The Dutch have been exporting the latest horticultural wonders for an eternity and fifty years ago were still the main source of rhododendron hybrids in the NW.  In those days rhododendrons were rated like AAA does hotels and restaurants - with stars. The 'Loderis' were given ***** and 'Bow Bells' **. That was a composite rating for all characteristics of the plant. I am not quite sure of the process by which these ratings were determined, just as I am not sure how the current three number ARS rating is derived.

However, one fact that makes me feel fairly comfortable with the current ratings is that with over 30,000 registered hybrids there are less than a handful of 5/5/5's. One does wonder if the rating may, from time to time, be influenced by how easy the plant is to propagate or how many plants the grower has on inventory or if that grower is a committee of one. These are spurious codes and one must always remember that the plant that is a garden treasure in San Francisco will probably not do very well in Helsinki. The ratings are soft, soft numbers.

Conversely, there are quite a few plants among my favorites that have rotten ratings. I know I should have the courage of my convictions and not be all that concerned about what others think but that's a bit like admitting to liking Kraft Mac & Cheese; you need to be made of pretty stern stuff to sing its merits. For example, take my adoration of 'Airy Fairy': my spring would be barren without it ; it's as welcome as the first humming bird. Some references give it a 3/2/2. For me it's a 10. When did you last see 'Nobleanum Venustrum' in a nursery or even in a catalogue? It's rated 2/2/3. It's better than 'Christmas Cheer', in my opinion, and 'Christmas Cheer' gets a 3/4/4. Here is a case of a plant getting a bad name because it has a bad name - no one can say it, or if they can, don't want to, especially if they have dentures. The 'Nobleanums' have been around since the 1830s, as has 'Christmas Cheer' and probably have the same or close to the same parentage but are definitely the black sheep in that family.

People who don't associate 'Cowslip' with a primrose and take the name literally, cringe at the name. I've heard people say they would not grow a plant with such an inappropriate name. I tell Clint Smith that he has no one to blame but himself for a 3-4/3-4/3-4 rating on his 'Woody's Friggin Riggin'. It's a super plant but often goes without a label, either because of the unpoetic, prudish sensibilities of the gardener or because there is never a large enough label.  Jack Lofthouse, who has made some superior hybrids, had a spell of giving them names that I would rate as 1/1/1's - things like 'Pink Petticoats' and 'Hot Pants'. 'Taurus' is a good name for a good plant and it is rated appropriately. There is no question the name influences the rating. People in the entertainment industry often adopt new names for commercial reasons. Think of Cher and Madonna. With rhodos that can't be done. Once named, no amount of deed polling can change it.

Most good stories contain a moral and if there is one here, perhaps it is that reducing the worthiness of a rhododendron to a number is simplistic and subject to the same political scruples that beauty pageants now suffer from. The contestants are under lascivious scrutiny for only a short time and that is in a glitzy, show-biz setting. The true character of the entrants is marginalized and the superficial aspects are emphasized. Another moral may be that... "What's in a name?" That which we call a rose "by any other name would smell as sweet" may be true if your name is Romeo or Juliet; it isn't always so if you are a rhododendron and are about to be rated. Names and numbers are soft commodities. Samuel Johnson said it 250 years ago: "Round numbers are always false."

Pilchuck Pollinator