information from the hybridizer on the rose Ty, are not included) Not knowing a change of classification was indicated in any ARS publications at the time Ty was judged, as a judge how would you have judged it as a miniature or mini-flora rose? From e-mail received,nine judges indicated as mini-flora and one judge as a miniature, saying judges should have checked all RR listing on the web site. I have to wonder what the judge would be looking for in the RR listing, being there is no indication (at that time), on any of the 625 roses listed that something was changed, or when a change took place. You have to ask, in the future is a judge going have to check each rose judged. As ridicules as this sound, it may end up that way unless ARS takes time to make necessary adjustments.

Ron Schwerdt

Not to rehash an old post but the rose “Ty”, once again is in the news. Another point of the original post not that well exploited, was how latest rose information or changes to existing roses published in the “Rose” magazine “Rose Registrations”, reaches judges and exhibitors WITHOUT computers? Common logic, indicate changes would eventually appear where roses were originally posted, in “Rose Registrations” corrections/ additions/ deletions column.
ARS 2006 Official List, (AEN) received in May 2006 does not have “Ty” listed. Another publication ARS depends on and considers a judging document, is the 2006 Combined Rose List. Using ARS publications, (Rose magazine) through February 2006 for latest rose information, the CRL lists “Ty” as a Mini-Flora.

To a person WITHOUT a computer, using the latest information from hard copies of ARS official judging documents. Looking in the April 2005 “Rose” magazine “Rose Registrations”, lists “Ty” as a Mini- Flora. In the 2006 CRL it also lists “Ty” as a Mini-Flora, would certainly indicate “Ty” is a Mini-Flora rose.

No to confuse the issue but make a point, why it is so critical that “Rose Registrations” column is kept up to date. When a great publication like the CRL working with ARS, is uninformed of changes and posts incorrect information on roses. (F. Y. I., as most rosarians are aware, “Ty” is officially considered a miniature rose.)

So depending on whom you ask the question, is “Ty” a miniature or mini-flora rose answers may vary?

Ron S