Joint Rock Committee

[David Nicholson]

I've just been flicking through the booklet about Joint Rock award winning plants that accompanied the March edition of "The Alpine Gardener". I found it very interesting but also a mite annoying that there wasn't a photograph for each entry. Having read the introduction I now understand a little better what The Joint Rock Committee does and the awards it makes. Previously I'd heard about it and read a bit about it but really didn't have a clue what it did.

Having said that, I can understand the current Show award schemes operated by both of the Societies from The Farrer or Forrest, down through the first second or third prizes and I can relate to them because they have a competitive meaning but I don't seem to be able to relate in the same way to Joint Rock Awards. What exactly are they for and by whom, and in what way, is it decided that a plant should be put before Joint Rock? What does it mean if a plant is so rewarded?

In my Primula growing days I grew P. marginata 'Shipton' or 'Shipton's Form' as it was sometimes known. It wasn't as good a plant as John Richard's version as shown in the booklet (and I've seen even better ones at NAPS Shows in the past) and John said he'd had a plant of it in his garden in 1968. It's been available for donkey's years, so why does it get an Award of Merit in 2010?

Am I missing something?

[Maggi Young]

Yes, the "Joint Rock" can appear somewhat mysterious.... to say the least.
I attach here two pages of an article written by the former Scottish Secretary to that committee, Lyn Bezzant, which may help a little.

 The Mysterious Joint Rock Committee _ Lyn Bezzant page one.pdf (373.42 kB - downloaded 72 times.)

 The Mysterious Joint Rock Committee _ Lyn Bezzant page two.pdf (318.79 kB - downloaded 65 times.)

[David Nicholson]

Very helpful Maggi, thanks. It seems an absolute waste of space to me but, then again, what do I know

[ronm]

I think there's going to be a stoning 

[David Nicholson]

That's OK I've been "stoned" many times before

[Maggi Young]

Whisper it, David.... but I tend to agree.

[David Nicholson]

We'll get stoned together Maggi

[Maggi Young]

We'll get stoned together Maggi

Best offer I've had in a while, David, thank you!

[Maggi Young]

I'll put my head above the parapet with some comments of my personal observations :

Anyone can submit a plant to the committee for consideration. That's a good feature.

The form you submit with the plant still asks for details of the "gardener"... a legacy of the times when the aristocracy were submitting plants to the RHS when it was their staff who had actually grown the plant!)   That's just anachronistic.   

Sometimes a particular plant may not have been at a show where the committee was sitting, so it missed out on a chance of an award... often for many years, such as  Shipton's primula, that you evidenced.
 Or a plant that is widley distributed may be overlooked , on the grounds that it has been around for ages and so must have been awarded in the past.
 It is very tricky to obtain full listings of all plants given awards by the Joint Rock Committee... it has historically been kept something of a state secret, one would think!
Because of this, if one has a plant that is looking particularly good at any show where the committee is meeting, it is worth submitting it for consideration. It may not have all the possible awards, even if it has been around for a long time, or you may  get a cultural commendation in recognition of how well you have grown it.

More often than not, a plant given an award  (nowadays it is primarily "for exhibition") will be required to have parts submitted to KewWisley for a herbarium specimen. (Not much fun if the plant is very rare, scarce, to have bits of it chopped of!) Full measurements are also taken.
 It will likely be required to be given a cultivar name... this even though it is  may be the case that the plant may be quite regular in its habits and not much given to variation.

There is a level of feeling, I believe, ( not so strong as a "rule"!) that awarded plants "ought" to be capable of propagation to the extent that they might come into commerce, or at least be increased to the extent that lots of people can be able to obtain and grow them. In many cases this is never going to happen. Particulalry in the case of plants submitted by the various Botanic Gardens.

Of course, the  write-ups given in the AGS publications (now to be done in a new format ) do introduce the  awarded plants to a greater audience, but the general likelihood of the majority of these plants becoming widely available is pretty slim.
I am not sure what the percentage of plants awarded do become readily obtainable, but it's not huge.

A digression to your point about not every plant being photographed:
Nowadays, I believe, every plant given an award at a Joint Rock meeting is photographed. (At AGS events this is done usually by the official AGS photographer.... (you will see that the majority of photos  in the latest AGS publication are by the busy and talented Jon Evans). (Since the AGS  has long published many details of Joint Rock Award plants, the SRGC has not  seen any need for any repetiton by in this field. The AGS now has many on the website too: http://www.alpinegardensociety.net/plants/joint-rock/awards/)
The photos taken of plants at SRGC Joint Rock meetings are taken by either Carol or Ian Bainbridge and will be send to KewWisley for the RHS records.
I imagine that a request to a grower for a photo of an award plant is unlikely to be refused.

Yes, it is nice to get an award for a plant one may have had success in growing when others struggle with it. Or for a plant one has raised, and perhaps named for a friend or family member.  Or to get a Cultural Commendation for a plant in the very peak of perfection.  But does it achieve anything tangible? Probably not.
 
But since it does exist,  the archive produced by the AGS  of plants reported on in the bulletin, and now in this new format, are the nearest thing to a record of the plants that have passed throught the hands of the Joint Rock Committe and so have an historical interest if nothing else. I hope the reporting of the awarded plants contines as long as the committee does.

So, I think  the reporting achieves something  quite interesting. I remain unsure as to the overall worth of the project.



edit by maggi to correct error.... It is Wisley, not Kew  where the herbarium  specimens etc are sent.

[David Nicholson]

Thanks for that Maggi. Of course, my intention was to provoke comment which seems to have failed abysmally so a few parting shots!

Perhaps the telling bit (for me anyhow) is the point you made Maggi about the form still asking for details of the "gardener". The anachronism of what seems to me to be an anochranistic process full stop. One wonders how far it's preservation is to self-satisfy the good and the great and to give some point to the RHS other than blathering about peat

[Darren]

I absolutely agree with Maggi's views on this - and yours David.

I enjoy the award write ups very much - because they provide little gems of information on the plants and their cultivation. It really annoys me when I read that a plant was shown by 'The Director xxxxxxx' . So they emerged from the office and spent a cold early morning scrubbing the pot personally and tarting up the top-dressing before setting off to the shows before sane people are even getting out of bed did they?  Of course they did...



Guess I'm for a stoning too....

[David Nicholson]

Join the Club Darren, there's plenty of room and not many stones being chucked. Perhaps everyone secretly agrees

[FrazerHenderson]

Dammit David, I've just given myself a hernia lifting this rock for you!

[David Nicholson]

 

[Tim Ingram]

Well what an interesting thread - it really searches into the heart of the Alpine Societies and the RHS. I have to declare an interest since I was a member of the Joint Rock Committee, though my perspective, as you can tell from what I have written, is rather different and I agree with several of the comments above which maintain the Committee in an historical stance ('gardeners' etc - though these are rather trivial really). On the other hand it is a group of extremely fine plantsmen and women (though few) from around the country and it brings such people together, so that potentially must have great value for maintaining the status and professionalism of the Societies, however much it seems elitist. But there is equally the danger that it creates a division and hierarchy in the alpine world which is pretty evident when you compare the AGS with the SRGC and NARGS. To a certain extent it is anachronistic. Since is pretty much centred on the AGS, it seems little likely to change unless the AGS itself begins to change and I suppose most of all it would be interesting to have observations from members of the Committee itself. I certainly wouldn't agree with David that it is a waste of space, and the contacts that people make via all the people who are on the Committee throughout the alpine world must be very valuable even if not measureable, but perhaps there should be an electable aspect to it, rather like the House of Lords!!