From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Bristol, ME ([email protected])

I'm wondering what chart everyone finds to be the most accurate. I know there were rumblings of the 2005 chart being too heavy in the mid stages of growth. Just wondering which one is more widely used and accepted.
Also, if anyone has the equation used in developing the 2005 chart, I would be interested in obtaining it.
Thanx

8/12/2006 8:21:57 AM

Long Island,New York

The chart on Oct 7 is the only one to go by (leader chart)...I now plot my charts/etc by OTT only...its a better way of comparing to previous years in my opinion....but then I'm growing alotta old-old genetics so the wt charts don't help me much anyway....100plus over last year, 50 lbs light the previous....its a guess.

8/12/2006 10:18:45 AM

[email protected]

Does anyone have a copy of the new excel chart? I am using the old chart and am wondering what the numbers would be in todays market?

8/12/2006 10:53:58 AM

San Diego

2003 chart, sometimes I even use an earlier chart, being in hot southern climate, I look at the 2005 chart and just laugh, I wish my fruit weighed what it said.

8/12/2006 1:00:02 PM

Indiana

2003 chart here.....2005 only works on on 845 and that kind of stuff anything 801.5 related goes way way light

8/12/2006 1:11:22 PM

Minnesota([email protected])

I'm using the 2005 chart.

8/12/2006 2:31:13 PM

Little-TON - Colorado

Also interested in finding the 2003 Chart and agree with the results on the 2005.....a lil high

8/12/2006 4:35:10 PM

Danville, CA ([email protected])

So where does one get the 2003 chart v the 2005 chart and how do I know which it is? I am using the chart in Don's 3rd book.

8/12/2006 6:36:04 PM

Ri

About the 3rd week in September switch to the 2005 chart. And if things are really wickit bad there is a new 2006 chart. Good luck Bill.... Peter

8/12/2006 8:27:51 PM

SF Bay Area, California

I use the 2003 chart and it has been within a few pounds for me quite consistantly. The excel formula is:

=(POWER(OTT,2.795))*0.0000703

8/12/2006 8:40:01 PM

[email protected]

Vince,

Where do you input that formula in the 2003 Excel chart to update it?

8/12/2006 9:01:25 PM

Danville, CA ([email protected])

That formula gives me a 10% higher weight than Don's book on page 166. OTT of 200 inches = 172 pounds in the chart. The formula above gives 189.82. Since Don's book was written in 2003, maybe his is the 2002?

I am REALLY HAPPY to use the formula if that is right. However I would prefer to underestimate and be pleasantly surprized rather than vice versa.

Links to the specific charts would be great so that I can "know" which is which.

Thanks - Petman

8/12/2006 9:06:00 PM

Coventry R.I.

hi can someone send me a chart, 05 if possible, that i can download thanks frank4 the rookie thanks

8/12/2006 9:54:40 PM

Bristol, ME ([email protected])

You can download the charts here
http://www.bigpumpkins.com/ViewArticle.asp?id=57

A version of the 2003 spreadsheet with all sorts of bells and whistles can be downloaded from here:
http://www.mainepumpkins.com/grodiary.html

I also have a Quicksheets version for your Palm pilot that isn't published, it works nicely and you don't have 4 million little slips of paper with measurements on them laying all over the place.

8/13/2006 7:32:05 AM

Coventry R.I.

hi stunner, thanks good luck thr rest of way . frank

8/14/2006 8:05:51 AM

Montoursville, PA

The most valued thing I see in any chart can be derived from any chart....Did I grow the last two days and how much. The newer charts may...only may get you a bit closer to where you really are.

The problem is in the lower and higher figures. There are only a hand full, of pumpkins grown over 1300 lbs. that estimating numbers can be firmed up on, in average. There needs, to maybe be fifty, or more, in the records, to achieve a good average.

Last years new world record weighed awsome, in the patch...up to 1700 lbs depending, on who tried,to make intellegent guesses. The final count was 1469. There was nothing wrong with the awsome measurements or attempted estimating.

8/14/2006 10:57:47 AM

Hudsonville, Michigan ([email protected])

I find the 2005 chart to be a real ego booster.
Until you hit the scales.
2003 is more realistic in my opinion.

8/14/2006 12:19:00 PM

Western NY

we'll all be using the 05 chart in a few years. the pumpkins seem to be getting thicker, so it makes sense.

8/14/2006 1:23:15 PM

ordinary,VA

what ever chart makes my pumpkin heavier...
05!
right on the money Edwards

8/14/2006 3:41:30 PM

Montoursville, PA

You can BS the guys at the coffee shop but not those cotton picken scales. "The BS stops when the tail gate drops"...or something like that.

8/14/2006 5:30:26 PM

ordinary,VA

Doc so true all the charts go out the window when they hit the scales

8/14/2006 6:28:50 PM