THE FINE ART OF JUDGING
Everyone who exhibits at Chelsea wants a medal, ideally a gold or even better, “Best in Show” – the highest accolade given at RHS events. Show gardens come under microscopic scrutiny yet the results of judging are often hotly contended by the public and the press. Indeed, much is at stake, not only the huge sums of money invested (often running to several hundred thousand pounds for each garden) but also media coverage and, importantly, one’s reputation.
Some in the press say that as far as designers are concerned, Chelsea can make you or break you. While that might be an exaggeration, there is no doubt that winning a gold medal at Chelsea is bound to make a huge impression on potential clients. Winning a medal at Chelsea is an acknowledgment not only of a great design well executed, but it’s also testament to the designer’s organisational skills and sheer stamina.
So who decides on the medals and what is the process? The RHS puts together a judging team by carefully selecting a group of experienced and talented experts from the various aspects of the horticultural industry. The panel consists of three assessing judges and four regular judges. Each member of the judging team is selected so that the collective knowledge and skill set is diverse and in depth. There is also a moderator who is tasked with making sure the decisions are consistent across the board.
As for the judging of the show gardens, there are three stages: assessment, judging and moderation. For assessment, three judges visit each garden and take an in-depth look at it in relationship to the judging criteria (outlined below), debating each at length. Importantly, assessment offers the designers the opportunity to present the garden and discuss any developments or changes they have made to the initial brief.
For the judging, which invariably takes place the day after assessment, the three assessors are joined by the four other judges. All seven visit the gardens and give each one marks according to a set of nine key criteria. Firstly the design is marked against the brief that the designer submitted when applying to exhibit. In other words, have they delivered what they set out to do? Some may think this should be irrelevant if the garden in question is spectacular, but it is important that a designer proves that they can fulfil a brief and – as they would need to for a commission in the real world – produce the garden that their client was expecting. The brief includes a description of the garden, its purpose and function as well as materials, key plants and important features. It may seem harsh, but however good the garden is, if it doesn’t tally with the brief, then it will lose marks. I suspect that this is one of the main reasons why a garden might receive a lower medal than visitors to the show might have expected.
As for the other criteria, these cover the following: ambition, overall impression, design, construction and planting and for each of these elements the judges mark against Excellent, Very Good, Good, Satisfactory and Poor. Often the judges are unanimous but if there’s disagreement then further debate and discussion take place until the panel comes to an agreement and the marks are totted up. I’ve been judging at Chelsea for around 10 years now and I find what helps is that the judges invariably have a huge amount of respect for each other’s opinion and expertise. The final scores indicate which medals are awarded from bronze, silver-gilt, silver and gold. The garden that scores the most points overall is awarded that coveted “Best in Show”.
The final stage is moderation, in which a moderator (invariably one of the most experienced judges) listens to the votes and checks that the judges’ approach has been consistent over the course of the day. In the unusual situation that two gardens receive the same score then further discussion and a re-vote takes place.
Over the years, the judging process has evolved considerably and much fine tuning has taken place behind the scenes to make the system as robust as it possibly can be. From a judging point of view, having well considered rules just makes the whole process much more straightforward and reliable. It’s inevitable that people will disagree with the awarded medals, but it’s important that the process by which the decisions are made is transparent, rigorous and respected.