To each their own, but the red one looks great and blooms more and longer too. I guess someone could plant a fragrant one beside it and have the best of both worlds.

I'm not sure I'd agree about that 'broad' marketing strategy :-) If that were true, all plants would be listed as hardy from zone 3 to zone 9 and we all know that's not the case :-) I'm sure they do try and spread the wealth but even in the same hardiness zone plants do not perform the same in different locations. Just consider the climate disparities between a zone 8 in Texas and my PNW zone 8 - obviously the same plants don't necessarily thrive in both areas!

Planting "native" is by no means a new concept - that's pretty much all that was readily available for generations and many of our native species have been bred into some of our modern hybrids or selected cultivars. The point I was trying to make is that not all honeysuckles have fragrance - very few shrub honeysuckles even have flowers you would recognize as a honeysuckle, let alone an aroma.

And I think you missed my point about the mock orange - fragrance is not the same to everyone - it is the most subjective of any of our senses and the one most altered by environment. Wind, sun, temperature, even time of day can all have a bearing as can soil conditions. Some folks are just more sensitive to scent than others and what smells good to one may not to someone else. I too have never noticed a fragrance with lunaria. Never even knew it was supposed to be fragrant!! btw, Philadelphus 'Aureus' can hardly be called a "modern hybrid" - it was introduced into the trade in 1900 :-))

We all have plants that do not do the best for us and that we like to rant about. But I would most certainly not limit it to recent introductions. There are a good number of old 'stand-by' plants that have been far surpassed by their more modern cousins that are more floriferous, have superior foliage or growth habit attributes or are much more disease or pest resistant.

I too, am surprised about the issues with Sambucas. Have you tried Black Lace? Bought it in the middle of a blistering summer, it sat in its pot in the shade for 3 months. Planted it in fall, south side of house, watered it in once. (The only time it was EVER watered by hand.) Come spring, it was at the window and I could count an inch of daily growth. It stopped growing right as it hit the gutters of my one story house. Yards and yards of shoots everywhere, crawling on the porch and covering the front door! I cut it back hard last fall, ended up with about 3 feet of bare sticks. As of today, it's nearing the gutters and front door again, and it's even bushier. LOVE this plant.

GGal48, if I remember right, you work in the industry, is that right? And if so, I can understand that you would have a different perspective. I’m just a consumer and I’m presenting that view. As far as marketing goes, take for example Monrovia, a large company that supplies plants nationwide. Take a look at their website to see how they market their plants. They have a page that is titled ‘what’s in a label?’

…..”Monrovias’s InfoLabels help take the guesswork out of selecting and caring for our Distinctively Better plants. We want to give you all the information you need to ensure success in the garden. “

On another page, titled ‘plant selection’
…..”Success depends on choosing a plant that matches your garden’s environment, such as sun or shade exposure, wet or dry locations and exposure to foot traffic or windy conditions. Selected plants should tolerate existing conditions and should be hardy to the appropriate climate zone.”

And they go on to discuss right plant, right zone, right spot. Which is exactly what I suggested is our responsibility as gardeners when choosing plants.

So I can’t agree, that despite the label, we shouldn’t expect a plant to perform for us. This company at least, is claiming that you can rely on their labeling information and as long as you do your homework in selecting plants that are labeled for your zone and your conditions, you should have success. I think that is quite different than what you are suggesting.

I did get your point about not all honeysuckles having fragrance, I said so. I’m coming at it from the consumer point of view, who is looking for a honeysuckle that is fragrant who may not even be aware there are honeysuckles that aren’t and is surprised when they are not. A whole generation of people who grew up smelling ‘Hall’s’ honeysuckle and similar, and came to consider that particular variety as the common honeysuckle. Now, we are more aware of native honeysuckles after a campaign to educate people to the damaging results of using ‘Hall’s’ and an attempt to offer alternatives. But not everyone is aware of that.

Your suggestion that ‘fragrance is not the same to everyone’. I find that an industry standard for explaining away the fact that they label a plant as fragrant and then people don’t find it to be. Not sure I’m buying that particular defense. Ask any one on the forums if Mock Orange is supposed to be fragrant? Take a poll. Fragrance is the defining characteristic of Mock Orange, in my opinion and I would be very surprised if most people don’t agree with that. If there are Mock Oranges that are not fragrant, there again, that is my point. The industry is developing plants that are, in some instances, getting away from the main reason people originally wanted them. As in developing double flowers over fragrance.

You said, ‘We all have plants that do not do the best for us and that we like to rant about’. I think in following discussions on the forums here for a long time I see most gardeners are pretty willing to say, a plant ‘didn’t do well for me, maybe it was something I did’ and in the end, we often will shrug it off as ‘well, it is my conditions or it was a crazy winter this year’, etc, etc., and some of the time, I’m sure that is the case. Your statement seems to lay the failure of any plant on issues with the gardener and their conditions. My suggestion is that I feel plants should perform as advertised and it is not always the fault of the gardener. Especially gardeners on the forums who are pretty well versed in selecting and caring for plants. And it would seem at least from the Monvoria site, they present the same viewpoint... whether they live up to that or not is the question.

This post was edited by prairiemoon2 on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 11:32

Echinaceamaniac, That's a nice photo of your 'Black Lace' Sambucus. I haven't tried that variety.

Kevin, I found this link below on 10 Healthy Heucheras. I've heard in recent years, that I might have more success with Heuchera villosa varieties that include 'Frosted Violet', 'Caramel', 'Brownies' and 'Mocha' 'Tiramisu' and others.

And I also found some very informative information for Heucheras on the Plant Delights website.

Here is a link that might be useful: 10 Healthy Heucheras

This post was edited by prairiemoon2 on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 7:29

Very interesting thread. We seem to be all over the place in our opinions, which is what makes it interesting!

As for me, I can understand why some would be hesitant about new introductions, I am, although I buy many each year. New introductions can be amazingly good or amazingly bad, the pendulum swings both ways. Most of them, I do my research on and I mean research with other gardeners, before I buy. If it is working for others and it's what I am looking for in characteristics, then I love to trial it. That is what makes gardening fun for me, trying new plants, whether newbies or oldie goldies. I don't hesitate, just because it's a new introduction, as long as it has several experienced gardeners saying that theirs is doing well.

To think of the all the beautiful new coreopsis that is getting a bad rep from this thread and haven't even been tried yet! I would be so unhappy if I didn't have my Mercury Rising or Cosmic Eye! So vigorous, very very new and wouldn't miss out on them for the world! I'm trialing about 10 new Heucheras this season, I do lean towards the villosas because they do better in the south, but not all of them are villosa. I'm sure some will do well and some won't. Who has 100% return of anything? Well, if you did, what would be the fun in that? OK, scratch that, LOL.

I have Sambucus Black Lace. Jury is out because it's in it's first year, but it is doing well so far. It does seem like the trend from previous posts are down on Black Beauty and up on Black Lace. Maybe Black Lace is just a better introduction. I did choose Black Lace over Black Beauty and it was probably because of feedback from other gardeners. Again, the research has benefited me.

I do buy a lot of plants from Plant Delights. They are in my area and they trial everything they sell, so I know that it will grow here or they tell you it won't. You do have to watch the difficulty level with them, though, because they sell tried and true cultivars as well as rare, difficult to grow ones. Just have to pay attention to that. I find so many there that you would find no where else.

As for echinaceas, well, that is probably the one area that I will blindly take the leap and will probably be the one giving feedback on instead of looking for it. Echs are my favorite flower, so I want to trial them all, LOL! There are some great new ones in a sea of underperformers. Wouldn't trade the search for the newest gem for anything, though. Love it!

More raves:

Hesperaloe parviflora (red and yellow) - These are so great. The 'Brakelights' variety is more compact and red, but the others are more vigorous. I will never have a garden without these plants! A kid broke mine by the drive way. I stuck both pieces in a pot and both rooted. The hummingbirds love them too.

Sedum 'Lime Zinger' - It is so tough and looks great too. It almost looks like a Jade Plant because of the texture.

Hibiscus 'Midnight Marvel' - The leaves are so dark. It looks almost as good as a Japanese Maple. Then the huge red blooms open and everyone notices it. I have never been so impressed with a hardy Hibiscus before.

RE: Fragrance. It is quite subjective, as are all senses. What smells pleasing to one person may reek to another. Many people have a poor sense of smell, while the opposite is true for others. I'm doped up on allergy meds spring through fall, which decreases not only my sense of smell, but of taste.

I grow many flowers for fragrance - IMO what's the point of a lilac or a lily or a heliotrope if there isn't fragrance (and I need a strong fragrance, because like I said, my sense of smell is decreased when I'm on the meds). Others couldn't care less, there are other attributes that may be more important to another person.

Quote:

"Who has 100% return of anything?"

funnthsun, I'm not asking for 100% return. But near 100% disappearings is NOT acceptable either. From the first wave of the NEW GENERATIONS of echinaceas, I have only 1 left that is growing - Razzmatazz. The whole Big Sky series has disappeared with the speed of light, one or 2 others are limping along in the form of minuscule plantlets who cannot decide, whether they want to live or die. And I recall perfectly the adverts from the beginning, how easy and idiot proof they were supposed to be, the only requierement was a good drainage.

This post was edited by wieslaw59 on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 8:24

One area where recent introductions mostly don't live up to hype is in the area of blue flowers.

Very few varieties touted as "blue" are actually that - most are shades of bluish lavender or purple.

Longevity of blooming season is frequently exaggerated to a great degree. Extremely few perennials advertised as "blooming all summer" actually do so.

I agree with the gross deficiency (to put it kindly) of promotion relative to fragrance. I see this most often with roses, to the point where I have my own translations.

"Lightly fragrant" = scentless.
"Mild fragrance" = slight scent detectable in still, humid weather during parts of the day.
"Moderately fragrant" = mild consistent fragrance.
"Powerfully scented" has a decent chance of being strong enough to make it a positive attribute.

Some newer introductions are of course superior to old standards. For instance, I've been removing Sedum "Autumn Joy" because it transitions rapidly from a pink flush to brown unattractive flowering heads, a defect that S. "Autumn Fire" does not have.

My experience with recent and new Echinacea has been quite similar to that of Wieslaw. And now there's more problems.

Agree with Eric re "blue". There's a lot of latitude in describing a flower colour as blue.

Could add though, re Mxk's point about the subjectivity (etc) of sensing fragrance: there are even discrete genetic differences between individuals in the way they perceive blue; namely, some females have an additional (red) sensor in the retina of the eye (hence they identify some blue as purple).

FYI Eric, the plural is "genera". No way to really know that unless you have had to deal with it before.

Arktrees

echinaceamaniac, I do not want to hijack the this great discussion but could you describe how you are rooting Black Lace. I have tried 3 times and failed. It is growing so fast I had to chop off 4 FEET!!!!

I thought for sure I would get some pieces to root.

1. When do you Take your cuttings to root? Spring or Fall?

2. Do you use New/old wood? I have tried both.

3. Do you use a pot or in the garden?

4. Do you use rooting hormone?

I have one of those EZ Clone propagators. I slit the end of the stalk. I stick it into Clonex gel. You want the gel to get inside the cut good. They root in about 2 weeks. I have done both old and new wood. I have my propagator under a shop light indoors that I leave on constantly. I think you could root them in water with an air stone & aquarium pump easily too.

Update about the rotated images from phones. If you open the photo on your iPhone and crop it, the image displays properly here. That's what I did on the Black Lace Elderberry photo and it worked. I guess you could just barely crop it if you wanted the entire photo.

Here's a photo of the cutting. They really are tough plants.

Thank you echinaceamaniac. I see you have a pretty expensive system. LOL If I did a lot of propagation I would invest in that system. I will try the water I have a fish tank I am not using.

Color is just as subjective as smell (I'm the mom of an artist, sister of an artist and aunt of an artist, so this is something I'm well versed in) but way too many plants that are violet with some blue undertones are described as blue. Not really, guys.

If you ever read the Plant Delights catalog (which makes for interesting as well as humorous reading), you'll see Tony Advent often complaining about "color blind" plant developers.

Sunnyborder, do not believe in everything you read in sensationalism press. As far as I know, women do not see better or broader than men(it's birds and insects). It' s just that some percentage of men (about 8 % in Scandinavia and less elsewhere) see worse. That's all. There was an accident at a crossing-over somewhere in the history, and the gene responsible for development of the pigment reacting to the green light waves was truncated and a piece of it was attached to the gene "responsible for red". This gene is DEFECT. It DOES NOT ADD anything. If a woman have both defect genes, she is just as colour blind as a man. In mammals there is a phenomenon called dosage compensation(concerning X chromosomes). The science tells, that one of the X chromosomes is inactivated in each cell of the body. Just because this process of inactivation is random, she can have both genes expressed in different cells. So she is absolutely not entitled to see colours better. She just hangs on with nails to whatever was saved.

As far as the colour blue is concerned: it is just cheating and nothing else. It's just because many people like this colour for some reason. It is not believable, that all 8% of the population with defect colour vision end up in the advertising industry, writing flower catalogues.

This post was edited by wieslaw59 on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 21:43

Wieslaw, I agree completely, no one expects 100% return or 100% fail, neither is reasonable in any garden. As for the example of echinaceas, I did mention that it was a "blind leap" for me, just because it's my favorite. I would say they are probably the least stable of all the new intros. The point of my entire post was not the 100% return quote, but the rest, which is basically that personally, the experimentation is the part that appeals to me. We are all different, which is what makes it interesting. If I was getting zero return (or probably even only 50%), I would move on, too! (Echs being the exception--the buggers)

I don't know anything about the specifics of genetics, but I do know that some people CANNOT pick up subtle differences in colors. For example, to some, red is red is red. To others, like me, who can detect very minute differences, there is orange-red, neutral red, and blue-red and various incarnations of each. If someone put a warm-toned pink in the vicinity of a cool-toned pink it's enough to make me rip the plants right of out of place while I'm b*tching loudly about the fool who planted that travesty of a combo. Yikes! Someone else might think "hey, nice pink flowers". I've seen countless houses with clashing tones of beige on their houses (white too!). So, yea - to back up a2zmom - there DEFINITELY is a difference in the way persons perceive color. No doubt about that.

One surefire tip from mxk3 (aka Miss Fussbuget) to ensure you're not displeased with a flower color: Buy it in bloom :0)

mxk, exactly! The reds in my garden have a blue undertone, so I try to make sure no orange plants sneek in. It just loojks awful.

Plus what you have planted next to each other makes a difference also. Any artist can tell you if you have A next to B in one instance and A next to C in another instance, A will look very different even though it's the same color.

Mxk3, it is said that colors are created in your brain, and they do not exist "objectively". You cannot say what the other person can or cannot see, its impossible. We can talk about green, but is your green the same as my green? Maybe I see something yellow but I understand it as green. If somebody is not particularly interested in colors, she or he may not put "the right "(according to you) name on it. But it does NOT necessarily mean that the person CANNOT see the difference. I'm not interested in clothes , and I cannot put names on many items,(example: which is sweater and which is cardigan) but I can see the difference if we talk about details.

You only think that you see more colours than other people. To some people each small bird is a sparrow and a little bigger is a crow. Because they are not interested in them. I'm a bird watcher, and when I say I see a falcon high up there, they say I fabricate.

As far as the color wheel is concerned: it was invented by people who write for garden magazines, who are paid for how many letters/words they write in the article. Otherwise they would not have as much to write about. If you pay attention, the people who write much about how much such and such colours fit or do not fit together, they usually know nothing about plants and their requirements. That's why most gardens created by "garden architects" or other "artists" last only one or two seasons. The nature does not care about matching colours. A blooming desert is one of the most breathtaking sights on the Earth. And there are all colours mixed together in it. Do not listen to all those colour gurus, plant what pleases your eye.

This post was edited by wieslaw59 on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 21:13

It's funny, I have a wall in my office that, according to the paint can label is supposed to be blue; however, I see it as purple. All the many people I ask, said it is blue. I figured I just "learned" the wrong name for this particular color at a young age! I do think that It matches the blue carpet that has many colors. I haven't asked anyone if they match! I might be afraid of the answer! LOL

I take your situation with blue/purple, Judyhi, to be associated with human tetrachromacy (as above).

Re purplish blues and bluish purples; if correct, all the individuals who say purple, not blue, are females, while all those who say blue, not purple, are other females or males.

This post was edited by SunnyBorders on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 21:20

I don't do colors well.... Even the stuff that looks horrible at first glance grows on me and I'm never sure if my tastes have "developed" or if it scarred my retinas!
To get back to the new hybrids thing I've got to say that my biggest complaint is the dwarfing of everything. I suspect it's to make it more box-store marketable but I like a garden that rises around you.... Not just a bunch of round dumpy plants that look nice scattered about in a bed of mulch.... Actually as I understand it there are several plants that are typically treated with plant hormones to keep the stem length short and garden center friendly. I'm thinking of tropical hibiscus mainly, can't think of any others right now.

Um...weislaw...what exactly are you arguing? Are you arguing just for argument's sake? It seems as though we're saying pretty much the same thing: We all see things, hear things, smell things, taste things, interpret things differently. I'm sure someone out there enjoys eau de skunk. All I know is I am very fussy about color combos (with everything, not just flowers), I enjoy the scent of various plants, I like what I like, and there's a difference between blue and purple. That's pretty much it :0)

This post was edited by mxk3 on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 21:30

Mxk3, I just happen to know quite a deal about genetics and can recognize more or less what is possible and not possible. That's why when I see some misconceptions or misinterpretations I put my 2 cents in it. If somebody is satisfied with "we are all different and see things differently" it's fine with me . But there are also people who like to know the difference between facts and old wives' tale. Your personal preferences for colour combos have nothing to do with your colour vision is much better than average person's

This post was edited by wieslaw59 on Mon, Jul 29, 13 at 22:38

Eric, I've always felt the same way about 'blue' plants. There is an actual blue and an actual purple, regardless of what shade each individual sees and there are very few flowers that I would consider blue. My Hydrangea ‘Endless Summer’ right now is exactly blue. Most plants described as blue look like some shade of purple to me. To tell the truth, I would prefer pink hydrangeas and normally would buy purple or pink over blue.

I have translated the descriptions of fragrance with roses the same way you have. (g) Interestingly, in my house, they make jokes about how sensitive my sense of smell is. I smell any odor before anyone else in the family does. So, if anyone would smell a fragrance of a plant it would be someone like me.

Tell me more about Sedum ‘Autumn Fire’. I’ve always enjoyed Sedum AJ, as an overall plant that performs so well. I love it all season and right now is my favorite time with the plant when it is that granny smith apple green and the flower heads have just fattened up. I also love when it finally turns pink, but you are right, it turns that unattractive brown very quickly. Does ‘A Fire’ turn brown but slower? Does it perform the same as AJ otherwise?

This post was edited by prairiemoon2 on Tue, Jul 30, 13 at 4:01

Funnthsun, I normally do research a plant before purchasing. I wait it out like Eric does too, until after others have tried it. So I’m glad there are gardeners like you, who enjoy the experimentation part of it, because I would be just as happy to by pass that and buy a plant I know is going to perform as expected. I guess I find my fun in other ways. (g) My way of looking at it is that the company introducing the plant should have put it through trials and know what it is going to do before it comes to market.

I know when Echinaceas started coming out in every color imaginable, I did jump on the band wagon pretty quickly with those. I bought five new introductions and each one was worse than the one before, so that was my first experience with new introductions that actually fail. I’ve been much more cautious since then and I don’t think I’ve bought another new introduction of Echinacea since.

Coreopsis, I’ve followed along with anyone posting their experiences with them. I know there were quite a few new introductions that failed to be as hardy as indicated. And now I believe many new coreopsis are only hardy to zone 7, so that’s the reason I haven’t tried them. I did buy ‘Sienna Sunset’ two years ago and not that crazy about it, but I’m giving it another year. I wanted to buy ‘Jethro Tull’, just for the name, but other gardeners reported very low vigor on that plant and what I’ve seen in the nursery would confirm that. ‘Red Shift’ really cracks me up, every one I’ve seen in the nursery looks like a plant I would have rejected in a plant trial. Just an ugly color combo. Your ‘Mercury Rising and ‘Cosmic Eye’ did look good in your photos.

With the failure of two varieties of Sambucus for me, I went with Ninebark ‘Summer Wine’ instead for the dark foliage and very happy with that plant. Mine is very vigorous and care free.

Echinaceamaniac, I looked up photos of your Hibiscus 'Midnight Marvel' and it looks like a nice plant. Unfortunately, red is just one of those colors I avoid because I have so many other colors that it clashes with. That and orange. I wish I had a larger property because I would enjoy having an area that was set aside that I could use dark foliage with reds and oranges. It really wakes you up. I've managed to have one container in a small area that had the dark foliage with reds and oranges and a variegated Nasturtium and it was my favorite.

I bought a 'Kopper King' Hibiscus that has some red on it and I love the blooms. They are so huge and the texture is wonderful. But naturally, the weight of all those huge buds and blooms pulls the branches over. I normally let mine grow as is but I was just thinking last week that next year I want to try to prune it back once to see if that will make a more dense upright shrub. My favorite Hibiscus, is one that Woody has. She has posted a photo of hers a few times and I think it is the best overall Hibiscus I've seen. It is very bushy and full. The flowers are not huge like the KK but they are abundant. I'm not sure if hers is a new introduction or not. Here's my Kopper King just opening last week....

Re colour, art and gardening:

Though I do realize the historical influence of art on garden design (and have a huge admiration for Monet - an expert gardener as well as an expert artist), I can really identify with gardeners who sometimes feel art concepts are pushed on gardeners by people who know nothing substantive about gardening.

It's a bit like the members of a local horticultural society who might not do gardening themselves, but want to manage things, including those who do garden actively; also a bit like those who may write about gardens and gardening, but don't get their hands dirty themselves.

I'd be almost sure that Wieslaw, who has a spectacular perennial garden, gets all sorts of comments on the coordination of colours in his flower beds. Wieslaw's perennial garden is top of the line, but like many others, I also get favourable compliments on my mixed perennial beds.

It always amazes me how often kindly folk say that they love a particular combination of colours in a mixed perennial bed, when I only paid vague (or no) attention to colour when planting in. The primary focus was always on what I thought would work horticulturally.

I may not agree with all that is being said, but I feel particularly that colour combination preferences are very subjective. The truth of the matter is that if the perennial gardener emphasized using many different plants, then a mixed perennial beds will contain lots of different combinations of colours. Particular individuals viewing such beds are drawn to particular colour combinations they like.

Most of all, I don't favour ardent colour dislikes: i'd say that Gertrude Jekyll's attitude, in trying to essentially ban the colour magenta from gardens, was close to bigotry!

This post was edited by SunnyBorders on Tue, Jul 30, 13 at 17:01

Count me in among those wanting to hear about 'Autumn Fire.' I have tried several newer cultivars but none are even close to as nice as 'Autumn Joy.' I just succumbed to trying 'Autumn Delight' which has slightly variegated leaves (darker green leaf edges with the regular sedum green on the body of the leaf). But that was a pre-garden-tour impulse buy rather than a carefully planned purchase.

As for color and gender, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has all kinds of trouble discussing colors with DH. He comes from a long line of artists and has a keen eye. But we do see things differently. Just the other day I was pointing out a 'Sum and Substance' hosta:

'It's that big chartreuse one"

"Where?"

"Right there. The one that's yellowish green."

"Where?"

"There!" (pointing right at it)

"Oh that one. That's not yellow-green. That's just green."

:)

Have similar conversations with my wife and not just at Happy Hour.

And then it's always about flower colour, never about the colour of the wine (latter, at least beyond red or white)!

Interesting discussions... particularly re color. Planning color is important in my garden. I have strong likes and dislikes. I have one area that is the 'hot' garden with peachy, orange and the hotter red tones, with a red-purple ninebark for a dark contrast. The cool reds work well - to my eyes - with white and the cooler pastels so they are in the main front beds. 'Purple' is used in ways that baffle me often - purple coneflowers are pink in my eyes! As are many things that are called purple. Purple, to me, means something quite dark; I do divide it into red-purple or blue-purple depending on which one seems to be the strongest element and it does make a difference (to me) on what gets combined with it.

PM2 - those hardy hibiscuses that you like are just starting to come into bloom now. When they are more fully in bloom I'll post some pictures. They are in the 'old' category - Disco Belles - that have been around for a long time. I do have a couple of other varieties but most have been around for a while as well - and none of them have performed for me as well as the Disco Belles have!

prairiemoon, I am not trying to argue with you :-) I am just trying to point out that different gardeners and different situations will call out different results and I am not very inclined to limit plant rants uniformly to "modern hybrids". In many cases the newer introductions of various plant types are far superior to the old - not always but certainly with reasonable frequency. I have just as many complaints about some of the new plants as well.........I am pretty nondiscriminatory when it comes to plant rants and I don't. care what their pedigree is or how long they've been around. If they don't work well for me or my clients for whatever reason, they're out and off my list!

btw, plant tags associated with large commercial growers - like Monrovia - are targeted to the broadest possible audience and in that sense are sort of generic in their information, especially when it comes to hardiness zones/tolerance and sizes. They tend to reference nothing when it comes to how much heat or summer humidity the plant can take or even soil conditions preferred. I can list several dozen different plants they grow that do not thrive here in the PNW although we are well within hardiness limits and they are marketed heavily for this area. Because I am involved in the nursery industry, I may have a broader scope of plant knowledge than the average Joe and I am also on pretty familiar terms with a lot of wholesale growers, some very large (i.e. Monrovia). I think many would be surprised as to how uninformative and misleading many of their nursery tags are - the information is lacking or just inaccurate. Learning the most one can about the plants in question via as many means as possible before purchasing is always preferred but not always possible, given nurseries and garden centers staging for impulse buys (iPads and other tablets help a lot!!). Even then, that is not always enough.....sometimes you just have to try out the plant. Usually it works fine; sometimes they are all hype.

I see nothing wrong with pink and yellow flowers together.

echinaceamanic, plenty of pinks work with plenty of yellows. It's a question of whether the colors are warm or cool (ie, blue or yellow undertone), a tint or a shade.

SunnyBorders, I think we would all agree that combining color is very subjective and if you are gardening for yourself first, then I think you can do what pleases you.

Karin, I have Sedum ‘Autumn Charm’ which is about the third variegated sedum I’ve tried. ‘Frosty Morn’ being the first, that had many branches that reverted and I forget the second one that never grew taller than it’s original size when I bought it after three years. ‘Autumn Charm’ seems to be better, but this is it’s 2nd year and I have not seen more growth on it this year beyond what it did last year.

Woody, I was hoping you would see my post. I forgot you had the Disco Belles and it seems to me that is the best performing of the Hardy Hibiscuses. Yes, please post a photo on this thread when you can.

GGal48, I am not trying to argue with you either. :-) I’m sure you are just trying to explain what you think, which I’m happy for you to do.

No need for you to limit your rants to ‘modern hybrids’. If you have had poor performance from old fashioned plants, this is a great thread to list them on.

You said, ‘I’m not sure I’d agree about the ‘broad’ marketing strategy.’

Then you said, “Monrovia, is a large commercial grower that targets the broadest possible audience.”

Exactly, that was the reason I used them as an example.

I wonder if you can hear what you are saying, GGal? You are saying that despite the fact that you have more plant knowledge than the ‘average joe’, work in the industry, are on familiar terms with growers, that you haven’t succeeded with not just a dozen plants, but several dozen plants! So then it is no surprise, that the ‘average joe’ is not having success with some of these plants either. And really, isn’t that who these plants are supposed to be for? No one should need a degree in horticulture to grow new introductions. And evidently, what good did it do you to have all your knowledge, training and experience if they are still not working out?

It leaves me wondering why you disagreed with me in the first place, because you are proving my point. You go so far as to say the tags are misleading, yet you still seem to be defending growers and ‘new introductions’. I’m scratching my head…lol. It seems to me we agree more than we disagree.

Anyway, I was hoping we could share what our results have been with the plants we have tried so we can all benefit from each other's experiences. Maybe you could share more of the plants you have crossed off your list and more of the plants that you can recommend?

This post was edited by prairiemoon2 on Tue, Jul 30, 13 at 23:20

Re: Hibiscus. Yes, I agree that Disco Belle is the best performing series, in my experience. DB is getting harder and harder to find, though - seems to have been replaced by the Luna series.

I also very much like Brandy Punch, great color and I like the foliage. I have Anne Arundel, too - the color pleases me but it it rather spindly in growth opposed to bushy, even with pinching. I won't rip them out, but I won't replace them, either, should anything happen to them.

In my opinion the best hardy Hibiscus plants are 'Midnight Marvel' and 'Summer Storm.' They have the most attractive foliage and bloom more. The foliage is even better than 'Kopper King.' 'Disco Belles' and 'Luna' are seed strains.

This post was edited by echinaceamaniac on Wed, Jul 31, 13 at 9:29

I guess I haven't been keeping up with how many new Hibiscus there are. Yes, 'Midnight Marvel' and 'Summer Storm' and 'Brandy Punch' all look very good.

I've been looking at my 'Kopper King' with a more critical eye this year because I've had it long enough for it to be settled in. I realize that there is the side of me that is just a plant collector and the side that loves a great landscape. I think in the case of KK, my plant collector side is pulled to this shrub. I really anticipate seeing those huge flowers open every year. They fascinate me for the short time the shrub is in bloom. But as a contribution to the landscape, I'm not loving it. In fairness I haven't attempted to shape it so, one more year before I decide whether to keep it or get something else. I'm glad there are other choices.

One big difference between disappointments with familiar old standards (whether species or hybrid) and disappointments with the latest introductions: the latter results in a far greater hit on the wallet.

If I spend $3 for a seed packet or $5.99 for a plant and the results are poor, that's one thing - but blowing $15 on the hot new perennial that flowers sparsely and vanishes after one season is quite a different matter.

And that's something that doesn't take "green industry experience" to realize. :)

Eric, that's a good point about prices. I find if I'm willing to wait a year or two, the prices come down a lot on new introductions.

You can always get them in a big sale like Santa Rosa's $2.99 sale.

'Kevin' wrote:

One thing I'm very curious about is Heuchera. I think maybe second to Echinacea, there are probably more new Heuchera coming on the market each year.

For sure Kevin. And to be honest I am not a big fan of heucheras per se but as I have posted before I really like the heucherella "Solar Eclipse". Here is one of mine as of today.

I have decided that heucheras (and hostas) look better to me when very closely surrounded by other plants as compared to being on their own as a specimen plant.

I love hybrid annuals or house plants, but not much interested in perennials with new names or appearance. They rarely are as stalwart as a plain species plant. I'm sure most are great plants though. I prefer the kind of forgotten perennials still thriving where there "used to be a house" like old roses, azaleas, Hostas, petunias that smell really good, stuff you remember from gramma's garden, trustworthy well-behaved old pass-alongs that might not pack the same visual wow but after sniffing, you don't care if there's a few less petals or they aren't as big. Hmm, apparently my main issue is with fragrance. Didn't know until I typed that out.

delete post

This post was edited by GreatPlains1 on Wed, Sep 4, 13 at 4:42

rouge21, I think that is a great idea to place the Heuchera in a bed of small foliage like that. It looks really nice. Is that vinca?

Thanks 'prairie'. It was just a fluke that this heucherella got planted amongst the "vinca". And I think it looks much better "popped" in amongst the surrounding ground cover than for example this one; kind of on its own, found in another bed of ours.