Are washed eyes and watermarks the same thing? I see a lot of descriptions of newer daylilies saying they have "washed eyes" when they just look like watermarks to me. A watermark is an eye lighter in color than the petals. What is a washed eye? I'd love to see some photo examples.

That is a good question, Debra! I always thought it meant an eyezone that has a "washed" look, kind of like a scrubbed or lightened look.
This is a seedling of mine that in my mind would be described as a washed eye. However, I could be totally wrong! I would love to know, too!

That is a good question, here is a site "Munson Watermarks and Washed Eyes".
https://fairyscapedaylilies.co...
I think I know what a washed eye is compared to a Watermark, someone correct me if I am wrong. A washed eye is a different color or a darker color, but with a white wash look on top of it. A water mark does not have the layered top coat look to it, just a single lighter color?

One difference is that watermark is a defined AHS descriptive term, while "washed eye" is not.

So looking through some of the daylilies shown on that page, I noticed 'Alexander James Menges', Story-2007.
It is described as "lavender with a blue blended eye".

I have also noticed that eyezone is often used when I would think it would correctly be a band.

From the ADS dictionary:

A darker colored zone on the petals and sepals of the flower just above the throat. Notice that in the examples below the eye color also appears on the sepals. If the dark color only appears on the petals, it as called a band.

Seedfork said:So looking through some of the daylilies shown on that page, I noticed 'Alexander James Menges', Story-2007.
It is described as "lavender with a blue blended eye".

By AHS definitions an eye should be a darker colour:

https://daylilies.org/daylily-...

Cross posted with Valerie. You only have to look at some of the cultivars described as "self" to know that descriptions don't always match the official terminology.

So now my question is what in official terms what would be a (1) Washed eye, (2) blended eye? If you could see the darker color of the eye with a lighter washed look? Could a blended look be a lighter color with a blended darker looking overlay? What would they be in official terms? Wondering if they thought the descriptions did not meet the official terms so decided to use unofficial terms?

I think I answered my own questions. I think the above (1) and (2) might be described as patterned eyes.
@toouchofsky,
I think the answer to touchofsky is that the "Eyezone" and the "Eye" can be two different things. The "Eyezone" refers to the area where the "Eye" on an "Eyed daylily" is, but being on a banded daylily it could not be called and "eye" but the area there is still known as the "Eyezone"?

The AHS dictionary does have a definition for "washed" as being: "In reference to color, it refers to the layering of one color over another, as in a flower with a wash of another color over the basic color." It shows two patterned eyes as examples. Both have darker different color on the outside of the eyezone. Based on those photos, I don't think Valerie's seedling would have a washed eye.

Larry - There are a few good examples on the Fairyscape site. Thanks for posting the link. The ones that have white on top of violet or lavender, I can really see as washed.

I was told these are not watermarks, and I see why. Would they be considered washed eyes?

To me, especially the first photo shows what I think people are referring to as a washed eye, it may not be an official term, but I think it is a very descriptive term. Maybe it would be officially termed a patterned eye.
I can't see the second and especially the third one so much being a washed eye, but then I don't seem to have too good of an "eye" yet for looking at those type things. To me I think the second photo is also what would officially be called a patterned eye. It does not have that "Whiteish washed over look" to me. The last photo also does not jump out at me as being what is being referred to as a washed eye. But, it does not look like a halo to me either. Maybe described as a blended eye? So I guess that might be a patterned eye?
Now that got me confused again:
Pattern: "A daylily that exhibits variations in hue, value, or saturation of the base, midrib, or throat color, in such a way that a design is created beyond that of a bold or solid eye, band, halo or watermark, with or without simple picotee edging. This type of "patterning" includes, but is not limited to, daylilies with concentric rings or feathering of color within the eyezone or elsewhere. It excludes selfs, simple bitones, and simple bicolors."
What confuses me here is the inclusion of "Selfs":
Self: "The petals and sepals are all the same shade of one color. The color of the throat, style or stamen filaments may be different. If the petals and sepals have an edge, eye, midribs or other markings of a different color the daylily is not a self. In a complete self the throat, style and filaments are the same color as the petals and sepals."
@Char
She has a good eye for this type of thing maybe she can help us out.

The exclusions seem redundant to me.

Tina - I think your first two would be considered washed eyes. It looks as though the lighter color is applied on top of the darker color. They are definitely patterned eyes. The third one just has a darker eye color that the petal color.

I agree with Debra. When I think of "wash" as a color term I think of white wash on wood.
I'm trying to remember back when the definition for pattern went through SSC and why excluding "self" was added in there. I'm drawing a blank, without going through the old files on my laptop...I'm not sure. Maybe @sooby remembers.

Well, I miss read that, I over looked the excludes and read it as includes. Now it makes sense to me...Is that good or bad? Of course it excludes selfs because they are one shade of the same color. Now it makes sense what Dave said, it does seem a little redundant . I was puzzled by that statement.

Thank you. I was really struggling to put a label on the first two.

Seedfork said:Of course it excludes selfs because they are one shade of the same color. Now it makes sense what Dave said, it does seem a little redundant . I was puzzled by that statement.

Yes, I agree it does seem redundant. I think, but I'm not sure, excluding "self" was so someone wouldn't think a daylily all one color with a different color throat would be a pattern.

Pattern: "A daylily that exhibits variations in hue, value, or saturation of the base, midrib, or throat color,

Char said:
I'm trying to remember back when the definition for pattern went through SSC and why excluding "self" was added in there. I'm drawing a blank, without going through the old files on my laptop...I'm not sure. Maybe @sooby remembers.

The Dictionary definition was written by the pattern committee headed by the late Bob Faulkner. I would guess you're probably right that it was so that people didn't think a different but plain throat colour constituted a pattern.

I have always thought this subject confusing, too. The late R. W. Munson was the master of watermarks and introduced more cv.'s with them than, I think, any other hybridizer. Watermarks to me are a change in color at the center that looks more like a stain---like water does when on clothe. It changes the color, and looks "wet". What Munson called watermarks included that, and the ones that look like frost overlaying the center. That's why I like to call those "frostmark", even though that is not "official". It's more descriptive of what my old eyes see.
Watermark:
Tintoretto

Enticing Eyes


Frostmark:
Malaysian Monarch

Claudine's Charm