Return to the Roses Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Posted by prairiemoon2 zone 6a/MA (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 4, 13 at 14:27

I don't get around to any rose gardens and I don't have any friends who have rose gardens. So I have to rely on photos online and what someone might share about the roses they grow.

I have been spending time looking at the HelpMeFind website and there are some gorgeous photos of roses on that site. I'm looking at them and I'm wondering if the people who post photos there, are experts in rose growing and not just your average person with basic gardening skills and know how. In other words, I have my doubts that I could grow some of these roses and end up with that result.

I have had just a few roses and I'm trying to grow them, 'no spray'. And I have done okay with them. I'm sure I could do better, but they have looked pretty good at one time or another, long enough to take a photo that pleases me, but they don't look great all season. And I haven't had any roses that come close to looking as great as some of the photos on the HMF site.

So, it leaves me asking myself a few questions….

Am I going to have to work harder at growing roses, or could it be that other rose growers get some great photos some times but that their roses are not looking great all season, either?

Is there a happy rose growing experience out there waiting for people who try to grow 'no spray' if they just find the right roses, or is it just wishful thinking?

Are there many people on the forums growing successful gardens full of roses that are satisfied with them with a minimum of frustration or just a few people who are?

Don't get me wrong, I started with a Knock Out Rose, because for the longest time, I believed that being an organic gardener, it would be too much trouble to raise roses. But after a few years with a Knock Out, it just made me want a 'real' rose all the more. And I keep searching for roses that grow well with a 'no spray' approach. I have grown about 6 roses that were fairly successful in my garden with a minimum of frustration and I've been happy to have them and the fragrance that I was looking for instead of the Knock Out rose, but…I do want to keep having a better and better experience without roses becoming all my focus in the garden and I don't know if that is a reasonable expectation that I could.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

  • Posted by hoovb z9 Southern CA (My Page) on
    Mon, Nov 4, 13 at 14:43

Roses never look great all year, but most people don't either. If they did, they'd be plastic, not living things. Most every living thing has down times. It is the way of the living.

You are in an extremely challenging climate (freeze-thaw, cold winters, humid summers) for growing many roses, so any success you achieve is a success far greater than what I do here, in a very easy climate.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

There are a number of truths in what you assert about rose growers and the photos you see on places like the forums and HMF. People do post the best photos they have of some of their most beautiful roses--it's only human nature to want to share (or show off) the successes. And, yes, some of those posting are real experts on rose growing, versus just the casual rose enthusiast. In fact, a few grow roses in the thousands, and as hoov mentions, climates can make a tremendous difference in outcomes--you have a more challenging climate and so do I (but I also have some great positives in my climate, too, and so do you). In fact, being in zone 6 means you have a milder climate than a whole bunch of people, though you may have to battle humidity, so do many others. If I were in your situation, my whole focus would be finding, first of all, the roses that would be as healthy as possible in a no spray garden in my climate--everything else would be secondary (like color, scent, constant bloom, etc). Keep trying to find a rose friend in your area that has successfully grown roses.It would be great to share those successes and failures, too, with another local person.
Success will come to you. It just takes time and patience.

Diane

I'm going to try to find a lousy photo to post which might make you feel better. I probably have destroyed all those, though-heheh. Yup, they've all been dispersed into the ether--just checked.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I am inclined to put a reasonable degree of trust in photos on this forum or HMF, although I would never choose a rose based on an appealing close-up of a single bloom....or any other plant, although I have, in the past, done all the obvious things....like ordering seeds based on a huge red bloom on the seed packet....which was, in fact, adonis aestivalis with absolutely minute flowers (and not many either). I want an overview of the entire bush, at the very least, with foliage and shape being more important than a flower. Obviously, there are some very good photographers out there, both pro and amateur but a photo of a shrub in some sort of context is always welcome. What I do tend to discount, and not just for roses, are the many magazines and glossy garden books which tend to select a perfect moment, arranged, fussed over, artfully lit....in short, absolutely nothing like what (most of us, surely) see when we look out of our own windows....or, we might manage a few moments of perfection - the garden which looks wonderful, all year round, does not exist anywhere. It took me a surprisingly long time, to get the hang of visiting other people's gardens (and not those where they have staff....or heaps of cash either) and seeing for myself that everyone has weeds, plants which fall over, empty pots and garden stuff lying around (and not carefully arranged arty stuff). A picture really is only an event while a garden is a process.
Having said that, I always enjoy looking at them, good bad or indifferent.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I too have to rely largely on photos when I pick out new roses. I don't know anybody in my region who grows roses other than 2 or 3 HTs or a couple Knock Outs. I find the helpmefind.com photos very helpful because there are so many--that way I can determine if one photo is not typical compared to all the others, and the photos often include at least a couple whole bush ones--which I find most helpful for trying to visualize how that rose might look in my garden. If I find a great deal of inconsistency in the photos, then I come over here and ask posters to describe theirs. I also go to google and call up the "images" and search for the rose I'm interested in. Talk about getting lots of photos! I click on some of them to see what their online source had to say about them, and then, again, I come over here and ask our posters what their experiences are.

I find that checking multiple sources gives me a pretty good idea about the rose. I would never rely on just one source to tell me about a rose.

Oh yes, I also go to the bottom of this page and do a search of GW for the rose I'm curious about--lots of links with comments and pics that have been posted on this site in the past 5-10 years, after all.

About pics, remember that some people are also interested in fine art photography--the art of the beautiful picture. By definition, they will toss out all the bad or mediocre pictures, like Nana does (I do too), so of course--you are only seeing the best pictures. But just like you and me when we have 'bad hair' days, so do roses--and sometimes for weeks! I'd guess that most of the really gorgeous pics you see were actually taken during the spring bloom--when just about everybody's roses are looking their best.

As far as your no spray garden goes, go down to the "search" box near the bottom of this page and type in "disease resistant" (or "resistance") or "blackspot resistance"--you should get a loooooong list of posts on this forum addressing that subject. Do the same over on the "Antique Roses" Forum--David Austin roses are often covered there, and there have been many comments on which Austin roses are more disease-resistant than other ones are.

Hope that helps.

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

'In other words, I have my doubts that I could grow some of these roses and end up with that result.'

You should have very serious doubts for good reason.

Before Knock-Outs were introduced, decades of middle class gardeners bought the 'rose(s) of the year' shown off in full color glossies in nice magazines. They bought them with the expectation that their result would be a reality that at least approached what they saw in those photos.

Of course, those photos then like photos of those and similar roses now are always presented without the requisite caption caveat:

'Numerous - frequent - heavy applications of fungicides required.'

The vast majority of roses require spraying.
The roses that perform acceptably in no spray gardens are subjective judgments - what may be acceptable for ten folks might not be acceptable for 5 - and vice versa.

Roses that perform WELL in no spray gardens are a select few of the multitudes of those available.

'Am I going to have to work harder at growing roses, or could it be that other rose growers get some great photos some times but that their roses are not looking great all season, either?'

I think the thread linked below does a great job of attempting to address that question. If I were a novice, I'd post on that thread and ask things like: 'how old are those roses in the photos?' or 'don't you have any uglier photos?' And 'do you spray ever at all?'

Here is a link that might be useful: Everblooming roses in midsummer doldrums


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I think I should go further and add that on this forum there are quite a number of exhibitors. They will present photos and tout good performance WITHOUT mentioning that they apply fungicides. And there are similarly, many in very low disease pressure areas - i.e., where blackspot RARELY if ever occurs, and where mildew and rust may. Rust is practically unheard of on the east coast. So there are actually MANY missing caption caveats even today at this moment on these forums.

Please note that I used the term "apply fungicides."

As the thread linked below demonstrates, there isn't even good conscience about the accepted phrase "no spray."

Here is a link that might be useful: Nomenclature


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Thanks Hoovb, for confirmation that growing roses here is a lot different than growing them in California. Know the name of a good realtor? (g) Just kidding, I love New England, but I see your point.

Diane, I agree, it is only natural to post your best photos. I do the same in my garden. It is exciting when you see something performing well and you do want to share that. I hadn’t even thought that someone might have thousands of roses, but makes sense. I guess there is a lot to learn and I haven’t been around long enough to get the lay of the land.

Your suggestion to focus on finding the healthiest possible roses for a no spray garden, has redirected my efforts. In the beginning that was my focus and then I got distracted by wanting this and that, because the choices you can find for ‘no spray’ are much more limited and you have to wade through all the roses you can’t have in the catalogs, to find them. I can see that has been getting in my way.

Good thing you don’t have a ‘lousy’ photo, now I won’t have to find one to post to keep you company. :-) And isn't that a luscious rose!

Campanula, I should have said that when I look at catalog photos they seem a lot different than those on the forums and on HMF. I was on the Palatine site yesterday and then I would look up a rose on HMF, and sometimes they would look very different. Then when I head over to Pickering, their photos seem almost like a different variety of rose in comparison to other photos. For instance the Austin Roses on the Pickering site look completely different than the same rose on the David Austin site or some that I see on the forums. On the DA site, they look wonderful and not so much on the Pickering site. I find that very confusing and wouldn’t know what to expect when I order something. I don’t understand how the same variety can look so different, unless it is something to do with what they are grafting onto?

And I can see that not visiting other gardens has delayed my understanding of what the average garden looks like. Yes, gardens are a work in progress and are never finished and complete. Good points. Thanks.

This post was edited by prairiemoon2 on Mon, Nov 4, 13 at 20:18


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Kate, you’re right, the HMF site does have multiple photos to get a better idea, and I have found at least one photo of the shrub which really helps. They don’t look as mesmerizing as the photos in the rose catalogs though. (g)

I can see why I’ve been spending so much time trying to get an order for roses for the spring though, back and forth between the catalog, the forums and HMF. I should have started thinking about this much earlier.

Sandandsun, you have hit the nail on the head. There are a small selection of roses to try for a ‘no spray’ garden and a lot of the most extravagant roses in the catalogs, are not usually among them. I just have to be more realistic I think.

Thanks for that link, I haven’t read the thread yet, but I did look at the photos and those before and after shots are just wonderful. The thread does address exactly what I’ve been wondering.

And thank you for the second link, because I was not aware that ‘no spray’ means different things to different gardeners. For me, I am an organic gardener in the purest sense and I don’t use anything commercial beside fish emulsion and some of the ‘tone’ fertilizers and I have no pesticides or fungicides in any form. Good to know, I’ll have to ask more specific questions.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

"The vast majority of roses require spraying."

Not altogether true.

There are, for most climates and conditions, roses which don't require spraying, or even a lot of fuss. YOUR job is to find out which roses will be successful without all that, in your area.

CLUE: It is likely that they won't be the same roses that succeed best for ME, on the Southern California coast.

This is where local rose societies can be very valuable.

ASK A SOCIETY IN YOUR AREA for a list of roses that will succeed for you without sprays.

Even so -- Every living thing has good days, good seasons, and less lovely ones.

There is only rose that will look unchangeably beautiful, no matter what your climate and conditions and in every season.

I call it: Rosa plastica.

Jeri


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

prairiemoon2 .....

HMF is a database, not just an archive for photos.

Although not all of the roses have REFERENCES, when they do, you can glean a lot of information about the rose by reading them. The REFERENCES on HMF come from publications that are open to public scrutiny.

MEMBER COMMENTS on the rose page are site user's opinions or information about their experience growing the rose in their climates.

When you open a photo, if you click on the name of the site member that posted the photo, you can read his/her profile and often can find out where they are growing the rose and how many years of experience they have growing roses.

If you click on the name of the rose in the photo, it will take you to the rose page for the rose in the database. You can click on the GARDENS tab and get a sense of where people are growing the rose. For example, if you see that most of the gardens listed are located in mild climates, give you some insight where this particular rose is successful.

I personally, prefer to look at whole plant photos vs. single bloom photos because then I can get a sense of the plant's habit.

If there is a patent for the rose, you can read the patent information, too. Often there is a section about disease resistance.

You can also ask on the Q & A Forum about people's experience with a rose in a no-spray garden.

In other words, looking at the photos is the first step in researching a rose on HMF.

I have to admit, that I personally don't put up photos of my roses when they are not looking their best, but I agree with others who have posted above that even your best performing rose does not look wonderful every day.

Smiles,
Lyn


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I have an abiding respect for jerijen's hard work on behalf of heritage roses.

However, I would point out that jerijen's statement:

"Not altogether true."

Is equivalent to:

"Pretty d@mned accurate."

Why might you ask? Well, because jerijen has more posts about what roses have been removed from jerijen's garden than about those that have been in it for any number of years. (On these forums - wouldn't be TOO difficult to retrieve the documentation)
Those removals are adequate support of my statement.

And I don't agree that the local societies are the source. The ARS although presented as CHANGING, is STILL focused on exhibition.

And STILL endorses the same cultural F&F procedures (read FUNGICIDES & FERTILIZERS). Otherwise there would not be a sprayed category for the AOE. See link below.

Unless the local society has a consulting rosarian who takes exception to this - and that is rare, there will be little reliable information available from them. (Consulting Rosarians are trained by the ARS and given their title by the ARS - so think VERY rare).

Also, in the post defending the HMF photos, it is stated, if verbosely, that fungicidal treatments will not be acknowledged in those photos EITHER.

And I believe my earlier statement "So there are actually MANY missing caption caveats even today at this moment on these forums" may have been too subtle. Because it exists even on THIS thread.

Here is a link that might be useful: The American Rose Society Award of Excellence

This post was edited by sandandsun on Mon, Nov 4, 13 at 22:12


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Nope. Sorry SandnSun.

I say again that if you are growing the right roses for your environment, you can grow them without a lot of hassle. Sprays included.

Have I planted and removed roses that were unsuited to my conditions? Sure! More of them than you know.

We've always been adventurous, and when we didn't KNOW whether a rose would work or not, and couldn't find anyone who did -- we tried it, and found out for ourselves.

We've been doing this since the late 1980's. In that time, many things have changed. We have resources now that I would have killed for in 1987.

But that's why I do tell people what roses failed here, and what roses succeeded. There's no shame in that, and no reason for anger.

Can an ARS rose Society offer information about spray-free roses? SURE! Not all do -- but increasingly, many do.

If you don't ask, you don't learn.

The two Societies to which I belong provide such information to anyone who asks. Nor are they unique in that.

Jeri


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

So, by jerijen's own confession, more roses have been removed from jerijen's garden than already documented which certainly supports my point: there are more roses that are unsuitable for a no spray garden than there are qualified ones.

And anyone's support of the ARS is irrelevant to me. I have remarked before on that organization's responsibility for why we still have mostly BAD roses.

And the reason we're getting more and more good roses has NOTHING to do with the ARS. It is IN SPITE OF the ARS as Tom Carruth documented in his article referenced in the thread linked below.

The public has learned that the ways of the ARS are not the ONLY ways. Like the industry that they drive, they are moving forward WITHOUT the ARS.

Here is a link that might be useful: Huntington member article on the decline of the rose hobby


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Sandandsun,

This thread is not a place for you to mount your soapbox and attack other members. If you have a beef about the ethics of current national organizations please create your own space to complain. Mrs. Jennings' experience and expertise provide greater credibility to her advice than to your own, and it would behoove you to maintain better face on these forums. No one here is obliged to help you, but rather they do so due to admirable personal character. You would do well to mimic this trait in others so that when you need questions answered we will be inclined to offer our experience.

Prairiemoon,

With your tough climate, I would highly suggest old garden roses. I am not sure how much room you have, but the Albas are usually disease resistant and put on quite the spring show. My first suggestions would be 'Konigin von Danemark.' If you would like to begin a thread in the Antique Roses Forum we have many friendly members who would be thrilled to assist you.

Josh


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Lyn, thanks for explaining the HMF site. I have been using the comments and ratings tab which really helps. Haven’t noticed the References yet, but I’ll look for it. Haven’t been looking at member profiles or Gardens Tab a lot yet. I didn’t realize there was a Q&A forum there, I’ll look for that. Yes, I could spend a lot more time there, thanks.

Jeri and SandnSun, Sorry, I seem to have brought up a sore subject here. I’m sure you both have reasonable points on both sides of this issue. I just wanted to say that you don’t have to worry about it on my account. I started organic gardening back in 1979 and that was when it was a rarity and you rarely met anyone who knew what you were talking about, so I got used to it. Rose growing could be like vegetable growing in that regard, people started using chemicals when they didn’t realize it was a problem and now those who do understand that, have to struggle to make changes and change is slow. I’m happy change is happening and going in the right direction. For the Peggy Rockefeller Garden to rip out all their chemically dependent roses and replace them with roses that will be chemical free, is a good indicator that change is happening and that has the possibility of impacting change on a larger scale.

Josh, thanks for the invite over to the Antiques Forum, I’ll have to give that a try, especially since I haven’t given up on the David Austins yet and maybe someone can enlighten me about the virtues of an old rose. :-)

This post was edited by prairiemoon2 on Tue, Nov 5, 13 at 10:19


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

There are opinions and there are facts. I present both.
Opinions appear VERY frequently on these forums.
Like others, mine when expressed pertain to the subject at hand.

Many folks prefer to ignore problems in the hope that they will go away.
This approach is never functional.

Tom Carruth points out problems with the ARS with both facts and opinions in his article already referenced and linked directly below.

I have a great respect for his opinion (much of which is commentary on the ARS) because as I've explained before, he has unquestionable credentials and is a foremost authority on the subject of roses. And to someone with an objective view like myself (yes, I'm objective - I've never been a member of the ARS nor had any direct involvement with them) his points are concrete, intelligent, and valid.

Although some prefer to take offense rather than reflect, learn, correct, and grow from criticism - and I agree it can be very difficult to take criticism well, the hope is that Mr. Carruth's (and mine) will be taken constructively.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Rise and Fall of our National Floral Emblem by Tom Carruth


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

PM2...I was thinking Rugosas and some of the repeat flowering Portlands would be great for you to try...
I agree with Josh. Check out the Antiques forum.
Susan


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Hello PM2, I'm a bit late to the discussion, but here goes...

About a decade ago, we lived in New Haven, CT. I had good results growing HTs no spray (Frederic Mistral and Touch of Class were my faves). They grew and bloomed well then spotted in August. I ignored the August spots (take a vacation and don't worry about them), watered and fertilized with rose-tone. In September, new growth appeared for the fall flush and they looked great until November. And that was near the end of the growing season so the spots didn't bother me.

Now I live in Virginia and HTs would be bare nekkid stick bushes here by June if not for fungicide. So now I grow antique teas. Roses need leaves to grow and bloom well. Try the roses that make you happy and ignore a few spots if it doesn't affect the health of the plant.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Sandandsun, that was an interesting article. It surprised me to learn that sales of roses has dropped from 50 million in 1990 to 18 million in 2011. That is quite a drop. I thought it was even more of a surprise that he claims that people have the wrong idea that roses are ‘difficult to grow’, that they are according to him, the easiest plants to grow requiring a minimum of care. Quite a different perspective than most people have.

Susan, I forgot the Portlands do have repeat flowering. Thanks, I’ll check those out and the Antiques forum.

Cecily, that is another way of looking at it. Everyone has their own tolerance for ugly foliage. I can ignore some of that. If it gets to be more than I’m happy with, I cut off all the bad foliage and water it good. The David Austin Rose ‘Golden Celebration’ that I had, usually gave a fairly good first flush of bloom that made it worth it to grow and when the foliage was not good looking, I would prune it hard after the first flush and it would grow all new healthy foliage and give me a few more blooms in the fall. So I have been doing that. And I was growing it in a mixed bed with perennials, so just having clean foliage was enough in mid summer when other perennials were in bloom.

I think I am feeling more willing to experiment with the goal of finding the most disease resistant varieties for my garden. I was looking at the Pickering site today and they had a good list of ‘Disease Resistant’ roses that I thought was a good start. I usually wouldn’t even consider a Hybrid Tea thinking they would need the most intervention to grow, but I did see a few HTs on the disease resistant list. So I see your point. Thanks for suggesting that.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Hi Prairiemoon,

Your questions:
"Am I going to have to work harder at growing roses, or could it be that other rose growers get some great photos some times but that their roses are not looking great all season, either?"

Of course, you can always "work harder" and possibly obtain more aesthetically pleasing results, but not always. No plant looks great "all season", anywhere, unless you're considering annuals which are ripped out once they are past their prime. Roses frequently look decent for the time of year, then cycle off and on looking "great". You have to remember, though, flowering is ovulation in expectation of reproduction (hips/seeds) and NOTHING ovulates constantly. That requires resources which have to be replenished, which takes time. Even in the most perfect locations and conditions, with the more perfect selections, nothing "always" looks perfect.

"Is there a happy rose growing experience out there waiting for people who try to grow 'no spray' if they just find the right roses, or is it just wishful thinking?"

Having not grown anything in every situation/condition, I hope there is! That happy experience may well not be with the type your eye is most attracted to, but with an open mind and acceptance that what you want isn't necessarily going to want to cooperate with how you want it to grow, I'd suspect yes, there is. It's likely to take some experimenting and time to find it, but it should be there. Are there any gardening clubs of any type near you, or close enough you could contact for information? Surely others have discovered roses which succeed in your climate and area which don't demand chemical intervention? Perhaps any colleges or universities in your state might have suggestions? Are there any public gardens in your state you might contact for information? At least, here in California, homeowners can turn their gardens into toxic waste dumps compared to the limitations our state laws place on public gardens. Perhaps some of those discoveries have already been made, waiting for someone to ask the question? I would also second the suggestion of clicking on the photo contributors' names to see where they grow the roses pictured. You can often learn much about the grower and any special conditions/situations from their member pages. Many also have private messaging enabled so you can message them with any questions you may have about the rose or how they grow it. I've received numerous private messages over the past decade-plus and have responded to them all. I've also contacted a number of others through the site to inquire about roses they listed. I've found each one to be lovely and generous with their responses.

"Are there many people on the forums growing successful gardens full of roses that are satisfied with them with a minimum of frustration or just a few people who are?"

That is probably going to depend a lot on when you ask. Much of the time, I'm quite happy with what I grow and how I permit them to grow. Then, other times, I'm ready to shred most of them and let it return to weeds. Once you strike that happy balance of effort to reward (and the weather, plants and critters cooperate!), you'll probably find you're at least as satisfied as you are with any other gardening you attempt. Selecting the right types for where you are and your cultural style IS the greatest factor.

"Don't get me wrong, I started with a Knock Out Rose, because for the longest time, I believed that being an organic gardener, it would be too much trouble to raise roses. But after a few years with a Knock Out, it just made me want a 'real' rose all the more. And I keep searching for roses that grow well with a 'no spray' approach. I have grown about 6 roses that were fairly successful in my garden with a minimum of frustration and I've been happy to have them and the fragrance that I was looking for instead of the Knock Out rose, but…I do want to keep having a better and better experience without roses becoming all my focus in the garden and I don't know if that is a reasonable expectation that I could."

Until you discover the few which may respond as well as your Knock Outs with your culture style, I suspect you're going to be paying them much more attention than you may desire. For many areas, Knock Out is going to be the best possible selection...so far, at least until recent breeding results in combinations which resist diseases as well as it does. I suspect black spot is probably your worst disease issue. Perhaps a thread asking what roses have been determined successful without fungicides near you in Massachusetts might result in specific varieties for you to consider?

It's been scientifically determined there are five, distinct fungi which cause "black spot" infection in the US. Not every location has them all. What is "disease resistant" in Florida is very likely not to be resistant in Massachusetts or even here in California. Very few roses which have been tested, have been found to resist as many types of fungi as the original Knock Out. The greatest probability of success is very likely to come from suggestions made by people who actually grow the specific roses where you are. Those suggestions can come from folks here, from those on Help Me Find, even other rose related forums such as All Things Plants or even the Rose Hybridizers Association. Not all forums overlap. Perhaps lurking or posting elsewhere also might result in suggestions of types which have been found to be healthier, closer to where you actually live? I have frequently been surprised hearing how a type performs for others in the north east, compared to what I have experienced and observed right here. The Antique Forum is a definite plus to ask the question, but I would probably ask it more as "which are BS resistant in MA (near whichever city you are closest). If you luck out, someone not that far from you may have suggestions of what you can consider and actually have good chances of success with. I wouldn't give up yet, though. There should be roses which will satisfy you with the attention you wish to give them. At least, I hope there are! Good luck! Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Hi Kim,

I realize no plant looks great all season, but I’m sure every gardener chooses plants that at the very least, don’t look awful during the time they are not in bloom. I love spring bulbs, but I hate the dying foliage so I plan for that and manage it. With roses, they are up front and center and not as easy to disguise foliage problems.

I had an old rose, ‘Madame Plantier’ that was a disappointment for me. I did what Campanula did with the photo on her seed packet, I fell in love with the photo of the bloom on the nursery’s website, not realizing it was this tiny little bloom. And the only place I had for it at the time, was not full sun, so the growth and bloom was less than stellar. Fragrance was not impressive. Then it attracted thripes, which I had never had before and I missed it the first year and the next year ended up trying to hand pick a lot of caterpillars. Then it was a mess of ugly foliage. I could have tried it in another location with full sun, but I just didn’t like it that much. I shovel pruned it and was happier with an empty space than having that rose.

I am sure there has to be gardeners in my area who are also trying to grow roses without chemicals, but I’m not aware of it. I haven’t really investigated it much, so I could do that. I did discover the Peggy Rockefeller Garden which is in New York, which is in the Northeast and should have similar climate to mine. They ripped out all their roses and started over with a ‘no spray’ program and I’m checking out their list of top performers.

Private messages is something I haven’t tried either.

Good to know that even successful rose growers want to sometimes ‘shred most of them’….lol. I have had 5 roses that I enjoyed for the past 4 years, but 2 of them did have increasingly worse foliage problems, which I managed by pruning them back hard after the first flush of bloom, and in that way, I felt I had the balance of effort to reward. I am replacing those two roses and I think I can do better.

Yes, blackspot is my only issue really. Good idea to start a thread specific to that problem. Thanks for the names of other forums too.

Appreciate the time given to respond to my questions. Very helpful, thanks!


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

There are a fair number of people who grow roses without spraying in the Northeast. However, most of them eventually end up concentrating on once bloomers since that is where the lion's share of blackspot resistant, hardy fragrant roses are to be found. With anything else, there is a rose here that might work, a rose there that might work - it's not at all a blanket statement 'try these'. It's a lot more mental work to keep it all straight, and often the hardest part is to screen out things that aren't relevant. In other words, about 95% of the recommendations you are going to get here.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I've wanted the rose in the linked thread below for years, but I've never been able to find it own root so I can't vouch for it personally. What pappu says about it is impressive (that Knock-Out reference).

Of course, you might not like the part about the attention it demands.

Here is a link that might be useful: Mass planting of Living Easy


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

sandandsun,

Roses Unlimited use to have own root Living Easys...
Might check them...


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

  • Posted by AquaEyes 7 New Brunswick, NJ (My Page) on
    Wed, Nov 6, 13 at 23:44

From what I remember of Jeri's posts, most of the roses that left her garden were unsuited to her climate and/or had too high water requirements. This led to stressed plants, more prone to disease. Until she learned the classes of roses which do best for her area through trial and error, she started by planting the roses which were most prominently advertised -- which, more often than not, weren't suitable to her conditions. And most of the rose literature being based on British gardens, the focus was on what grew well there -- roses which flourish in Jeri's garden were often decried as too tender unless under glass. But until she figured that out, she started with what the books lauded -- and found out that they don't especially like her part of California. That's how someone can go through lots of roses before finding what works locally.

And to say most roses "need" spraying is not entirely accurate. They may "need" it if the gardener demands perfect leaves throughout the season, but not all gardeners do. They may "need" it if someone is pushing to grow a rose not well-suited to their climate, but other gardeners figure out by trial and error that some roses do better in their areas than others. They may "need" it if the variety is inherently weak and disease-prone without it, but other gardeners don't bother with such finicky plants. If most roses "need" spraying, then how did roses survive before there were sprays?

If you're coming from an exhibitor perspective, then yes, most roses will need spraying. But transferring that to your average gardener is like transferring pre-show dog grooming information to your average pet dog owner.

:-)

~Christopher


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

+1 Christopher. No spray works better with very vigorous varieties that can outgrow the occasional BS . Don't try no spray with mauve, blue, gray or tan HTs. (smile) When you see a photo from a garden in CA where a HT has 300 buds and blooms, it makes you drool with envy and of course you want that sort of performance. It was humbling for me to vacation in San Francisco and see HTs in chain hotel gardens that look fabulous. For me in VA, three dozen buds/blooms per flush is good and I'm happy with that. YMMV


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

  • Posted by seil z6b MI (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 7, 13 at 10:55

prairiemoon, I see you've gotten a lot of lengthy replies and there is a lot of wonderful information here. I fear I'm going to add another though.

Yes, there are some "experts" on HMF, professional rose growers and hybridizers. Their experiences and the information they share on the site is invaluable. But I can assure you that not everyone on the site is an expert. I'm not! I grew up with my Grandmother and Mother's roses but I didn't get into it very much until 2005 when my Mom passed away and I inherited her rose garden. I got on the forums and read tons, joined my local rose society and learned even more, and more specific to my area information, and learned a lot by trial and error, but expert? Not hardly!

I post a lot of photos there and I'm pretty proud of my camera work but that's what it is, camera work. I've been into photography for many years and really enjoy shooting my roses. I've taken courses and learned how to make the best pictures possible in any given situation. But just because I can capture one lovely rose on a plant doesn't mean that my entire garden looks like that. And there are many tricks to taking those pretty pictures that help accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative of any particular bloom. And a little bloom grooming before snapping helps a lot, lol! I learned that from my exhibiting experiences.

From my own experience I used to think I was a failure as well because I kept comparing my scraggly looking bushes to the gorgeous blossom filled lush monsters I saw on line too. It took me a while to realize that I don't live in southern California! I live in Michigan where it gets nasty cold and I have to whack off dead cane every spring. So cut yourself some slack and don't try and compare your maybe 6 months a year Massachusetts garden to those in the deep South were they grow 12 months a year with no winter die back. It ain't gonna happen!

That's not to say that during your season you can't enjoy really beautiful roses. Even no spray. I do. Living right on the Great Lakes I am loath to use any chemicals because they drain right down my block and into the lake. Those poor lakes have enough problems without my adding to them. It's true that I have black spot and mildew a lot of times but the roses still grow and bloom and winter for me and give me great joy. I don't expect them to look catalog photo perfect and they reward me for my acceptance with lovely blooms, even without the leaves, all season.

It's true the right rose for the right place is a big help. I don't choose to follow that much because I've never a seen a rose I didn't love and WANT. I love to experiment and push the envelope as well. So I know I have roses that aren't in the right place for them to be truly happy. But I know that going in and don't expect them to make it to their full potential. As long as they putter along and grace me with a few of their beauties I'm happy.

Yes, there are many average gardeners on the forums who are happy and satisfied with their roses with a minimum of fuss. But I think that has to do more with their attitude about the roses and not that their roses are perfect. I know on the forums we spend endless hours moaning and groaning and dithering about what to do about this and that. I'm sure it sounds as if all our roses are terrible and we must spend 24/7 slaving over them to get them to grow. But that isn't really the case because we all have lives outside the rose garden too. It's just that the forum is the place we can go to talk about it all with people we know will understand, be helpful and commiserate with us.

I've learned to accept my roses as they are with all their foibles and to concentrate more on the beauty they give me and less on the challenges they can present. And if they are not perfect, who cares. I'm not either so they suit me just fine, lol!


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Madgallica, it may be I will get to that point of choosing more old roses. I have a small lot, about a 1/4 of an acre and worse, I have a lot of shade and the only place I have full sun is in the front yard, so having a once bloomer is just not my first choice. But I plan on looking for something that will work for me over the winter. I know some suggested Portland that repeats and I’m sure there are others I should consider. I do love the old roses and if I had a large property and lots of sun I would grow many of them.

Thanks for the Living Easy suggestion, Sandandsun….and for the hint of where to get it, Jim. :-)

Seil, I’m very appreciative of the very generous responses that everyone has given me. Everyone has contributed a point of view that adds something to the discussion.

I can see there are a lot of happy rose growers on the forums. I guess I needed to qualify that with ‘growing in the Northeast’ and ‘no spray’ rose growers. Which there seem to be fewer of. But I think your point that roses aren’t perfect and you can still enjoy so much about them without fretting so much over the foliage problems is something I can understand, because really I have managed to enjoy the few I’ve had in spite of some issues, or I wouldn’t be here on the forums looking to buy more. :-)

I hope I have not given the wrong impression that I’m having a horrible rose experience. I just have such a limited space to grow roses to start with and so if I only have room for a few, I have high expectations I guess. And this year, I’ve taken out a few other plants and have more room and I’d like to try a few more roses, that might give me a bigger rose with fragrance. I only need a few….lol. I am keeping my Julia Child which is a great rose, not one thing wrong with it, I'm just ready to add a rose with a bloom that is larger than Julia Child with maybe a little more fragrance and a different color.

I think I should post some photos of the roses I have …..

My first rose was ‘Penelope’ which I researched and is disease resistant. I don't know if you can see from the photo, that the foliage is not perfect. Some bug was making a mess of it. I still have this but I’ve cut it back to the ground and think it might put out some blooms again next year….


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

And my first David Austin Rose was 'Golden Celebration' that I bought locally in a pot when it was in bloom. This was the first year in the ground and it looked great….


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

And here it is a few years later, having trouble with the foliage…black on the leave on the R and under the bloom….


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Then I bought a 'Rhapsody in Blue' again, locally in a pot. Nice rose, very good fragrance, pretty disease resistant but not perfect. The blooms again are small and fade from when they open to the end of the day and fall off completely in a day or two….


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Rhapsody in Blue the next season, I would purchase this rose again….

This post was edited by prairiemoon2 on Thu, Nov 7, 13 at 13:46


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

A night shot that shows the blossom really well...


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

And this was a Meidland ground cover rose I bought about the same time I bought the David Austin GC, and I really liked it but it was covered in blackspot in no time and out it came….


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Then I ordered 'Madame Plantier' and Julia Child from Pickering, and here was what the poor MP looked like ….


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

That year I had Julia Child in a pot and liked it so much I planted it in my full sun area that fall. In 2012, I had a very good year with Julia Child, Rhapsody in Blue and Golden Celebration were not too bad. Julia Child in the front, Rhapsody in Blue behind that and in the background on the R you can see a few blooms on Golden Celebration. And that is my entire history with roses…lol. Not much to it. This year, Julia Child was the only rose that did well. I could have worked a little harder though. I was discouraged with the state of the base of the other two roses, after repeatedly pruning them to the ground and I thought it would be better for me to start over.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Love your pic--that's Julia, I take it--with the touch of purple in the background. I like seeing the bush also along with the blooms.

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Yes, Julia is the rose in the front, thanks Kate.

Another way that I try to make up for any foliage problems or a lack of later bloom, is that I plant the rose among other plants that will fill in after June when the roses finish their first flush of bloom.

This photo is of my only full sun garden in the front and it is from the street side, the opposite side of the bed from Julia Child. Maybe you can see Golden Celebration has all of 3 blooms on it to the right of the sedum in the front? This was taken the first week of August this year and that was the last of the blooms this season on a rose that has been in that same location for 5 years. I have cut it back to the ground sometime in June every year and get a new flush of healthy foliage and a spattering of blooms like this.

I don't know but I am wondering if cutting them back hard every year is hurting the plant. The base of the plant had a lot of dead wood now, from all that hard pruning and I tried this spring to cut out as much of that out as I could. I haven't had to prune Julia Child back hard. I trim it a little but that's all I've needed to do.

Also, this strategy of placing the rose in a rather full bed with other perennials, might not allow for enough air circulation. On the other hand, the foliage is much worse in spring, when there is not a lot of growth around it and plenty of air circulation and in this photo with all that growth around it, the foliage was perfect.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Are you cutting the plant back hard because the foliage is bad?

The canes themselves are healthy?

How about just removing the bad foliage, instead???

Jeri


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Yes, that's the only reason I was cutting it back hard was to lose the bad foliage and get them out of the garden. If I just take the foliage off, that would leave just about no leaves left on the canes of the Golden Celebration. I could do that.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I would do as Jeri suggested. I would think cutting GC back to the ground every year might cause it to eventually decline, certainly to decrease the number of blooms. I think of GC as a rose that doesn't like or need a lot of pruning, but then I don't have the foliage problem you have. Diane


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

If taking off the foliage is how you will treat for blackspot, I would fear that is a losing battle. The plant needs as much foliage as possible--to get its food--so as long as there is any green on the leaves, I would recommend leaving them on the bush. If you take off all the leaves (or cut it back to the ground every time it gets BS), it may become too much of a battle for the poor rose since you have left it no energy source. Perhaps you could keep a kind of balance--leaving enough leaves on for the rose to get its energy and discarding enough leaves so that the BS doesn't completely take over. Finding the "balance" may be a bit difficult, however.

By the way, cutting the roses way back probably also means that you will have to wait longer for the rose to rebloom.

I would to consider getting the most BS resistant roses you can find, tolerating some BS so that the green leaves can keep on feeding the rose, and perhaps engaging in a limited amount of spraying during the time periods when BS is the heaviest--probably a few weeks in the spring and during the autumn.

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I agree completely with Kate's post above. For example, Iceberg, which is a weed here and one not normally suffering black spot infection in THIS climate, can be forced to black spot by keeping it too severely pruned. Repeatedly, when I am shown examples of Iceberg in these parts which black spot, they are those which are kept severely pruned. Logically, how can the immune system of any organism be expected to function properly when it is maintained in a perpetual state of malnutrition?

Removing the affected foliage can be temporary fixes for some issues. For instance, Conrad Ferdinand Meyer WILL rust in my climate...repeatedly. It contains sufficient Rugosa genes that when sprayed with anything more than water, the foliage turns yellow and sheds. Picking off rusty and black spotted foliage will permit the plant to push a few blooms and generate a new batch of foliage, which will then rust and spot. Here, it, and those with similar resistance issues, grow backwards rather quickly because they eventually starve to death. And, they do not flower well nor heavily.

Kate is also spot on about continually pruning the plants significantly delaying and reducing the quantity of bloom. Anyone who has tried timing flowers for a specific date, as well as compared "exhibition style" to "landscape style" pruning has experienced that.

Selecting the most resistant types for the issues experienced where you and your cultural style, as well as possibly reconsidering how willing you are to overlook less serve infections are are the best solutions. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

"There are a fair number of people who grow roses without spraying in the Northeast. However, most of them eventually end up concentrating on once bloomers since that is where the lion's share of blackspot resistant, hardy fragrant roses are to be found."

Therein lies the truth for most of us.

in 2007 I started weaning my collection of approximately 3K varieties off fungicide, in part because I could no longer stand the four hour task of applying fungicide every ten days, from April to August. The other reason was to gather data about the inherent Blackspot resistance of the roses I grew. By 2010 I had quit applying fungicide to any of them, even the Moore miniatures archive (about 350 varieties, all bred by Ralph Moore).

The data spoke for itself: across the collection of all types, I would say 15% at most were suitable for growing no-spray in my climate, and even within that 15% group, many still suffered some degree of disease, but no more than spotting with some minor leaf loss. I did not include any variety in the "clean-ish" 15% group unless it retained 75% of its foliage at all times.

Breaking the result down further, the vast majority of roses in the "clean" 15% group were a) Gallicanae, b) kordesii pedigree, c) Rugosas and a smattering of "modern" types. The Moore miniatures archive was particularly devoid of cultivars that had any meaningful resistance to Blackspot. Of about 350 cultivars, I would say there was at most a dozen varieties that could thrive without regular fungicide application. (the clear winners from the miniature clan were plants like 'Apricot Twist', 'Cal Poly', 'Magic Wand' and 'Blue Mist'. I find it noteworthy that the first two are closely related in pedigree, which might suggest superior genetics in this line of breeding.)

In truth, there were almost zero modern roses of floribunda/hybrid tea pedigree that had complete resistance to Blackspot, and only a few that held on to enough foliage to be regarded as "modestly disease resistant". Some of the older Kordes roses fared quite well; varieties like 'Westerland' and 'Scharlachglut' remained healthy and vigorous, although with some spotting visible in the late spring. Surprising to me was the fact that 'Tiffany' was a clear standout among the HT types, with no Blackspot whatsoever, and only a bit of Cercospora/Anthracnose very late in the year. Austin's 'The Yeoman' was the lone English rose that fared quite well, with only modest disease/leaf loss. None of the other dozen plus Austins came anywhere near "healthy"; all other suffered catastrophic leaf loss at some point in the growing season.

I should add that some of the Polyanthas that are heavily influenced by R. multiflora had excellent Blackspot resistance, but were often marred quite badly by Mildew by the time August rolled around. I should also mention that the Basye hybrids 'Basye's Blueberry' and 'Commander Gillette' were both exceptionally healthy plants, with almost no leaf spotting of any kind. The former in particular is one modern shrub I regard as superior to most; it is a tidy grower of modest size, it is thornless, and it offers a wonderful fragrance, and on top of all that, it is disease free (in most gardens, I would imagine). Its a shame that the marketing machinery has emphasized roses like 'Knockout' when (in my opinion) 'Basye's Blueberry' has so much more to offer.

In summary, for my climate, precious few modern roses of Floribunda/HT pedigree are going to prove healthy enough to thrive unless fungicides are applied without fail, and on schedule, through the growing season. The few kordesii types on the market appeared to be superior choices if you could accommodate their growth habits and bloom styles. By far, the superior roses for me were the Gallicas, some of the Damasks (Sadly, not 'Mme. Hardy', but the other white Damask of similar style, 'Botzaris', fared much better), some of the Portlands ('Indigo' was practically bulletproof. If only it didn't sucker so aggressively.) and some of the Wichurana Ramblers like 'Alberic Barbier'. In fact, I found more than a few Wichurana pedigree shrubs and climbers to be conspicuously more healthy than most, which isn't surprising to anyone who has worked with R. wichurana at all.

I just thought I would share this data, given the direction this discussion took.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

And to return to the original topic...

"Is there a happy rose growing experience out there waiting for people who try to grow 'no spray' if they just find the right roses, or is it just wishful thinking? "

My reply would be this; a flush of 'Charles de Mills', from a plant grown in semi-shade, in a place where it receives zero supplemental water during the growing season, no fertilizer, and no fungicide:


 o
How much store...

Thank you Paul! While of extreme importance, it is also necessary to point out that these results are of primary accuracy to the locations where the specific races of black spot encountered in Paul's garden are also encountered. Testing against the five races of black spot fungi have demonstrated that very few roses possess any degree of resistance to ALL five races; some possess some degree of resistance to one, perhaps two races; and that very many possess NO resistance to any. For Paul's experience to be accurately extrapolated to any other place and result in reliable selections to result, his experiment needs replication where the races his area does not support are found, using the same types of roses. Until cost efficient, reliable tests are available to enable the home gardener to identify which specific races are being encountered, it is no more possible to guaranty his observations and discoveries are any more applicable to any other location than anyone else's observations and experiences from any other location, to yours. They ARE instructive and important, but they are no guaranty of your mileage not varying. The best that can be stated is they are valid for his location, climate, conditions and practices concerning the specific rose varieties and races of black spot they concern. And, they definitely illustrate the many issues involved in the discussion.

The ideal will be when sufficient funding is available to identify which race or races occur where for the home grower, and accurate, cost efficient laboratory testing to determine what roses are resistant, and to what degree, to each race. It is a widely shared goal and IS possible, but not without money. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

"The best that can be stated is they are valid for his location, climate, conditions and practices concerning the specific rose varieties and races of black spot they concern."

Absolutely true. My findings were intended to depict a very general experience that many gardeners face; I did not intend to illustrate anything too specific, nor to start a list of "guaranteed" disease-free roses (no such thing exists that is applicable to ALL regions). My point was simply to say that most rose growers will find that many of the cultivars available to them will prove unsuitable, and much research and careful consideration needs to go into the selection process if it is to be a no-spray garden.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Well this has really been fascinating and I’m happy that I got more specific about my efforts to grow roses without chemicals because I’m learning so much. So, I’m just not going to get away with growing something that doesn’t have pretty good Blackspot resistance I guess.

Trospero, thanks for sharing your experiences along these lines. If I understand you correctly, you had a collection of 3,000 roses being sprayed with fungicides and after you stopped spraying there were only 15% of your collection that could function without the fungicide? So, what did you do? Did you end up getting rid of a lot of roses? Are you still trying new varieties? And what part of the country are you growing them? With the Kordes roses, do you mean that some of their newer introductions have not proven to be blackspot resistant?

That’s a shame about the English roses. So many people, I’m sure, would love them to be blackspot resistant. Are there David Austin roses that you have not grown yet?

That photo of Charles de Mills is one of my favorite colors at the moment, and I didn’t realize you could grow it in semi shade, which I have a lot more of then I do full sun. Great photo, thanks.

Kim, are you saying that all of Paul’s results are only specific to his area? Does that mean that I could experiment with some of the same roses he grew and have different results?

And thanks Kim and Kate for explaining how I need to be pruning. I have already pulled out that Golden Celebration. I wanted to start over with new roses next year.

One other question I thought of, if I have removed the roses that were having blackspot, is there a concern that now I have more blackspot spores in my garden and that new roses I add will pick it up even more?


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

One of the problems over the years has been, I think, a terrible temptation to advertise roses as [universally] "disease resistant."

Well, clearly, we all know that's silly. We don't any of us much care what is disease-free on the other end of the continent. We want to know what is disease-resistant for US, where WE garden.

And what we hope for, when we ask here, is that we'll find someone who grows roses in our general area, and can give us a clue, at least.

Failing that, we have to find out for ourselves that the disease-free rose of someone else's garden is a mildew magnet in ours.

Anyhow, here is that lovely Duchesse de Brabant which -- Glory be! -- is good in MY garden.

Jeri


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Agreed and appreciated, Paul. Just think, once there is the knowledge of which races occur where, your body of observation should go far helping to determine which of those three-thousand roses have at least some (or no) black spot resistance to which races. This is what is frustrating when claims are made that because this source breeds for resistance where they are bred, they must be clean elsewhere. No such thing. They may stand as great a possibility of resisting infection elsewhere as any other, or they may not.

Yes Prairiemoon, that is precisely what that means. Iceberg rarely black spots here, but does so heavily elsewhere. Morden Blush is seemingly immune to rust, mildew and black spot here, but is reported to black spot elsewhere. Part of that is how high the pressure to infect is from one place to the next (combination of heat, humidity, rain, and a multitude of other environmental and cultural issues) as well as WHICH race of the fungi is encountered and the specific rose's ability to withstand which race. I wish I still had the report I was sent concerning the tests in the Earth Kind Trials of the varieties involved. It reported numerical resistance ratings to three, specific races of black spot, the three existing where the trial was held. It named the specific varieties involved, the specific races of fungi tested for and numerically rated each variety to show how resistant it was to each race. Many of the OGRs tested in that trial demonstrated NO black spot resistance to ANY of the races involved, which I thought incredibly interesting. Unfortunately, all that information is on a dead hard drive which ate itself. And, unfortunately, those results are protected and not available for distribution until (and how) those who undertook the task wish them to be distributed. They demonstrated how it is possible to have three different races of the fungi in the same place and how it is entirely possible for one rose to completely resist one race, demonstrate a high resistance to a second and completely collapse against the third, as well as pretty much any other permutation you wish to consider.

So, yes, it is completely possible for you to precisely replicate Paul's experiment and find totally different results. Fun stuff, huh? Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

It might also help to consider the races of black spot in comparison to flu. All are lumped into the disease "flu", yet there are usually multiple strains of flu spreading at the same time. Asia might see primarily type 1 where Europe has only type 2 and the US a third type, with some overlap of the various strains occurring where travel and geography permit. You may well have near immunity to Swine Flu, while simultaneously collapsing from Bird Flu. Perhaps exposure to Swine Flu weakens your immune system sufficiently to permit Bird or Russian or some other strain to infect you? The same is possible with black spot and plant disease resistance. Anything which weakens the organism can reduce its disease resistance. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

"Anything which weakens the organism can reduce its disease resistance. Kim"

So we go back to that -- and some discussion earlier about hard pruning -- and some discussion about Iceberg.

Knowing that a healthy Iceberg is about as disease-free HERE as any rose can be HERE ... I've been interested to watch some local plantings of that rose.

For whatever reason, I've watched those plants pruned, year after year, down to about 5 inches tall.
Every year, they grew back less than they had the previous year.
Every year, they bloomed less than they had the previous year.
Finally, many of them have just disappeared.

So, observation tells me that even a rose which is usually disease free and vigorous here will be less-so when it is repeatedly whacked back to nothing.

Jeri


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Also, Jeri, consider the marvelous specimen you've visited in old cemeteries for how many years? What initially stood vigorous, and vital, have disappeared after years of weed eaters, chain saws and severe pruning under the guise of "perpetual maintenance". Remember the huge bush which appeared to me as a pruned climber, you have photos of with Clay and the dogs over several years, demonstrating its backward growth? Same thing. Foliage feeds the plant. Foliage helps create and support the flow of sap to produce growth. Foliage protects the wood from sun scald. Eliminate the foliage canopy and you see what else is eliminated. Completely logical, isn't it? Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Prairiemoon said: That’s a shame about the English roses. So many people, I’m sure, would love them to be blackspot resistant.

Prairiemoon, I can't say how they would do in Massachusetts, but here in Kansas where I garden, the English roses are NO BETTER AND NO WORSE than just about every other rose I can grow here. I grow over a dozen Austins which have some disease-resistance (as do nearly all of my roses from a lot of different places), but I'm never naïve enough to think that "disease-resistance" means "disease-free." Of course, it does NOT. All of my roses can and do get some blackspot--I keep the ones that are more resistant (but not immune) to it. That is true also of my Austins.

How did I find roses that have some resistance to BS in my garden? By combing through lists of disease-resistant roses posted on these rose forums (and elsewhere online) until I found the ones that seemed to fare reasonably well (but not perfectly) in my garden.

That, by the way, is the value of such lists on this forum. Let me say again that I'm not naïve enough to think that those lists constitute a "guarantee." Instead, they are some "possibilities" I can try out in my garden. I'd much rather work with a list of 20 or 40 roses that have proven to be disease-resistant somewhere than to have to blindly work my way through a couple thousand roses with no idea which ones might represent better opportunities than others do.

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

prairiemoon2 ...

You are getting some wonderful information in this thread.

I'd like to point out a couple of things that have been mentioned and elaborate a bit more for clarification.

Modern roses store their nutrients in their canes. No matter what you feed them at the root zone, if you cut off their canes, you are setting up your plant to be malnourished and unable to manage any kind of stress. Unhealthy plants, are more prone to disease. It's necessary to understand how the plant works before you can adjust your cultural practices to meet the plant's needs. Yes, there are some roses that perform better with a hard prune, but in general, modern roses need those canes you are removing to grow as a viable plant. It may still be the wrong rose for your garden because of its susceptibility to the black spot strain in your climate, but your cultural practices also have an impact on the plant.

Once you remove the tools the rose needs to thrive, ie the canes, you will always have a rose that has been weakened.

When I practice rejuvenation pruning, I never take the whole plant back at once. I remove one or two of the oldest canes per year and allow the rest of the rose to function as the rose's genetics dictate.

Although Paul mentions that hybrid teas and floribundas are horrible plants in his climate, they love my climate. They are my most disease resistant roses. I live in a climate where my summer temperatures are generally well above 85 degrees during the growing season with low humidity. BS spores are not active at those high temps, so I have little disease pressure.

I do have BS in the garden in my wet springs and those roses that defoliate due to BS and do not refoliate in time to handle the summer heat are not the right roses for this garden.

Many of the roses grown well by Paul would be duds for me.

Just my two cents.

Smiles,
Lyn


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

As many of them would be in mine, too. The right rose for the right climate is still the basic necessity. I love Gallicas. I've tried many. Some grow and even begrudgingly provide me a few flowers, then explode into rampant growth in attempts to beat the bamboo for acreage. Cardinal de Richelieu has been the most successful for me, mildew, black spot and all. Charles de Mills will NOT flower, period, unless packed in ice multiple times each winter. No exaggeration. Too mild/short winter chill combined with too long/hot summer temps. But, they ARE wonderful where there are honest and sufficient seasonal differences, just not here. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I am super late to this thread, watching my grandson starting this week, but thought I would add what a friend of mine told me about shooting (photography) for the "big" guys of the industries catalogs.

"Extra AC units, Super Glue and an X-acto knife"

They flew roses in from France for him to photograph. He was a master with color and technique....and it probably did not hurt that he was a short drive from Wasco too. He was a master at color (later after photoshop he also wrote a couple of books on color management)

Things most of use would never do in taking photos in our own gardens.

I would like to add that I keep lists of roses people in my area mention as happy. I have a lot of lists. Then I look at HMF and pay attention to the locations of the gardens, if I find the people/places I know are similar to my area, I note that. It helps that our lot has some rather different from each other zones. I have different types of roses in different areas based some what on size or needs.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

It's precisely the same with garden photography, Kippy. Very little in those marvelous shots actually grows where it's photographed. Massive amounts of perfect material is pumped into the space to make it look "just right" before the shutter clicks. It's like the photo shopped models advertising products. Very few of them actually resemble the images in the ads in "real life". Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Very healthy looking rose Jeri. Is that growing in shade? Cute dog and well behaved too. :-)

Kim, thinking about what you said about the information about which race effects which rose that won’t be distributed until who ever did the testing decides to, I’m wondering if there would be a resistance to provide the public with that information, because maybe it would have a lot of economic consequences to rose growers.

Good analogy about the flu.

As far as how this relates to each gardener finding roses that stay healthy in their garden, how specific do you need to be about your location? I live in eastern Massachusetts. Pickering Nursery and Palatine Nurseries are in Ontario Canada, which is 10 hours north of me. They offer a list of ‘disease resistant’ roses, but I believe they are passing along information about what others have reported about the roses in their locations, and not necessarily what grows healthy in Ontario. So is that list helpful to me? The other location for roses near me, is the Peggy Rockefeller Garden in NYC that is about 4 hrs south of me. They are growing roses in their now ‘no spray’ garden and list their 100 top performers with a numerical grade. A lot of Kordes roses on that list. I would assume that list would be a great place to start for me. All four locations would be considered in the Northeast. Or do I actually need to know what is growing healthy in Massachusetts?

Then back to cultural practices, I understand what you and Jeri are talking about with the pruning. It makes sense that the rose would be healthier left to grow. I’m just a little confused about how I ended up thinking I should be pruning roses, even with the blackspot foliage aside. I’m pretty sure there is a lot of information floating around instructing you to prune every year, isn’t there? So is this a new direction in guidance for cultural practices? I think I have a lot of misconceptions along these lines. Then there is the fact that in the Northeast, often you get dieback every spring so that the weather is actually pruning the rose and not you. But in my case, the rose is getting pruned back in spring normally with the weather and then I do it again in June, so that is even worse.

Thanks Kate, so Austin roses might not be off the table for me in Massachusetts, it’s just a case of maybe starting with the list of top performers from the Peggy Rockefeller garden for instance, then trying some and seeing which one’s do best for me? I just looked over that list again and I see five Austins. And those five score very high in health. Higher than Julia Child which is great in my garden and makes the list with a score of 8.35 which is good. Double Knock Out has a score of 9.10. Darlow’s Enigma scored 9.00. Jeri’s Duchesse de Brabant made the list scoring 8.25. But Stanwell Perpetual only scored a 7.85. Actually the highest score was 9.25 and that was a Meilland rose, ‘Easter Basket’.

Lyn, I am definitely getting great information. I hope this will be helpful for anyone trying to grow without chemicals.

By ‘modern roses’ does that mean anything other than old garden roses? And couldn’t the same thing be said about old garden roses, that they store their nutrients in their canes?

Yes, I can see how my habit of pruning back to the ground in June was hurting the rose, but the fact that the winter cold often does that in the spring is a fact of life in New England for the most part. Although I’m sure some roses don’t die back to the ground every spring, either.

Are you also saying that once my roses were pruned back hard, that they will always be weak? Even if I changed my pruning habits?

With climate change, our summers are increasingly more hot and humid, so I would assume our pressure from blackspot is too.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Kippy, I just saw your post. I am a bit naive at times and I've always thought they were definitely photoshopped photos, but I never would have thought they would fly in roses from France! I'm also wondering why they had better roses in France? (g)


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

In my experience, there is a big difference in disease pressure once you cross the Appalachians. So Pickering and Palatine are not particularly reliable when it comes to disease resistance information. People from along the eastern seaboard are good, but you do have to double check hardiness information.

The Peggy Rockefeller information is 'weird'. It is very common for roses to behave very differently in regard to disease the first year or two they are planted. However, their list is from 2010, which I think is the first year for those roses. It is also, at this point in time, several years ago. All this raises enough questions that I much prefer to get information from people I can talk to.

One of the reasons the traditional, New England OGRs are healthier than moderns is that they are hardier. There are very, very few roses that winterkill here that I find at all satisfactory. I like my roses big, and covered with flowers.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

You make a good point about the Peggy Rockefeller list. I looked and looked for an updated list on their site but there wasn't one. My roses certainly were healthier the first year or two then they were later.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Prairemoon,

He took photos of the roses for the catalogs, if they had a new introduction, it might be still in France for one breeder. They would fly in boxes and boxes for him to put together the best for the catalog images.

As far as color, while I would like to think the rose developers and photographers would never adjust the color radically to sell a rose, every time I look at this ad I have to wonder. I can tell you I have never seen a photo of Burgundy Iceberg looking like "purple iceberg" other than this ad. Maybe there is a place it is this deep purple??

If you are only 4 hours from the Peggy Rockefeller garden, it might be worth while to go and look at them for yourself. One thing about gardening, personal taste can make a rose that is perfect for one person a bad rose for another, seeing them in person can help you see how you feel about them.

Here is a link that might be useful: Burgundy Iceberg

This post was edited by Kippy-the-Hippy on Fri, Nov 8, 13 at 10:03


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Roses are trial & error to me.
I like roses that bloom near non-stop and roses that the canes are winter hardy without much damage.
I'm in a blackspot prone area so I have shovel pruned a lot of roses for one reason or another.
But I took pics and still enjoyed those roses while they were here... Just enjoyed them in a different way. lol
I still enjoy looking at those older pics... :-)

I can say my photos on HMF are real life.
WWhat you see is what you get...lol


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Kippy, thanks for more clarity on why they brought roses over from France, makes more sense. And I know it is hard to get a photograph that truly represents the true color. I have a hard time with that in my own garden at times.

I was just thinking that too, I should try to get down to the PRRGarden next year and take a look and I'm sure we could find someone to ask questions too.

Jim, it seems it is trial and error for most of us. :-)


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

"If I understand you correctly, you had a collection of 3,000 roses being sprayed with fungicides and after you stopped spraying there were only 15% of your collection that could function without the fungicide? So, what did you do? Did you end up getting rid of a lot of roses?

Thats correct: no more than 15% of the 3000 cultivars I grew were sustainable in my garden without "life support" chemistry. What did I do? I gradually removed the most conspicuous losers (notably the older HTs and Floribundas, which were the worst. Good old 'Soleil d'Or' was a tragic mess once fungicides were stopped, which will come as a surprise to no-one, I'm sure), and watched for a couple of years to see what else happened. Some persisted/hung on and survived from year to year, while others were so heavily impacted by leaf loss/disease that they quickly dwindled to twigs and eventually died. Many of my beloved Austins fell into the latter category; the first to croak was 'Mayor of Casterbridge' which went from a ten foot tall pillar of pink heaven to a couple of bloomless 10" twigs in a matter of three years. Its long dead now. 'Sharifa Asma' hangs on still, although in a much more compromised state. It leafs out in April, but by June the foliage is gone, and it regrows a new round of leaves. Lather, rinse, repeat. It chugs along bravely, naively - managing a few blooms here and there amid half-naked canes. That is about as good as any of the Austins perform here, sans fungicide.

Are you still trying new varieties?

No. I'm still working to exorcise the failing roses from the garden. Adding new varieties is beyond reasonable, for me.

And what part of the country are you growing them?

The Pacific Northwest, zone 8a. Mild, forgiving winters, mild, dry summers. Heavy disease pressure during the spring flush period.

With the Kordes roses, do you mean that some of their newer introductions have not proven to be blackspot resistant?

I have no idea about newer Kordes roses; I have not purchased a Kordes variety in over a decade, so I have no clue how newer roses perform here.

That’s a shame about the English roses. So many people, I’m sure, would love them to be blackspot resistant. Are there David Austin roses that you have not grown yet?"

The most recent Austin roses I bought was 'Benjamin Britten', and that was some years ago, as I'm sure you realize from its introduction date. It hung on for four years and was finally removed about two years ago, as it had quickly dwindled down to a lifeless stump. I suppose 'William Shakespeare 2000' is from the same period, and although it too is severely compromised (often losing most of its foliage, with the resulting loss of vigor), it chugs along as an 18" shrublet and manages a few nice blooms each Spring (but rarely any thereafter). My experience has shown me that there is no point in trying any more Austin roses, since not one of them has proven truly sustainable in my climate unless sprayed.

When it comes to David Austin rose catalogs and new introduction notices, I have adopted Lisa Simpson's advice; "Just don't look, just don't look!"

Here is a link that might be useful: Just Don't Look


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

"Kim, thinking about what you said about the information about which race effects which rose that wont be distributed until who ever did the testing decides to, Im wondering if there would be a resistance to provide the public with that information, because maybe it would have a lot of economic consequences to rose growers."

Not really "resistance" to releasing the information, Prairiemoon. These studies are often undertaken with research grants and educational theses. I am not certain which this particular information is. Until the information is published as the owner intends, it is considered intellectual property and the owner has the right to utilize it as he/she feels appropriate. I honestly don't believe there is any conspiracy involved. As there were no chemicals involved in the trials, nothing regarding any effectiveness, or lack of it, is involved. Knock Out types were also included, and, not unexpectedly, many of them proved healthier and more resistant than most others. Most of the surprises were roses thought to be "resistant" which proved not to be as resistant as originally considered. I wish I could remember more specific examples, but there were also a few more pleasant surprises. I'm sure once the papers are published and any other intended uses are accomplished, the results will be more generally known.

"Good analogy about the flu."

Thank you! I'm glad it helped.

"As far as how this relates to each gardener finding roses that stay he althy in their garden, how specific do you need to be about your location?"

Until it's possible to determine which strains exist where, I don't think that can accurately be answered. They may cover vast areas so someone a thousand miles away may experience the same types as your area does, or they may be much more localized. I honestly couldn't guess. I would think, though, the closer the other location and the more closely it resembles your conditions, the more comparable the results should be to what you should be able to expect.

"I live in eastern Massachusetts. Pickering Nursery and Palatine Nurseries are in Ontario Canada, which is 10 hours north of me. They offer a list of disease resistant roses, but I believe they are passing along information about what others have reported about the roses in their locations, and not necessarily what grows healthy in Ontario. So is that list helpful to me?"

My impression is they may be reporting what has been reported to them, but I would also suspect they are also including their own observation and experience with very many of their roses. Pickering has stated they have discontinued those roses which required "pesticide" use, which in their terminology included fungicides, carrying only those which are healthier for them without treatment. They had to as their government has banned those chemicals to be used on ornamentals. Palatine is also Canadian, therefore also subject to the chemical ban. Have they reported discontinuing less resistant varieties, also? I don't know. Perhaps those Pickering found less resistant aren't as unhealthy where Palatine is? Perhaps Palatine isn't as demanding as Pickering about resistance? I don't know. But, without knowing how widespread the strains of black spot are, without trying the particular rose where you are, how could you know for certain?

"The other location for roses near me, is the Peggy Rockefeller Garden in NYC that is about 4 hrs south of me. They are growing roses in their now no spray garden and list their 100 top performers with a numerical grade. A lot of Kordes roses on that list. I would assume that list would be a great place to start for me. All four locations would be considered in the Northeast. Or do I actually need to know what is growing healthy in Massachusetts?"

Again, how would any of us know how widespread the particular strains of the fungi are, or where the various strains overlap? My impression would be the closer to you the information originates, the potentially greater the accuracy about what YOU might expect. Of course, I could be wrong, but that seems the most logical to me.

"Then back to cultural practices, I understand what you and Jeri are talking abo ut with the pruning. It makes sense that the rose would be healthier left to grow. Im just a little confused about how I ended up thinking I should be pruning roses, even with the blackspot foliage aside. Im pretty sure there is a lot of information floating around instructing you to prune every year, isnt there?"

Of course! Search back here on GW and you'll find numerous examples of the various "theologies" regarding pruning, fertilizing, spraying or not spraying, etc. There was even an outright flame war over pruning here way back in the "Dark Ages". And, of course, what you must do to accommodate your climate is going to trump a lot of that. What good does it do to tightly hold to "thou shalt not prune" when you MUST prune to winter protect your plants? As with anything else, you have to view all advice through your climate and condition filters. Of course you should experiment with anything and everything you find intriguing to determine what is going to work best for you. And, of course, what Jeri, I or anyone else in a longer, less serve cold weather areas recommend may or may not work for you at all, but hopefully, the basic botany of it might help suggest massages to you which may help explain what you observe and experience and help guide you to how to change what you find unsatisfactory.

"So is this a new direction in guidance for cultural practices?"

Yes, and no. It's probably been around not quite as long as the "garden legend" ARS information about needing to always whack everything to the nubs for exhibition pruning. What worked in Edwardian and Victorian England with the HPs and Bourbons, including what type of "clay" roses prefer and how to plant, fertilize and winter protect has been plagiarized and blindly repeated by so many "garden writers" who honestly knew little more than what they lifted from previous "experts" until it's become Gospel, covering every rose type in every location. You've read it, we all have. It works for some roses, in some places, but not everywhere. Just like the suggestion not to whack every rose, every year likely will. What if you have to snow prune to prevent heavier snow from breaking the plants? How about if your have to prune them to a foot every year to protect them? Everything has to be tweaked to fit where you are, what you grow and how you are willing to grow them to your satisfaction.

"I think I have a lot of misconceptions along these lines."

We all have, and do. Observation and interaction usually leads to changes in methodologies.

"Then there is the fact that in the Northeast, often you get dieback every spring so that the weather is actually pruning the rose and not you."

Precisely. Something we, in less severe climates, seldom have to contend with. However, many of us experience severe heat pruning some of our plants which you (hopefully) should never have to endure.

"But in my case, the rose is getting pruned back in spring normally with the weather and then I do it again in June, so that is even worse."

Logically, that would seem the case, wouldn't it?

"By modern roses does that mean anything other than old garden roses? And couldnt the same thing be said about old garden roses, that they store their nutrients in their canes?"

Deciduous roses traditionally move huge portions of their sap to the roots so when top growth is damaged, eaten or destroyed by animals or weather, there is that store of resources to enable the rebound when conditions require or enable it. Evergreen roses tend to store more of those reserves in the top growths as there is no need to protect them from massive plant losses during colder weather. Many evergreen roses are indigenous to climates where they are actually more actively growing during "winter" as that is when they actually get their rains. That's why Teas, Chinas and their descendents flower so heavily in winter to spring and go more summer dormant. Does that give you an idea how confused some plants can become when the climate in which they are thrust doesn't agree with what their genes tell them to do? What surprises me is how successful many of them actually are where I wouldn't expect they should succeed.

It's less a question of old versus modern and more between once flowering and repeat flowering; deciduous versus evergreen. Once flowering roses tend to be more arctic hardy than repeat flowering types. Genetically, they are better suited to shorter, later "spring-summer" climates. Their foliage is generally shorter lived, with shorter juvenile periods and faster slides into "senility" to accommodate the shorter, faster "growing seasons" than evergreen types. Many once flowering OGRs (and moderns) which are totally bullet-proof in shorter season, harsher winter climates are disease prone and short-lived in the "Land of Endless Summer".

"Yes, I can see how my habit of pruning back to the ground in June was hurting the rose, but the fact that the winter cold often does that in the spring is a fact of life in New England for the most part. Although Im sure some ros es dont die back to the ground every spring, either."

True. You might experience a number of years when there is little to no dieback, then get hit with more severe episodes (much like the extremes in summers much of the country is enduring).

"Are you also saying that once my roses were pruned back hard, that they will always be weak? Even if I changed my pruning habits?"

Not necessarily. If the particular plant or variety experiences lack of vigor due to its genetics, mitigating cultural or climatic issues, unsuitability for the climate, virus infection, etc. then that plant may remain weak. Barring any of those, once proper pruning is started, the rose should respond appropriately.

"With climate change, our summers are increasingly more hot and humid, so I would assume our pressure from blackspot is too."

That sounds reasonable. Here, they are becoming hotter and drier, reducing many disease issues and pressure, except for water induced rust and mildew. Those are on a steady increase. I am increasingly observing it, even on varieties previously unaffected by the issues. Interesting, instructive and VERY unsettling. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Trospero, I can only imagine what an ordeal this has been to lose so many of your roses, not to mention the amount of work to change your garden to such an extent. I see I have nothing to complain about and much sympathy for your losses.

I would have to agree with your link. Very funny….lol. You would need a sense of humor in that situation. I am going to have to take that approach as well.

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences and taking the time to answer my questions. It has been quite an education and an inspiration as well. I look forward to hearing more about how it is all working out as you go along.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Just a quick post - very busy here. But trust me, there is so much MORE to discuss given the contributions since my last post.

I want to thank YOU, prairiemoon2, for your post and this subsequent thread. As someone who reflects on information that's presented to me and weighs it, this thread has been one of the most thought provoking and therefore one of the most valuable threads I have EVER read on this forum. You are also to be commended for your ability to process the information you receive. Your "questioning attitude" is EXTRAORDINARY.

I'd also like to quickly give kudos and thanks to

trospero for:
all that CLEARLY honest documented experience.

jerijen for:
"We don't any of us much care what is disease-free on the other end of the continent. We want to know what is disease-resistant for US, where WE garden."

mad_gallica for:
"once you cross the Appalachians"

And to dublinbay for the closing paragraph in dublinbay's prior post.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

That proportion - 85% disease-y rubbish, vs 15% decent plants sounds about right to me - out of just over 120 roses, I am taking a mere 20 to my new garden, most of which are species or very close to species roses. I am partially disenchanted with dodgy roses and absolutely not prepared to put them on elevated treatment plans....and also feel that many of them will have no place in a woodland setting (although I am looking forward to trying all those huge, once flowering ramblers which were far too big for my old garden or allotment).
Out of interest , here is what I am taking - either via cuttings or transplants.
Hybrid Musks: Jacqueline Humery, Sibelius, Moonlight, Pleine de Grace
Climbers/ramblers: Splendens, Nastarana, Goldfinch, Tolstoi
Species: Pomifera duplex, nutkana plena, moyessi, californica plena, primula, cantabridgiensis, Amy Robsart, glauca
Others: Hebe's Lip, Double White, Darlows Enigma, Golden Wings, Aimee Vibert

A few are going to my daughter and the rest, who cares anymore.

I want really good plants and would rather have a few great ones than dozens of mediocre plants.....


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

  • Posted by hoovb z9 Southern CA (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 8, 13 at 12:22

I want really good plants and would rather have a few great ones than dozens of mediocre plants.....

As we face more water restrictions, I find that so true--I probably get 80% of my rose joy from 20% of my roses.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Hi Kim,

“I honestly don't believe there is any conspiracy involved.”

I was just wondering I guess that someone who was selling a rose that ended up testing as not resistant might expect sales to fall off. Not that it was a conspiracy. I’m sure there will be more and more information becoming available along these lines.

“My impression is they may be reporting what has been reported to them, but I would also suspect they are also including their own observation and experience with very many of their roses. “

I was thinking I can ask Pickering when I call to order if they are using their own experiences when they produce their list and for more specific information about how something grows for them. That is very encouraging that they have discontinued using chemicals, I didn’t realize it had been a ban and it certainly adds more weight to choosing them as a supplier for me. And Palatine as well.

“My impression would be the closer to you the information originates, the potentially greater the accuracy about what YOU might expect.”

So, the bottom line is that people who live in my area who have had success with a rose is the best way to determine something that will do well for me and then starting with a list of disease resistant roses and trying what I like would be the reasonable next option, to see what works for me. That actually is okay with me and even if roses are visitors for a few years and end up shovel pruned, understanding what to expect and that there really isn’t some magic information that would make choosing more reliable, takes some of the frustration out of it for me.

“What if you have to snow prune to prevent heavier snow from breaking the plants? How about if your have to prune them to a foot every year to protect them? Everything has to be tweaked to fit where you are, what you grow and how you are willing to grow them to your satisfaction.”

That’s true. I guess what it comes down to is learning as you go, observing, thinking and experimenting until you have a process that works for you.

“Precisely. Something we, in less severe climates, seldom have to contend with. However, many of us experience severe heat pruning some of our plants which you (hopefully) should never have to endure.”

I have not heard of severe heat pruning. That doesn’t sound like fun at all. I’m sure climate change is not helping.

“Does that give you an idea how confused some plants can become when the climate in which they are thrust doesn't agree with what their genes tell them to do? What surprises me is how successful many of them actually are where I wouldn't expect they should succeed.”

I have never grown a Tea or a China so I have not personally seen their tendency to flower in winter/early spring and go dormant in summer. Yes, it is amazing actually that they have adapted as well as they have.

“It's less a question of old versus modern and more between once flowering and repeat flowering; deciduous versus evergreen.”

That makes it much easier to understand.

“Once flowering roses tend to be more arctic hardy than repeat flowering types. Genetically, they are better suited to shorter, later "spring-summer" climates.”

Which is where I am. So, adding some once flowering roses is going with what is designed to work in my climate and repeat flowering roses are going to be swimming against the tide to some extent.

“True. You might experience a number of years when there is little to no dieback, then get hit with more severe episodes (much like the extremes in summers much of the country is enduring).”

Another good point, one year is not the same as the next and the extreme weather seems to be becoming more common.

“Barring any of those, once proper pruning is started, the rose should respond appropriately.”

Great, thanks.

“I am increasingly observing it, even on varieties previously unaffected by the issues. Interesting, instructive and VERY unsettling. Kim”

I agree, very unsettling.

Once again, I appreciate all the time you have taken to answer my questions. I’ve really enjoyed this thread. So much great information here. Thanks very much!!



 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

"I want really good plants and would rather have a few great ones than dozens of mediocre plants....."

"As we face more water restrictions, I find that so true--I probably get 80% of my rose joy from 20% of my roses."

TRUTH TRUTH!! Another factor is that, as we age, we probably want fewer roses, but roses that are care-free.

Jeri


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I don't want to start an argument, but I've been gardening for over 35 years and most of it has occurred in the colder regions (ice and snow in the winter), and I have never engaged in any of the following pruning practices--in fact, I've never even heard a rumor of anyone doing any of the following:

What good does it do to tightly hold to "thou shalt not prune" when you MUST prune to winter protect your plants?
. . . .
What if you have to snow prune to prevent heavier snow from breaking the plants? How about if your have to prune them to a foot every year to protect them?

Pruning to "winter protect"? "snow-pruning"? "pruning to a foot to protect them" in winter?

I am trying really hard not to spew forth what I think about such ideas, but I don't believe those are accepted practices anywhere in snowland--unless maybe you are talking about once-bloomers which, I admit, I know nothing about. But if that is what you are talking about, please be explicit. I really don't want to have to spend the next couple years answering posts by newbies on this forum about how to do a proper "snow-prune" or how to prune to "winter-protect." That is total nonsense--and that is the nicest thing I can say about this latest false mythology.

I apologize for being so upset. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize for that also, but I must wonder how my roses managed to survive over 30 years without "snow protection"!!!

On the other hand, I have lost a few roses to excessive heat and drought in the summertime. I've never lost a rose to snow and cold--as long as I planted only winter hardy roses (which is what I do). If people are trying to grow southern roses in the land of ice and snow, that is their own fault!

OK--done ranting. That one set me off, however. And I will apologize if someone can show me that I was wrong.

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Hi Kate, I'm sorry to have upset you so! Definitely not my intention. I am not advocating any of that, simply reporting some of the "cultural methods" I have had presented to me by a surprising number over the past thirty-plus years. As I stated, I have never had to deal with snow or "arctic" weather gardening. If you go back through the ARS magazines of the past decades, you will find several articles (with photos) of "winter protection" requiring rather harsh pruning so the plants fit under the protection boxes. Admittedly, those were highly likely methods devised to permit growing HT's in climates for which they were particularly unsuited. "Snow pruning" has been suggested to prevent unnecessary breakage due to too heavy snow build-up. Again, something with which I have no personal experience, and only mentioned to demonstrate how not pruning much might not be suitable for conditions which might require more severe methods.

I can believe your stated successes and results. You have explored, experimented, paid attention to what those roses have taught you so your collection consists of those which are properly suited for your climate, conditions and cultural style. I hope nothing from this thread presents you with the dreaded questions in the future. Believe me, I can commiserate! I have very often fielded many of those types over the years on line and in person, though skewed to hot weather growing instead of more arctic types as you endure. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Ok--I see what you were primarily referring to--those blamed winter cones--which most serious gardeners I know would never use (for a number of reasons, including canker problems). That was a marketing idea that made someone money--but didn't work very well for the actual gardener.

I guess one reason I got riled up is that here in Zone 6, I do nothing in particular to winter protect except once in a while kick some oak leaves from my neighbors' trees around one of my newer roses. Yet every year, my next door neighbor and others in this town (who all grow 3 roses apiece) ask for my approval for doing a late autumn pruning to "prepare" their roses for winter. And every year, I tell them that isn't needed unless they have a jolly green giant cane that would go whipping in the winter wind--in which case, tie or chop it back--but that is it for "winter-pruning." Every year they give me a look of doubt, like they think I'm deliberately leading them astray on the topic, and every year they admire my roses which don't get pruned until early spring--and every fall they ask me again if they can prune their roses back to "prepare" for winter.

I'm really tired of that yearly ritual. I wonder how many years they think they will have to ask me before I agree with them that they should "winter-prune" their roses in late autumn.

I apologize to the forum for temporarily "losing it." It was a hot-button issue for me, wasn't it!

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Yes ma'am, I apologize for leaning on your "hot button"! Your "winter pruning" is about the same as mine. "Winter" here consists of wind, increasing heat and the primary chances of any rain, so overly long whips must either be secured or amputated or they're going to do damage. Either to the roses, or people. I prune others' roses much more than my own primarily because those gardens are planted for specific effects, in specific spaces which are generally much more formal and restricted than what I permit mine to be. Even those, though, are permitted to do their own things longer than convention would usually permit.

Your advice there seems about as heretical to your neighbors as mine is here to mine. That's what I meant about "gardening legend" which becomes accepted theology from continuous repetition. But, if you set everything in motion correctly, little, if any, of that is honestly necessary and life goes on much more smoothly and easily. Thanks. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I agree that heavy pruning is not indicated for most roses, but have found that even with tea roses, where sometimes the idea is given that they should barely be touched at all, a judicious amount of cutting back has seemed to greatly benefit my roses, resulting in denser bushes, more new growth and increased bloom production. Smaller but still gangly Austins produce many more flowers after conservative pruning (or perhaps I should say cutting back) than do unpruned ones, which I found by experimenting on these roses in my garden. Bermuda Kathleen, situated in an extremely hot situation and looking miserable and gangly, made a complete turnaround after an overall haircut, even before cooler weather set in. The same was true of Mrs. Dudley Cross, Souv. de Germain de St. Pierre, La Vesuve and Miss Atwood. Souv. de Germain looked plain ugly and I was contemplating taking it out because of its rather unsatisfactory flowers and extremely gangly and wayward growth, so I had no compunction about cutting it back several feet on all sides to give it some shape, and the results were remarkable. It exploded into new leaves and buds and looked much more appropriate in its particular setting than every before. That prompted me to give it a lot more mulch and water it more thoroughly, so one might say it was a combination of factors. Nevertheless, I'm now convinced that established, inherently vigorous and healthy roses really need to have haircuts for them to stay that way.

I couldn't agree more with the idea that fewer but healthier and therefore more beautiful roses should be the goal in our increasingly water-deprived environment. I would also argue the same goes for areas where many roses don't do well due to great disease pressure. Grow those you love to look at and are healthy, even in multiples, rather than many roses that offend your eyes and depress you for a large part of the year.

In regard to the photo of a rose company of a completely unrealistic Burgundy Iceberg, I wonder whether they had even stopped to think of the actual shade of "burgundy". I wonder if anyone would actually drink burgundy wine if it were the color of the rose in that photograph!

Ingrid


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

  • Posted by AquaEyes 7 New Brunswick, NJ (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 8, 13 at 13:39

While there are certainly many roses (out of the tens of thousands out there) which will be miserable in particular locations without chemical fungicides, there are many others which will do just fine. The key is to try things out and see what works where you are.

Of course we are initially drawn to the "rose porn" photos of plants at their absolute best, but is it realistic to expect them to look that way all season? Upon how many of our other garden plants do we place that expectation? Many plants go through dowdy phases throughout the season, but that is why we have gardens with variety -- plants which come into their peaks at different times to offer interest throughout the seasons.

There was an azalea in front of my house (which I moved to make room for a rose I'd rather have in its place) which was gorgeous up until a few weeks after it bloomed. In passing, you might not notice it much, but if you got up close, you'd see tired-looking foliage that slowly deteriorated further as the heat of Summer wore on. Its time in the spotlight had passed, but I wasn't about to fret about keeping it looking "perfect" anyway. I have a similar attitude toward the roses -- if they start looking ratty during a hot Summer spell, that tells me I need to plant something which comes into its own at that time. About the only things which maintain their stalwart appearance throughout the year are conifers, but I'm not about to fill my yard with only them.

In the garden I'm building, roses are the "bones" around which I will plant other things. As long as fungal diseases don't cause the plant to decline toward death, I don't care about a few spotty leaves, or even a naked period when they're shed. Similarly, I'm planning to include Spring-flowering bulbs, despite the way they will look as they start going dormant after their peak. It doesn't matter as much to me because where they'll be planted, other things will start their peaks at that time. Many other garden stalwarts will also have their ratty-times -- how are your peonies looking by July?

If you plant things in a "landscaping way", such that there is clearly delineated space between things, you'll have dramatic shows as things come into their own, but will have to contend with the spotlight still shining on them during their down-times. But if you have more of a "cottage-y" approach, with things spilling around each other, then there is less focus on every individual part and more of the garden as a whole-- and plants going into their down-times will do so in a fading, receding motion while others step forward as they come into their own. And for continued interest during the growing season, plant bedding annuals here and there. You'll be amazed how less you focus on spotty foliage on roses when there's so much else blooming and looking wonderful at that point in the season.

:-)

~Christopher


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

As Christopher pointed out, nothing looks "on stage" at all times. We too often forget that in the "Landed Gentry" ages, the "rose garden" was just that, the garden for roses. No one paid much attention to that until they flowered, when excursions to that area of the garden were made. Once they had passed, it was ignored until next year around the same time. The perennial borders probably came into their own next, and that's where people went for garden enjoyment. That's why the introduction of truly "repeat flowering" then "ever blooming roses" created such a sensation. To think, it was suddenly possible to have rose flowers nearly year round, (or, at least as long as the warmer weather remained), though were nothing like the rose flowers everyone knew and loved. We, with smaller gardens and the lack of "staff" to maintain them, and particularly those in "endless summer" climates, have an even greater issue with those which don't carry their weight for the full length of the season. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Campanula, that is going to be quite a change for you. I’m sure the 20 you are taking are your favorites and all that time you spent working with 120 roses gave you the chance to discover which roses you enjoyed the most. I am not familiar with those you listed, but hybrid musks and ramblers sound great. Trying a big old rambler sounds like a fun new project.

Kate, I’m thinking about how my Golden Celebration did and actually maybe it didn’t do as badly as I thought it did. I think I have a low tolerance for ugly foliage. I’m going to have to adjust that. And perhaps if I had managed the rose better, it might have been acceptable in my garden. I do love the Austin roses and will have to try another one. And I agree that starting with a list of disease resistant roses that have done well for somebody is better than just ‘pinning the tail on the donkey’ with no list.

I’ve got an order ready. I’ve been working on it all week. Spent time on old posts here and on HMF. I did find someone in CT on HMF who is trying to grow ‘no spray’ and she is growing Aloha successfully for many years and has friends who do as well. I’ve heard good things about Aloha before so I’m going to try her. I like the color and said to be very fragrant, so worth a shot. I’ve resisted The Fairy for awhile because of the lack of fragrance, but she sounds pretty bulletproof and blooms a long time and Marie Pavie, I am hoping might work out too, since she is more fragrant and has repeat bloom too. And I do have a small front garden. I have to try another Austin, so I’m going with Munstead Wood and keeping my fingers crossed. And I loved Paul’s photo of Charles de Mills, so I’m going to give that one a try. Thank you Paul. :-)

So that’s it for now. I want to get an order in before they are sold out and after January I will have more time to leisurely consider others for a possible second order.

I think you all have given me a crash course here in this thread…lol. I have lots and lots more to learn, but this has been a good beginning. Thanks to everyone… :-)


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

prairiemoon, I'm glad you are going to try out a few more Austins. I'm crazy about Munstead Wood, but I've only had it one season, so I can't say for sure how bs-resistant it will prove to be, but I can firmly assure you that it is doing terrifically well its first season.

If I had any space left at all, I'd love to try Old Wollerton Hall for a somewhat taller, disease-resistant Austin in the light, delicate pastel shades and Princess Alexandra of Kent which is about the same size as Munstead Wood (3 ft) but a lovely medium pink on big full blooms--very disease-resistant supposedly. If you try them, let me know how they do for you. They sound first-rate to me.

Queen of Sweden is a fine Austin--pastel pink with light apricot highlights, disease-resistant, 4 ft tall--and just lovely. I have three of them forming a kind of informal hedgerow.

Just a few to tempt you. : )

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Kate, I am tempering my excitement with the Munstead Wood, only because it's a good possibility that it will get BS here, but it might be an acceptable level, I won't know unless I try it. So we'll see. And hopefully at least a couple of roses in my order will fit my garden. I feel like it was a conservative order and some of them are really landscape roses. But I haven't had a new rose in two or three years, so this will be fun.

Those three Austins photos are very pretty. I take it you don't have room for another. (g) So all your roses must be doing pretty well for you to keep them when you want space for another one.

I'm glad to have the winter to take my time and come up with another list. Thanks!


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

dublinbay ,

Around here 80% of people cut there roses down to within 6-8 inches from the ground in October for the winter...

You would be knocking on lots of doors in this town and screaming at them....lol

This post was edited by jim1961 on Fri, Nov 8, 13 at 18:54


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

  • Posted by seil z6b MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 8, 13 at 19:17

I think that's the key, prariemoon. You won't know which ones will work until you try them. And no matter what rose you ask about you will find people who adore it and people who hate it. Location, location, location! And I'm not just talking about the difference between California and Massachusetts.

A few years ago I got a plant of Memphis Blues. It was OK. Not the best of growers but hanging in there. Somehow I accidentally broke off a large cane while working in the bed. Heartbroken I decided to try and root it. It rooted well and the next year I gave the new plant to my cousin who lives ONE block away from me. She now has a gorgeous 3 foot tall plant and mine has literally disappeared. The one cane I had left this spring when I pruned it died over the summer for no apparent reason I can find. Although my plant was never very vigorous it seems to LOVE her garden and keeps getting bigger each year.

Every yard has it's own major climate and micro climates within it. Sometimes just moving a plant can make all the difference in the world. So don't be afraid to try the roses you like. Yes, some of them will crash and burn. Chalk those up to a learning experience. Some of them will give you years of enjoyment too!

When you stop and think about it roses aren't much different from the rest of your garden I'll bet. We all try new plants. Some of them do well and some we have to remove or remember not to get next season because they didn't work out. Gardens change and evolve all the time. And roses are a part of that ever changing picture.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

OK--Jim. You have my apologies. I certainly have never done that in my northern gardens, and I don't really approve of your people cutting them down every fall to 6-8 inches--for the reasons that Kim and others above have given--very hard on the roses, in the long run! But if you folks want to do that, then do it. Like I said, different strokes for different folks--and I'm not going to tell you folks what to do.

But I still think that is the nuttiest thing I have heard in a long time. But what the heck--if you're happy, then I'm happy. Ok? LOL

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Kate ....

Kim probably got the information about "snow-tipping" roses from me, so I am responsible for hitting your hot button.

Out of about 100 roses, I snow-tip or lace four roses every year. At my elevation, when I get snow, it's the heavy, wet, gloppy stuff that can cause breakage ... never where I want it ... on a few roses. These four roses develop a heavy, dense canopy during the growing season and seem to have canes that don't bend with the weight of the snow, but break.

I guess you could call it winter protection for the rose, but actually it is winter protection for me. By opening up the canopy before it snows, the snow falls through the plant and there is no breakage. It is definitely not a hard prune.

Shoveling snow is hard enough work without having to wade through the snow out to the few roses that are susceptible to breakage to shake the snow off of them to protect them from breakage.

Smiles,
Lyn


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Seil, I was just looking over your previous post and don’t know how I missed, that you’ve inherited your Grandmother and Mother’s roses. Wow, that is such an amazing gift! And for her to have kept all those roses growing long enough for you to inherit them…quite an accomplishment.

I did see if I could find you on HMF and there you were, right under Michigan. I see you have some very pretty roses. I also love some of the names. ‘Falling in Love’ such a pretty name and the rose is gorgeous! Very romantic roses and rose names.
I'm sure your Mom would love that you are learning all about her roses and taking such good care of them.

Great story about Memphis Blues. That is kind of hard to believe but there it is, it happens. But a story like that, really does make you stop and give something one last try before giving up on it. Move it over the other side of the yard maybe.

Thanks… :-)



 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

OK, OK--my apologies to you also. With climate change going on, I may never see snow again here in southern Kansas--at least, have had almost none the past couple years, whereas back in the 1980s, half the town used to shut down because of the heavy snowstorms. Us ex-northerners thought that was hilarious and would drive around helping all the southern Kansans stuck in snowbanks. Strange how we never got hung up in snowbanks, but those southern Kansans--I swear they would head straight for the banked up snow and plow into it, and then wonder why they were stuck.

It never did occur to me in those days that I should trim back my roses because of the snow, and I don't remember ever losing any rose as a result, but hey, if it saved your roses, more power to you! So go to it with my blessing (as though you needed that)--LOL

Kate


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Kate ...

I agree that the roses in my garden should only be pruned in spring. They need the nutrients stored in their canes to get through winter and push new growth in the following season.

I didn't think about doing any fall pruning either until I had to deal with the breakage. When one of my gardening friends told me that she protects her roses by going out and shaking the snow off of the roses, my first thought was, "There has to be a better way !" Four roses out of a hundred ... I can handle that.

PM2 ...

You asked me two specific questions which I think Kim has address above, but I'll add my two cents.

"By ‘modern roses’ does that mean anything other than old garden roses? And couldn’t the same thing be said about old garden roses, that they store their nutrients in their canes?

As Kim mentioned, the process of going dormant is for the plant to move its nutrients into the root zone during the winter so that it is available to the plant for the following season. The evergreen roses he mentions brought the ability for repeat bloom into the rose gene pool, but it also brought the genes that keep the roses from going truly dormant, so they store their nutrients in the canes/top growth, which makes them more vulnerable to the impact of cold weather. Some modern roses are hardier than others. It depends on their lineage ... how much evergreen rose genes are in their breeding.

Since I don't have die back in my garden, I can only answer your question in theory. Those that have grown roses in colder zones than mine can answer from experience.

I think if a rose dies back completely in your garden, it is probably too tender for your climate and will not be as successful as a rose that doesn't die back to the ground every year. You can baby it, a lot of people do, but do you want to ?

Are you also saying that once my roses were pruned back hard, that they will always be weak? Even if I changed my pruning habits?

The honest answer is that I don't know because I have never dealt with that issue. As usual, "it depends on the rose".

In my garden, heat is the bigger issue impacting the performance of a rose. My garden is in Heat Zone 8. There are roses that simply thrive in somewhat cooler climates and are just awful in my garden.

There are several public gardens listed on HMF for Massachusetts. I don't think their plant lists are up-to-date, but here's how you find both private and public gardens on HMF.

1. Click on GARDENS on the navigation bar to the left.
2. Click on the LIST BY LOCATION tab
3. Select the COUNTRY (US)
4. Select the STATE (Massachusetts)

Looking at the plants listed and possibly visiting the public gardens might be a great help to you in selecting roses that will grow well in your garden.

Smiles,
Lyn


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Just another note on pruning with regards to once bloomers. Many of these bloom on old wood (as in at least one year old). If you cut off the old wood you may not get as much as a single flower that year. The growth in the current year doesn't flower, but leave it alone so that next year you will get flowers. This point was brought home to me somewhat painfully again this year. My favorite rose is my alba Felicite Parmentier. She has put on a spectacular display every year for the 20+ years I've had her except for 2. This year was unfortunately one of them. My gardener hired a new assistant this year. I came outside one day just after they had left. The new assistant had hacked the daylights out of Felicite, and had pruned her down to hybrid tea heights. Catastrophe! Needless to say no flowers this year for me (but I had words with my gardener the following week)! The last time she didn't bloom he'd also hired a new assistant who also assumed all roses ought to be hacked nearly to the ground as some routinely recommend for hybrid teas. Btw this year the guy also butchered Baty's Pink Pillar (plenty left still up in a tree where it bloomed in spite of the hatchet job) and York and Lancaster, my gigantic once-blooming damask (also bloomed because there was simply too much for Mr. Chopper to cut off.;)

Prairiemoon, you mentioned the flowers on Madame Plantier were smaller than you like, but you also mentioned her poor performance. I don't know how much or if you pruned her, but she is another of the once bloomers that likely won't flower at all on new wood (current year's growth). Just fyi.

Btw I also grow roses no spray and no fungicide either. In Southern California the disease pressure is mainly from rust and mildew. Roses addicted to one or both aren't welcome here because I refuse to use chemicals to treat these maladies. The same for blackspot. However, not many roses blackspot here. The few that have I gave away this year after short stays (both teas--Tipsy Imperial Concubine, she completely defoliated 2 springs in a row and Niles Cochet which had the unique distinction of blackspotting, rusting, and mildewing simultaneously, which I might add was really and truly UGLY--but I suspect this rose was incorrectly identified and was in actuality really Barcelona/Francis Dubrueil). Interestingly enough the rose said to be a virtual blackspot vacation spot, R. foetida 'Persiana' has never had a trace of anything marring its leaves. Must be that whatever race or races of blackspot it is vulnerable to are not found in my garden.

Since you garden spray-free Prairiemoon, I'd recommend the book "The Sustainable Rose Garden" to you, ISBN 978-1-935149-16-3, published in 2010. It includes chapters written by noted rosarians and is chock full of advice handy for organic growers. Two chapters were authored by our very own Jeri Jennings.;)

Kim, there was a presentation on the blackspot races in the US and elsewhere at Great Rosarians (2011???). The presenter, I believe, was Peter Kukielski (sp?) from the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden. Peter authored a chapter in the above book called "The Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden's Dual Mission of Disease Resistance and Protecting 'Eva' ". I think I took pictures of a number of his slides/powerpoint images, but I don't know where I put them......

Melissa


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Thanks, Melissa, yes I was there for Peter's presentation. That's where I was initially introduced to the five races of black spot concept. There have been quite a few further developments I've become aware of through the RHA. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Melissa, thank you for the info on your roses and the reminder about pruning once bloomers. Bet that saves some ones spring/summer.

How many years were yours planted on average before they started blooming? I would be pleased if I got a couple blooms off mine this year.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Kim, I just found my photos. Not great to say the least!;) Include peoples' heads in the audience so images are somewhat obscured (fortunately I took notes too, but where those are is another question....). At least one includes a scientific paper in the background. I can read that and do a search to pull up a link so folks here can read the abstract if not the whole article (sometimes there is a fee for online access to complete text). Below is a link to the article in the image posted. While looking at that a newer article (from 2012) popped up, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22905676

Kippy, as best I recall, for once-bloomers, I got many as bands, and they bloomed the following year. I didn't know back then I couldn't grow them here so I ordered classes not always recommended these days for my zone. York and Lancaster is one of these and is a super wafter. I wouldn't like to be without it because of all the pleasure it gives me. It HAD (past tense!) never been pruned until this year since I bought it back in the 1990s. It is now up on my roof! The canes gently sway in the breeze as they drape over its tall neighbors that gave this rose the opportunity to climb (it is really too floppy to climb without support). It grows in a lot of shade, is seldom watered, and almost never fed. I love the graceful flowers and the cloak of perfume they produce. No disease on the plant ever. Has wicked thorns though so not for the faint of heart. Flowers can be all pink (most often), pink and white, or almost all white--all on the same plant at the same time.

Melissa

Here is a link that might be useful: Rdr3, a novel locus conferring black spot disease resistance...


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

I haven't posted about the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden list for over a year. It usually gets a cool reception.

Here is a link that might be useful: Kordes roses verdict: excellent


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

It is interesting and pleasant to see the Peggy Rockefeller Rose Garden mentioned repeatedly in this thread.

Although the last performance rating of the roses online seems to be from 2010, there are other indications or at least conclusions that may be drawn about the roses in the garden.

As in the thread linked below where an innocent might conclude that one would be wrong to say anything bad about a rose or roses, or conversely to advocate the virtues of any rose over any others, it may be that the Garden feels that it would not be politic of them to publish the results of their findings - I don't know.

So, I'm even a bit hesitant to share with you my method for drawing conclusions - not for my sake, but out of respect for the NYBG's decision not to post the ratings.

If there were to be any sort of pressure like that, then even the information from which I'm drawing the conclusions could be removed.

I personally abhor censorship or pressuring anyone to refrain from freely sharing information because I believe in freedom of information (without copyright infringement maybe I ought to add).

OK, that's been stated.

So, although there isn't a recent rating list, there are inventory lists for roses included in the garden as of spring 2012 and 2013. If one copies and pastes them in parallel into something like Excel, one can scroll down and see additions and subtractions.

However, I cannot speak to the validity of any conclusions one might draw; they would probably be better termed assumptions than conclusions.

Here is a link that might be useful: A brighter outlook, please?


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

  • Posted by seil z6b MI (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 8, 13 at 23:48

Thank you, prariemoon. I have 7 inherited roses. I wish I had more of them but due to my own learning curve I lost a few. I have been replacing some of the ones they had though. I enjoy having them because they bring back memories.

Falling in Love is not one of the old ones though. It's a fairly new release. While the bloom is really gorgeous I have to warn you that it is THE THORNIEST rose you'll ever see!

I hope that you understand my point that even if everyone tells you a rose won't work for you, but you really love it and want it, try it anyway. You can't know until you do. I should not be trying to grow Teas and Chinas in my zone 6 but I am because I love the look of them. It may work and it may not but I won't know if I don't try.

I don't do any fall pruning either. I've had a running battle with my society president who firmly believes in rose cones and whacks all his roses down every fall to get them on. It seems to work for him but I know that I have lost roses when I pruned them in the fall.

I lost my Dublin Bay that way. It was a healthy climber but it hadn't gotten any new basals in years I wanted to try and encourage it to give me some new canes so I cut it back one fall. Dumb! What was I thinking? I knew I shouldn't have pruned in the fall. It died that winter and I now have a lovely (not) Dr. Huey in it's place. Oh joy.

You're going to have to prune them in the spring regardless of whether you prune them in the fall or not. So why prune them twice? And why take off perfectly healthy cane that could survive the winter? Over winter you'll lose some cane to die back. It's almost inescapable. So you take a large healthy plant, whack it off in October or November, then have to whack it back even further in April or May. You end up with nothing left but stubs. It just never makes sense to me. We all want big healthy bushes so why do we keep chopping them down?

But I know I'm a rogue. I don't prune mine down much even in the spring. I only take off what is obviously winter damaged cane and leave them as big as I can. In my experience I get larger healthier plants that bloom sooner for me with this method. I know I'm supposed to cut them all to a nice uniform 12 to 18 inches like the manuals say but I just can't find a reason to take off all that living green cane.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Rose cones?!
A few years ago, in the UK, it was an absolute top fad to get into growing 'tropicals' (thanks for nothin, Christopher Lloyd) and all over the country, a rash of bananas were appearing everywhere (along with an extremely limited selection of other leafy things such as eucomis, tetrapanax, flowering gingers). All well and good (for some) apart from the fact that their gardens consisted, for up to 6 months of the year, of huge, white, fleece wrapped abominations, standing like dreary sentinels amongst the decaying foliage and tatty dahlia heads. A ghastly, grim look, massively more popular with men, and involving an exhausting mission of moving heavy pots in and out of garages, greenhouses and sheds.

Well, no thanks. If I ever had great ambitions to push the zone envelope (I don't because I am lazy), the winter sight of these horrid 'statues' would have changed my mind very rapidly.

Just a word on pruning since it seems to cause no end of anxiety. It is not a necessity - if we didn't do it, then nature would do it for us. Handily, animals and weather, age and disease will more or less keep our plants in a generally OK order. Secateurs are optional....and weirdly counter-intuitive. Following the principle that 'growth follows the knife', it has still been a harsh lesson in balancing, having to cut a lopsided tree even further back on the thin side....or to rejuvenate aging shrubs by stooling back to the ground....or, coppicing and pollarding in order to extend the life cycle of a tree by hundreds of years. There's a lot we don't really know but fortunately, life is remarkably tenacious and, if a plant dies, it is usually after a gallant attempt at survival and probably not one to choose again.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Tessiess, yes, thanks for pointing out that old roses bloom on old wood. It would have taken me awhile before I stumbled upon that information.

And on the Madame Plantier, I can’t remember whether I pruned it or not, but it’s so interesting to think that was an important piece of information that I didn’t have when I had that rose. Assuming I knew what I needed to know I guess.

Glad to hear you are going ‘no spray’ in California. I guess there isn’t a perfect place to grow roses. It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. But it sounds like you have lots of success and pleasure from your roses. Too bad about the inadvertent pruning!

Looks like a good book recommendation. I’m going to look for it at the library today. Thanks. :-)

Lyn, Since I had thought you were ‘supposed’ to prune roses back every spring, I haven’t been really noticing how much die back I’ve had. I only remember noticing that I did have growth high up on Julia Child last year. Something I will be looking for now on everything.

I'm thinking about what you said about roses that die back to the ground may be too tender for my garden and it makes me think of a couple of garden plants that die back to the ground here in New England, that are great garden plants that just get cut back to the ground every year. Perovskia for example, often has little new growth above a foot off the ground. Butterfly Bushes that I’ve cut down to a foot every spring for years and they've done well here. Hardy Hibiscus that needs all the old stems cut off every year and new growth comes up from the ground. With Butterfly Bushes, sometimes I have less dieback and now I am thinking maybe they will do better for me, if I cut off as little as possible. I'm going to have to try that this year.

Thanks for the info on how to find gardens in my area. I hope I am going to get to a few next season.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

No need to apolgize dublinbay ....lol

The thing that gets me with people around here is that they never cut out dead wood on there roses...
So in October when they cut there roses down to 6-8 inches you can see lots of dead wood from years back.
Makes me want to carry lopers with me on my walks and cut that dead crap out...lol


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Sandandsun, You piqued my curiosity and I spent some time looking at those lists on the Peggy Rockefeller site. And while you are correct that conclusions drawn are no more than assumptions, I still think those conclusions are of value. There are only 8 roses that were on the original top 100 list, that are no longer listed for the garden. I think that’s pretty good. So the roses growing in 2013 were at least in their 3rd year. It will be interesting to see what is on their list next year.

I also saw that all the roses I am ordering are in their garden, although only two are on their Top 100 list. But all of them are still in the garden, so that is encouraging.

As a casual rose grower, my limited view, is that the NYBotanical Garden, where the Peggy Rockefeller Roses are, must attract some of the top horticultural talent in the country and must have a pretty significant budget, and connections through the rose industry. I could be wrong and maybe some of you know the inside scoop, but I can’t help but think that it is a wonderful opportunity for all rose growers but especially rose growers in their location, to have such an organization decide that it was important enough to stop using chemicals in the rose garden and then to actually embark on such a huge undertaking as to remove all the roses they were growing with chemicals and change to no chemicals and install close to 1,000 varieties, all hardy, to trial there under those growing conditions. They’re also hosting the EarthKind trials.

Having said that, I also have questions about how they are able to grow some roses that have been thought to have issues with blackspot. Could it be that they are using products that are considered ‘safe’? Or are they tolerating some ugly foliage? Naturally, I’m sure they are trying to look at the roses that are most used and popular breeders. For instance, they are growing a LOT of David Austin roses. Eighty by my count. And only two of them seem to be missing from their 2013 list. Kordes is well represented too along with many others.

I wonder if someone involved in the program is planning to write a book about it? That might answer a lot of questions.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Campanula, I've never been a fan of tropicals in my northeastern location for some of the same reasons you mention. But at least we haven't had them outside all trussed up to look at all winter. Also wouldn't have a rose that I had to use rose cones for, but that's just me. I don't object to someone else doing it.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

  • Posted by hoovb z9 Southern CA (My Page) on
    Sat, Nov 9, 13 at 10:31

I probably get 80% of my rose joy from 20% of my roses.

Though...I probably get 90% of my rose education from the problematic roses, not the superstars.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Hoovb,

Though...I probably get 90% of my rose education from the problematic roses, not the superstars.

Funny you should mention that. My grandfather always said in a heavy slovac accent "You learn best from your mistakes and the most from ones that cost you the most"

SCG


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Seil, I would be thrilled if any of my kids pursued gardening in my absence. So your interest in what you are doing alone, I’m sure would make your Mom happy. :-)

Yes, I understand that if you love a rose, don’t be afraid to try it. At the same time, I’m going to try to balance trying roses I love with trying to find roses that love me. Some of both would be nice. (g)

I haven’t done any fall pruning either, just because across the board, shrubs are normally pruned when they are dormant or in spring or right after they bloom, so I guess I just used that same yardstick for roses.

SCG, your grandfather had some wisdom there!


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Melissa -- If the blighted rose rusted, mildewed and blackspotted, it fer sure wasn't Niles Cochet.

FWIW, The worst rusters I've ever had here were 'Eugene de Beauharnais' [Le Grande Capitaine], Tamora, and Ambridge Rose. Poor Eugene is the ONLY rose I've grown that rusted on new foliage, with the fungus showing up as the new leaf opened.

'Barcelona' ["Francis Dubreuil"] only mildewed for us. But he mildewed badly.

For the real Niles, see below.

Jeri


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

My big zone push experiment is with Gooseberries and a Red Lake Currant. I discovered that the first two I planted are getting next to no sun, as soon as they go dormant, they are getting moved a couple of feet to where they can get some sun. The first gooseberry so far has grown but not set fruit but the currant had a few handfuls of tasty red berries this year. I have no expectations of huge crops, that handful made me happy. If I lived somewhere they grew I would probably be disappointed. Being in a zone they do not grow, I am happy.

I think some times we have expectations that limit how much we will like a plant. If we are happy with a few blooms from a special rose, maybe it does not make a difference if we have to cover the ugly with companion plants. We might not want a garden filled with the ones that struggle. But if it is Mom's special rose, why not try it.

As far as the garden and all the Austins, guessing those plants were all donated, Austin may hope that they do well and they can use that to sell more plants. Or if the first spring flush looks good, that is when they will sell tons of plants. If they later look rotten, chances are your average consumer is not going to take notes and they have already made the sales.

I am going to order two plants I have been told will probably not like our garden. I figure it is a $25 lesson on garden zones and expectations. If they grow 1/3 of the typical size, I will be thrilled. I know that our lot has a variety of micro climates, so hoping they like the one I pick. Before I knew what rose it was, I moved a self rooted plant from a spot where it got a lot of radiated heat from a garage to what I thought should be a much better place. The other Iceberg roses loved it there, but this one plant turned in to a rusty mildew nasty looking thing....Guess that is the usual look for Simplicity, but the others are okay in that one special spot (not wonderful-but okay) Makes me wonder how many roses are considered great or bad depending on some minor micro-climate changes.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

PM2.......

The plants you cut back in the fall, other than your roses, in a sense, know how to go dormant. They are pulling the nutrients they need down to their root zone. All of the various plant families have their own way of adapting to your climate. Some plants will work well for you and others won't. Suzy's example about trying to grow tropical plants in England is a perfect example.

The repeat blooming roses have the genes of more tropical roses in their lineage than many of the once blooming roses which is what makes them more "tender". Not all of them, but many of them.

Early in my rose life, Kim taught me that the best teacher for learning how to handle a rose is the rose. When I would ask a question, he generally responded by telling me to learn from the rose.

My pruning techniques will be very different than yours because my climate is very different. The primary goal of pruning is to create a healthy plant for your climate. Since I really don't have to worry about cold hardiness, but do have to worry about heat tolerance, how I prune my roses will be of little value to you. It's best to learn both from the rose and from people who garden in a climate similar to yours.

Smiles,
Lyn


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

The reverse of that is, when I grow "deciduous" perennials here and DON'T prune them back as Nature does where they are indigenous, they become woody and short lived. Buddleja can be permitted to grow into tree-like proportions here, but that also shortens their productive lives, exposing them to faster and more severe attack by termites. If I prune them back severely each spring, as hard freezes might where they are indigenous, they remain more "juvenile", lush, heavier flowering for much longer times with much less chance of being attractive to termites, which are a real concern in my climate. Other less woody perennials also require those harder prunes or they, too, become woodier, old, dead in their centers. You have to take your cues from the plants, keeping in mind what Nature does to them where they originate. Kim


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Thanks Lyn, good advice, I’m sure next season I’m going to make an attempt to get some local help on the pruning front. :-)

Kim, Termites are that bad there? Have never heard of termites effecting garden plants here. Houses, yes, plants not so much. I think it would be unusual at least. I’ve heard that Hawaii has a huge problem with termites but I didn’t know gardeners in California have to deal with that. Sounds like you’ve found a way around it for the Butterfly Bush at least. Thanks for that explanation.

I love pruning actually. I’m limited in my understanding of what one plant or another need or don’t need it, but I think it really can make a big difference. I have perennial cranesbill and normally after they bloom, I just leave them alone and by fall they look pretty awful. This year after they bloomed, I decided to prune them back well and I was amazed at how fresh and healthy they looked the rest of the season. And I grow a couple of Ninebarks that are very tolerant of hard pruning and instructions often suggest you can prune to the ground every spring.

But that is a subject for another thread. Thanks and I think I have run out of questions on this thread. :-) Thanks again.


 o
RE: How much store do you put in photos of roses?

Kippy, I feel that way about some roses. Rose fragrance is something I would keep a plant for and surround with companions in it’s down time, even with just a few blooms.

I did a little more reading about the PRRGarden and the curator, said he rates each rose in the garden once a month and they have to be above a 6 to stay. he also has volunteers make their own evaluations twice a year to try to keep it objective.

You could be right about the way in which Austin benefits from having his plants in the garden there. And how the average consumer responds. I also think though that the fact they are trying to go ‘no chemical’ might attract more gardeners who are paying attention more to the overall health of plants.

I was also somewhat disappointed to learn that they still use some products on their roses. The article said they’ve reduced use by 86% and his staff ..’sprays sparingly for pests like spider mites and rose midges, but the formulations are lighter than in the past. Fertilizers are organic, with fish emulsion a favorite.’ I linked to one of the articles below for anyone who has an interest.

So that might be another reason why they are managing to grow Austins. I’d still like to visit their garden next year.

I think experimenting is fun and $25. is cheap enough for a learning experience and some entertainment as well. :-) Maybe you are onto something with the micro-climates. I’m always surprised at how differently a plant can grow when I move it around the garden.

Here is a link that might be useful: Seeking a More Vigorous and Self-Sufficient Rose in the Bronx


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Roses Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here