Where clubs have seen the light and abandoned marking work in competitions there seems to me a strong case for a more generous use of the Highly Commend, especially where the entry is large with quite a lot of work of a high standard. Our competition secretaries assure me that they encourage judges to award H.C's at their discretion, but for the most part the standard 1,2 and 3 plus 3 H.C's prevails. Some years ago, when the club was larger and we had a exceptionally big entry a judge awarded about five equal third places, and why not, but it is mainly a more flexible approach to the number of H.C's that I am proposing.
In the commentary one hears remarks like 'this one just missed out' or it was 'up with the winners, but in the end did not quite make it'. No doubt it takes an experienced judge to know which are marginally less good and we all know that a different, but equally experienced judge, might well have given the honours to those that 'just missed out', so why not just highly commend all those short-listed? Where an entry is very small, and especially if lacking in work of a good standard, occasionally I have known a judge just award 1, 2 and 3 places, or perhaps only one H.C. and this seemed appropriate, so why not the converse?
In an open exhibition like an International, especially if it has PSA sponsorship, about 20% of the entry is likely to be accepted. Perhaps I am seeking something similar. In my view the quantity of work given formal recognition should reflect the size and quality of the entry rather than a standard six pack. I think the case for this approach is particularly strong where work is unmarked.
Roy Elwood