Andrea - thank you very much for your careful and considered reply. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not trying to have a sly dig at DA but brought this up in the spirit of curiosity because my own experience of DA roses has been so limited. I came to roses by rose species, then older roses (although a very small collection) and finally, looked to modern breeders after reading an article by a rose breeder called Fryer (Sweet Dreams is one of his) casting doubt on the health and vigour of old roses. I will try to find this for you lot to comment on as it is something which still troubles me. The DA roses I do have are Graham Thomas (which is lovely but appallingly badly behaved in my garden), Compte de Champagne, my favourite and Windflower. I guess you can see that I am deeply attracted to singles and semi-doubles and am only now coming round to a fuller flower. Also, I note that DA suggests planting in 3s which I can never afford to do and anyway, my roses fill out enough planted in singles so I have had contradictory feelings. Anyway, I am not being disingenuous but am really interested to know what has made DA roses such a phenomenon and have taken steps to address my ignorance by ordering JtO, PA, Claire Austin and GC - mainly because of recommendations and descriptions from posters on this forum. I swear I am not being contentious, just fascinated by changing tastes, fashions and trends. Berndoodle?Cass nicely clarified how colours which were last popular in the 60s (Superstar!) are coming back into vogue - I think this is really interesting as the newer colours are quite self-confident and give us scope to use roses in a much more innovative way than the usual cottagey foxgloves and geraniums - lovely and timeless though such looks are. I truly hope I never blithely go along with something just because it is the latest must-have and frankly don't really give two hoots about age, history and provenance - just health, suitability for circumstances, beauty and fragrance.

As for the Austin advice to plant 3 of his roses closely together, I don't think most gardeners pay that much attention to it. However, I liked Molineux so much where I planted it that I wished it were a much fuller bush--so I planted 2 more with it--not because Austin recommended it, but because I wanted something really showy there. My 3-in-1 bush accomplished exactly the look I wanted.

All my other Austins (about a dozen) are planted singly.

Kate

I really am wondering how DA has achieved such prominence.

*** There have always been roses with old-fashioned forms. But they were not grown on. No one thought they would sell.

Hybridizer Tom Carruth once said that he and others owed a debt of thanks to David Austin and Ralph Moore.

Their mutual willingness to explore the many different forms and styles of roses, he said, freed others from having to pursue only the high-centered Hybrid Tea bloom form.

So whether you appreciate Austin's roses or not, it is worth taking note that the success of his ideas did make a difference.

Without that success, there likely wouldn't have BEEN Romanticas, Generosas, and the like.

Jeri

an article by a rose breeder called Fryer (Sweet Dreams is one of his) casting doubt on the health and vigour of old roses

Interesting. Of the few roses I grow by far the best growers are a David Austin apricot colored rose (planted in front of another unit by a renter - long gone; I don't know the DA's name, only that it is one of the peachy/apricot ones), and the remontant moss rose Salet.

That Salet has been through hell & back! I am sure it's grafted and rose mosaic virus infected. Nonetheless. I first purchased it for my parents' property back in about 1986. Their house had been built on land gouged out of rolling hillside farmland, and so the house and most of the yard was on subsoil - but not just any subsoil.

No, this was on subsoil that went down maybe a foot before you reached the parent rock! Fortunately that rock was a very easily shattered sandstone of some sort, so it was easy to plant in as long as you brought out not only your shovel but also a strong pick axe.

As you can imagine, that Salet barely survived there! But it did survive and also bloomed (just a few blooms per year). When I was sufficiently set up here at a townhouse property north of Boston (about five springs ago) I went down to the Philadelphia area, dug up Salet, wrapped it in wet newspaper in a bucket of water, drove it to this townhouse and planted it here. It isn't yet giving me rebloom, but I expect it to this year, and its June bloom is lovely!

That rose is the only one here that gets almost zero dieback every winter, no matter how rough the winter. Here it grows in the shade of a flowering cherry tree and a biggish azalea that blocks some of the morning light, and even still it blooms nicely.

I really like Salet!

Oh! By the way - that apricot colored David Austin? It starts getting black spot a week or two after the end of the big late spring (June) bloom flush.

casting doubt on the health and vigour of old roses

*** That's silly. It's so silly, you can't even get mad about it.

We find roses that have lived on their own for a century and a half, with no water beyond winter rain or snow, and no care at all.
When spring rolls around, they bloom dependably, and will bloom again any time the Good Lord gives them a little water.
And they lack health and vigor?
BOSH!

Jeri

With the exception of Pierre de Ronsard (aka Eden Climber), which was added to the Romantica group after the fact, I don't find that the Romanticas really look all that much like old roses. They are just modern roses with lots of petals, and the plants they grow on show this. I grew several of them and eventually removed them from my garden, keeping only PdR. It was the only one that looked right to me (in addition to being Tom's favorite). Some older hybrid teas, such as those in the Radiance class, actually look more appropriate in an heirloom garden than the Romanticas do.

I have not personally grown the Generosas or the Poulsen roses, so I cannot comment on those.

As for the Austin roses, I am of two minds when it comes to them. A number of them are quite simply wonderful, and blend gracefully in either a modern or heirloom garden. This is particularly true of the early introductions. It is his more recent roses that trouble me. Here David Austin has done an excellent thing in focusing on disease resistance. However, at the same time he has also worked with more modern colors, oranges and bright colors that did not exist in old roses. This is not to say that these colors -- especially the orange range -- are not beautiful. Often they are breathtaking, and clearly they are immensely popular, so it was a wise business decision. It is just that the colors don't work as old-style roses. By all means he should breed and sell what ever he likes. But when I select 'reproduction' roses for my own use, I want roses that look as though they could have grown in a garden 500 years ago.

Rosefolly

Not to worry, Suzy, I took your query as one of genuine curiosity, and I hoped to have replied in kind, and so have all the others here, I think. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. My 'soapbox' just referred to my rather lengthy response (sorry). Austins are indeed expensive, and you really don't have to plant them in 3s. Among them I can also recommend William Shakespeare 2000, Munstead Wood, The Prince, Sharifa Asma (perfume!!!), Heritage, Gertrude Jekyll (not leggy here in the UK), The Pilgrim, Molineux (now that one I planted in a group of three, and it looks absolutely terrific that way), Crocus Rose, Rosemoor (the cutest flowers and most beautiful leaves), Pat Austin, and Lady Emma Hamilton. Try them out at some point.

Barb, Leah Tutu is a very striking rose, I saw it at the Chelsea Flower Show last year. So why not send Peter Beales (see their discussion forum and contact under www.classicroses.co.uk) and Paul Zimmerman an email about your wish. I think it's time that they get their plants across the pond.

Andrea

I have had some Romantica's and some Austin's. My Jean Giono at my last house was beautiful.

I love my LEH..and CPM. I know many people like antique or Ht..but me..I don't care what they are..if I like the color and they are hardy here I mix them all together.

>That's sillyThe older they are, the more time they have had to accumulate viruses. Other old cultivars of rose family plants like Japanese flowering cherries and orchard apple trees have been found to have been diminished enough by viruses for some producers to feature virus indexed stock. Strawberry plants may often pick them up so fast that frequent replacement and replanting has been recommended.

Heirloom Roses in Oregon has made a point of featuring clean stock for some time now. Clumps of 'Dr Huey' rootstock sprouts left behind by failed scions are very common here and very commonly display leaf mosaic patterns.

More recently developed types may also have more resilient flowers. My old European roses tend to have problems opening, as though the soil is already getting too dry by their June flowering time. Aborted flowers on shriveled flower stems are not a rare sight here.

The Portland roses seem to be better in this respect than others I have.

Well, I would not say that OGRs are disease free by default, so I think that Fryer has a point there regarding their health, but not necessarily regarding their vigor. I think that much of this depends on the class and climate. Most once bloomers like gallicas or damasks are very healthy in most climates, whereas most repeaters, especially HPs and Bourbons, are not necessarily that healthy in wetter/more humid areas. They still do better than most modern HTs though, especially in their ability to rebound.

I assume that most reblooming OGRs are perfectly healthy in certain Californian/arid regions. Not coincidentally, there has been a good tradition of rose rustling connected to all those old surviving plants, and that's where Jeri is coming from. Also, Teas and Chinas, which may be among the healthier roses, can be grown there very well.

Now, the situation here in Europe is rather different, due to a generally less arid and often cooler climate and much denser infrastructure and frequent rebuilding (due to many wars and modernization) which does not allow as much for the wild survival of old roses as the many warm and arid regions in the generally less populated and internally 'peaceful' US. Moreover, the winters of many parts of continental Europe are certainly too cold for Chinas and Teas.

My experience: I've grown quite a few OGRs in the hot and humid southeastern US and the cooler and wetter (or very temperate, if you will) southeastern UK. Most of these OGRs, including Teas, have caught disease, BS and PM, if not sprayed fairly regularly. But that usually has not crippled them in the same way as it does many modern HTs which can easily whither and, leafless and cankered, turn into one-cane-wonders and finally into annuals come winter.

By last July here in England when it admittedly began to rain a lot, my Mme Pierre Oger, Gruss an Teplitz, and Variegata Bologna for instance began to cover themselves with PM and BS. Souvenir du Dr Jamain, Captain Christy and Rose du Roi a Fleurs Pourpres held out longer, but also caught that stuff in the end. By September/October they looked pretty good again without any intervention on my part. Others like Comte de Chambord (a total BS disaster in North Carolina), and the older classics Lady Hillingdon and Ghislaine de Feligonde stayed remarkably clean. Most of my Austins held out longer than the OGRs, but also caught BS after weeks of perpetual rain, and like the OGRs they rebounded very well. My HTs and Romanticas (see my post above) with the exception of the Barni roses - you don't want to know how they looked like. I lost some of these.

Now, in hot and humid North Carolina my OGRs actually suffered quite badly when I didn't spray regularly. This includes not only Comte de Chambord, but also Rose de Rescht, Baronne Prevost (major BS), Louise Odier, Yolande d'Aragon, Ferdinand Pichard, Francis Dubreuil, Reine des Violettes, Mme Alfred Carriere, Zephirine Drouhin, Chateau de Clos Vougeot (PM and BS), Enfant de France (totally covered in PM), and even most of my teas (mostly PM) and the hybrid china Sophie's Perpetual (BS). Quite healthy otoh were Vick's Caprice and especially Jacques Cartier, as well as the Hybrid Musks Buff Beauty and Felicia. The healthiest of all my roses was the non-OGR classic New Dawn, an amazing plant. So ymmv.

Andrea

I'm not yet sure if it's New Dawn or Dr. Van Fleet (suspect the latter at this point), but it grows on the property where I live. In late summer if the weather's been warm enough and rain-free enough (it's always humid because I live near the ocean) it gets a bit of powdery mildew, but otherwise it's very healthy.

The 'where do they belong' question goes many decades further back in England than in the US, which is why I sometimes get snitty with the deja-vu aspect of it.

In the 50's, 60's and 70's the Royal National Rose Society was the biggest horticultural society in the world - both in membership and marketing influence. The society was dominated by the British Rose Breeders - Harkness, Cant, Dickson, Fryer, Bees, Lowe's, McCredy's, Bides's, Wheatcroft, Murrell, Mattock, Gregory, etc, etc, and their product - yearly offerings of disposable HT's and Floribundas - filled all the gardens of England with wall-to wall bedding.

I'm sure most of these gentlemen had a nostalgic appreciation of Old Fashioned Roses, but it was never allowed to get in the way of their sales, or of guiding public taste through the Rose Annual and the network of Rose Societies. Older member of the ARS might recognise the situation.

We all know the story of David Austin's wish to use his private collection of Old Roses to breed a new class of modern roses. What most don't know is the fight he had to gain any acceptance from the guardians of the rose world for his efforts, most of which were treated with scorn and derision. At that time he was just a small farmer with no 'nursery' of his own, no 'marketing', and reliant on others like Graham Thomas' Sunningdale to introduce his roses.

During the '70's and 80's as it became apparent that Austin's early 'English' roses - especially the Chaucer and Shakespearean-named series - were gaining public popularity through direct sales and the appreciation of major figures in the UK horticultural world, the scorn began to turn to fear, and then we started seeing some of the 'copycat' roses from other breeders. These were well-described at the time as 'failed floribunda cultivars' with too many petals.

Austin's success, together with the renewed interest in Old Roses which he and Thomas both promoted heavily (Austin is also the largest supplier of Old Roses in the UK) came at a time when there was a large decline in the public interest in bedding roses and a consequent decline into almost nothing of the RNRS, not helped by financial scandals and almost criminal mismanagement.

Austin capitalised on the decline of the HT growers. I think he was always forced to be a 'loner', a maverick, excluded from the rose aristocracy, and that may have made him build a far tougher and more outward-looking business.

I hope this bit of history goes some way to explain why Austin is well-placed in discussions of Old Roses. That is his birthright, and it is the Old Roses that provide his ideals of beauty, form and fragrance. In his own country he was excluded from the world of 'modern roses'. I find his roses - well chosen and in moderation - fit very well into the gardens I love, even if that cottage-y style is thought passe by some. At the same time, he has not been afraid to try to provide roses that don't fit that 'English' style, but work very well in the noisier type of modern plantings -the sharp yellows, the salmons and oranges.

As to the roses themselves - the blooms are usually beautiful, we can take that for granted. I am delighted to see people recognising the real importance of foliage and form. These are the things that give the grace to Old Roses, and the best of the Austin's have them, too. That's why they work so well together. The worst are gawky, upright with leathery, shiny, Teutonic foliage, and probably won't survive the test of time.

Best wishes
Jon

Hi Jon,

As an exhibitor, I often make that distinction when preparing roses for the show--I show modern roses with nice shiny leaves, while the OGRs are shown with clean, but not shiny, leaves. Rubbing the leaves with a rag or paper towel will bring out the natural oils, making rose leaves shiny.

Thanks for your superb input, Jon. I've heard about the resistance and derision Austin initially faced, but not in such interesting detail.

And 'teutonic foliage' really cracked me up. You just love those Kordes roses, don't you? Wasn't it you who once called them Autobahn roses - the faster you pass them, the better they look?!

Andrea

Jon, your explanation, which puts the Austins in the greater context of the British rose world, is truly fascinating. There seem also to be interesting parallels with our own stodgy, behind-the-times (one might almost say antedeluvian) national rose society. Their activities are all one big yawn and will become as moribund as yours if they don't mend their ways. Beauty will not be denied and that is why the Austin roses are as popular here as they are in England and other parts of Europe. It's easy to nitpick Mr. Austins' various perceived and real business practices, but it would be foolish and misguided to minimize the ingenuity of his plan and the creativity that has gone into providing us with roses we can easily integrate into our gardens. One can denigrate the cottage garden look but it comes closest to what nature itself creates and for that reason, and many others, not the least of which is its beauty, it will never be "dated" for me. (Besides, I loathe bright orange and blinding red roses, no matter how many they throw at me).

Ingrid

P.S. Oh dear, Teutonic? Should I be offended since I'm of German descent? No, since the Autobahn comment is just too funny. Also, I have scant knowledge of or use for "those" roses in Southern California.

My two cents... I definitely agree that shrub form is very important, so that's one reason DA roses are popular. But also, the availability is a huge factor. I know people that grow them and don't even know what a DA is, they just saw a bunch of roses at a nursery and picked all the ones they liked - mixing floribundas, HT's, polyanthas, and DA's in the shopping cart and plunking them all down in their gardens. Good for them I say, as I research every purchase extensively and probably don't have any better or worse luck.

I have found this thread interesting in a number of ways. Unfortunately, I remain undecided about the health of some older cultivars and I am not really happy to accept anecdotal opinion, especially from a group who are pre-disposed to have a definate bias. This is not to say I have a clear opinion yet of my own so please, please elaborate on this issue - objectively if possible.The politics of rose breeding has also eluded me in the past so I was interested to hear Jon's account - I am aware that rose growing has been through some major reversals and the horticutural worlds in general in the UK has been exclusive, class-bound and narrow-minded. I should also add that I forgot to mention buying Falstaff and Wild Edric so with my 6 DA's (rather than my measly 2 other non-DAs I have bought this year) I believe I am giving DA roses a fair chance in my garden. I am especially keen on the overall growth of the plant, shape, foliage and health having come at hybrid roses from the other side I still yearn for the fluid gracile habits of the wild roses of my youth. Finally, I live in a spectacularly ugly 1960's house - I would never be so crass as to attempt a recreation of some rural idyll and consequently, am not opposed to some modern roses - may I mention 'cocktail' which I think is just a flirt! I simply had not really heard of the concept of 'enabling' until I came back to this forum (I swear it was not is such common usage 7/8 years ago)so I probably won't be deserting AR and going over to the dark side but do carry on carrying on as I am having the time of my life as I suspect most of my friends would rather cut their thumbs off with rusty secateurs than be forced to endure more 'conversation' from me.

Campanula, I adore Cocktail. It absolutely does not belong in my garden, or any garden I am ever likely to grow, but it is a dazzling, humorous, eye-catching and throughly enjoyable rose. I always smile with genuine delight when I see it.

I am not at all opposed to modern roses. They definitely have their place. I don't consider them the enemy. It is just that my personal taste is for the old roses, and those modern roses that closely resemble old roses. In that area, Austin does it better than most. (Although I think that the 1991 McGredy floribunda 'Old Port' would fit nicely with these.)

Rosefolly

Autobahn roses - I brought it up because I thought it was a pretty witty comment. Look, I'm not offended, and I am actually German. Kordes roses certainly have their place, but I'm not a big fan of them. Rose nationalism doesn't affect me, thank goodness.

Andrea

There are modern roses I love and modern roses I think are really ugly.

There are old roses I love and old roses I think are really ugly.

To each his own.

I am in awe of all of you. You are simply wonderful, and this forum is wonderful for all the knowledge and wisdom it shares around the world. I am now more enabled than I was at the start and moved to support DA with at least one of his creations - hopefully. It's amazing what perspective can do to a subject. Other threads on this topic have been decidedly jaded. I wouldn't say this post is exactly sympathetic, but it has allowed you to express the truthful reasons for growing DA's roses, resulting in a great thread. Thanks, Campanula, for asking the question. All we can do is grow what pleases us, and so many of you are pleased with David Austin.

Sherry

campanula, in regard to your continued doubts about the health of old roses, one thing you might keep in mind is that the old roses are divided into many classes and have their origins in different countries and even different continents. It would make sense that a rose that hails from a hot, dry climate would do well in Australia, California or Texas, but would very likely be a dud in moist, temperate England. Conversely, a rugosa from northern Japan may not be the ideal rose for my back yard, where you could almost fry eggs on the boulders in the summer. There are rose growers in the humid southern states who must spray poisons incessantly in order to grow the roses of their choice. It would be much better if they grew the roses that liked their conditions, but that's really another topic altogether. I can't grow gallicas and albas because I lack the necessary chill factor. Thusly, to lump all old roses together would be a mistake because the health and welfare of the different groups are so climate-dependent. The roses Jeri mentions are very tough and long-lived in that particular environment, and this is not anecdotal but a matter of long observation by many rosarions who have collected these roses. Notice, however, that these are teas, chinas and noisettes. I don't recall an incredible alba, centifolia or gallica being mentioned as one of those old cemetery roses. On the other hand, there are European roses such as these that have thrived in cooler English and Europen locations for an equally long time. To quote Jeri: "location, location, location". That is what makes or breaks the old roses. However, try to plunk down a modern hybrid tea or floribunda in any location without human intervention, and most of them will be as dead as a doornail in five to twenty years, if not sooner.

Ingrid

I love the Romanticas. They are highly fragrant, and I love the old-fashioned bloom forms. Eden, Red Eden, Comtesse de Provence (stupidly renamed as "Liv Tyler"), Abbaye de Cluny, Auguste Renoir, Francois Rabelais, Guy de Maupassant, Yves Piaget, Sweet Promise, etc.) are all beautiful roses and thrive well in my dry California garden. I'm an equal opportunity rose addict and do not really pay attention to things like bush shape, bloom form, etc. I plant the Romanticas in my ogr garden. Because I grow primarily lanky and odd looking HP's and bourbons, mixing in the Romanticas does not pose a problem. Of course, others may disagree, but it's my garden after all.

Jeff

I love and own a few Austins Pretty Jessica, Pat Austin and Eglantyne. I'm only annoyed when and entire section of a rose garden is dug up and established old garden ross are removed to create an Austin section. There were several OGR roses that there was only 1 example of in NY and they are gone.
I do enjoy the Generosas though I wish they were more available in the US Ihave Paul Bocuse and I gave away Versigny i'd like to get my hands on Dino de Laurentis.

Hear, hear, Jon! Thank you for an informative point of view, background to the discussion we are having.

Pioneers are often scorned by the people whose assumptions they turn upside down. It is a pity that they are also often dismissed by those who take the results of their efforts for granted.

I can think of some parallels outside the gardening world.

Rosefolly

Jon, I think many of us love DA's roses, and honor him as one of the great breeders of the 20thC while still deploring some of his more hardnosed business practices.

Of those, there are principally two which have dismayed many of his American fans. We are not pleased that he is so anxious to discard his earlier (read, out of patent) varieties in favor of the new. The American market is so large that surely there is room for the new and for older favorites. In addition, his habit of trademarking NAMES of his roses has opened the door to some truly ugly business practices. I will not name the well known old rose nursery which imports Harkness roses, renames them, and trademarks the new names. Suffice it to say that I am extremely reluctant to order from that particular nursery. A look at some of the older Austin varieties on HMF will show other fake names under those OOP roses are now being marketed. Kudos to HMF for making that information available.

I do continue to love DAs offerings, those which can be grown in my climate. My experience with so called Romanticas has been dismal. The only one I have kept, and it is one of my favorites of all roses, is the climber or small tree in my yard, Polka.

Cass,
The exploding plant comment made my day! Thank you for the unexpected laugh! I like DA plants, I never pass one up, unless I have it already. I try every type of rose, pretty much. I think it is a lot of marketing, though we do not see many Austins come up at the local stores besides Abe Darby. We see 100 knockouts for every Austin. I have a few Romanticas and I find them on par with DA in my climate.
Regards,
Andrew Grover

I'm bad as I have not read most of the above posts.

But isn't the main point that Austin's are modern roses while the object of the Antique forum is to keep some attention on the OGR's lest they be totally forgotten?

It should have nothing to do with the merits of Austin's! Why shouldn't my own favorite, Kordes roses, be selected and included? Many famous rose breeders have commented that Kordes, Wilhelm and Reiner, were the greatest breeders of their time. Which I personally salute as they have contributed so many great roses of all types, from singles to Austin style, some of which preceded them, to once bloomers, hardy roses. in other words all sorts not just the narrow range of DA's.

And besides all 9 I planted died.

Hey Jim,

I very much suggest you read the original poster's query and some of the above replies, especially the one given by Jon in Wessex.

In short: unlike Austin, Kordes especially has not been known to pioneer and promote newly bred roses that display a lot of OGR qualities - very very much to the contrary. Kordes roses have been and still are the epitome of 'classic style' modern roses, and as such they have no business being included in the Antique Roses Forum, with the exception of the few romantic roses they've recently bred to latch onto DA's amazing success.

What we're talking about is why DA's roses should be included in the Antique Forum, and how the follow-up, or copy-cat romantic roses by other breeders, especially the French (Meilland and Guillot) compare to the Austins. Feel free to chip in about Kordes' romantic line of roses. I mentioned them in my reply. However, the forum for modern-style Kordes, i.e. nearly all of them, is the general Rose Forum, and nobody would ever question this. Makes sense?

To make things easier for you, I'm copying Jon's most informative contribution to our discussion from above into this post:

* Posted by jon_in_wessex z8/9 UK (My Page) on
Sat, Jan 23, 10 at 5:15

" The 'where do they belong' question goes many decades further back in England than in the US, which is why I sometimes get snitty with the deja-vu aspect of it.

In the 50's, 60's and 70's the Royal National Rose Society was the biggest horticultural society in the world - both in membership and marketing influence. The society was dominated by the British Rose Breeders - Harkness, Cant, Dickson, Fryer, Bees, Lowe's, McCredy's, Bides's, Wheatcroft, Murrell, Mattock, Gregory, etc, etc, and their product - yearly offerings of disposable HT's and Floribundas - filled all the gardens of England with wall-to wall bedding.

I'm sure most of these gentlemen had a nostalgic appreciation of Old Fashioned Roses, but it was never allowed to get in the way of their sales, or of guiding public taste through the Rose Annual and the network of Rose Societies. Older member of the ARS might recognise the situation.

We all know the story of David Austin's wish to use his private collection of Old Roses to breed a new class of modern roses. What most don't know is the fight he had to gain any acceptance from the guardians of the rose world for his efforts, most of which were treated with scorn and derision. At that time he was just a small farmer with no 'nursery' of his own, no 'marketing', and reliant on others like Graham Thomas' Sunningdale to introduce his roses.

During the '70's and 80's as it became apparent that Austin's early 'English' roses - especially the Chaucer and Shakespearean-named series - were gaining public popularity through direct sales and the appreciation of major figures in the UK horticultural world, the scorn began to turn to fear, and then we started seeing some of the 'copycat' roses from other breeders. These were well-described at the time as 'failed floribunda cultivars' with too many petals.

Austin's success, together with the renewed interest in Old Roses which he and Thomas both promoted heavily (Austin is also the largest supplier of Old Roses in the UK) came at a time when there was a large decline in the public interest in bedding roses and a consequent decline into almost nothing of the RNRS, not helped by financial scandals and almost criminal mismanagement.

Austin capitalised on the decline of the HT growers. I think he was always forced to be a 'loner', a maverick, excluded from the rose aristocracy, and that may have made him build a far tougher and more outward-looking business.

I hope this bit of history goes some way to explain why Austin is well-placed in discussions of Old Roses. That is his birthright, and it is the Old Roses that provide his ideals of beauty, form and fragrance. In his own country he was excluded from the world of 'modern roses'. I find his roses - well chosen and in moderation - fit very well into the gardens I love, even if that cottage-y style is thought passe by some. At the same time, he has not been afraid to try to provide roses that don't fit that 'English' style, but work very well in the noisier type of modern plantings -the sharp yellows, the salmons and oranges.

As to the roses themselves - the blooms are usually beautiful, we can take that for granted. I am delighted to see people recognising the real importance of foliage and form. These are the things that give the grace to Old Roses, and the best of the Austin's have them, too. That's why they work so well together. The worst are gawky, upright with leathery, shiny, Teutonic foliage, and probably won't survive the test of time.

Best wishes
Jon "

------
Have a good day,
Andrea

Hummmm this is going to sound snotty..maybe I just don't get it..but with so many people dying in Haiti is it that important where Austins are in the overall Antique world of roses?

I buy what I like and I don't care if it's old or young, or whatever. This seems trivial to me and I would rather work in the garden than stress over it

No, not snotty. But, please forgive me, perhaps a bit naive.

Either your argument is about the importance of the Haiti relief effort which by your logic would not only render this thread and your post, but the entire GW (who cares about such trivial garden discussions) and all other non-Haiti related and non-vital activities unimportant and distracting. This, dare I say, includes very much your work in your garden (as in trivial pasttime).

Or this is perhaps rather about the fact that you don't find the history and present of breeding and its consequences for modern gardening and the marketplace terribly important? I have absolutely no problem with this second argument, which I assume, your post is really about.

I hope you donated some money and/or time to the relief effort, like I'm sure, quite a few of us here have already done and will do.

On that note,

Happy gardening and happy humanitarian helping!
Andrea

All David Austin has done is add beauty to this world, by way of his flowers. He has also sparked interest in the old garden and antique roses. Nobody is forcing me to buy his roses. I buy them because they are lovely to me. If a few did not work out for me, I don't harbor resentment towards David Austin and start a campaign against his roses. We are lucky to have him in our gardening world.

Juliet

Goodness, Jim - I thought you were dead! Glad to see that is only partly true :)

Time was, just the merest sniff of the word 'David' would have you out of your kennel like a rabid bloodhound, proudly telling us about all the roses you've managed to kill, and extolling the virtues of Papa Wilhelm's creations which managed to survive slightly longer.

Good to see you here, again :)

Best wishes
Jon

"All David Austin has done is add beauty to this world"

Amen, Sistah!

To Jon: "Oh Sir, a palpable hit!" (Sorry, I read Regency novels sometimes.)

Ingrid

Rose sitting in my "morning coffee chair" - to the left in the vase is Grande Amore, behind is Let Freedom Ring, to the right is Lady of Megginch.

{{gwi:225161}}

Still the question remains unaswered, how come the output of one breeders' modern roses are included with OGR's to the exclusion of the rest of the world or rose breeders. Forget about Kordes what about Meilland surely outstanding! No amount of fawning over DA's roses will change that! Nor comments about K's lack of "pioneering" when they brought Kordesii roses to the world. How unique is that. Basically a new species of roses that are noted for their hardiness and disease resistant foliage. A valuable contribution and well appreciated by Canadian breedres for use in the Explorer series.

Jon I couldn't resist springing on my prey as it slunk across my kennel door!

hello Jim, actually, my query was not simply why Austin roses are included in this forum while others are not - I believe we have had this debate on an earlier thread, I was merely pondering, as a newish rose lover, what it was in DA roses that made them especially loved. I feel that I have had a comprehensive answer to this inasmuch as the phenomenal popularity of DA roses rests less on his marketing and publicity than on the all round loveliness of the bushes themselves. I, like many others, value this forum because I feel that I am engaging with other gardeners who have no other agenda than a love of this most beautiful flower - ie. no-one is pushing a particular type of rose for their own material profit or intellectual superiority. I do not have unlimited funds so when I am buying a rose, I believe that word -of-mouth is by far the best recommendation which is also why I am less inclined to be swayed by fabulous photos in glossy catalogues (DA has an unbelievably opulent and gorgeous catalogue but....)
So, thank you very much for responding to my query and lets hope that any sniping or bitterness is now ended as this was never my intention.

I bought Heritage in the mid 80's - having seen it in flower. At the time, and for years after, I had no idea who David Austin was.

I love my Austins

Campanula - I'm just an old curmudgeon. Griping about a minor fault in GW. I'm sure it is just something to do with a leg up for DA over his competitors. Maybe he paid for the inclusion just as Google advertisers do to get the pole position on any subject.

Sour grapes on my part as I am unable to praise the merits of them as they don't grow for me. My garden should be a test site for potential new roses!

going back over this thread, reading andrea's reports of rose health - moment of recognition with New Dawn - most amazing rose - Both her and Jaques Cartier refuse to die despite cavalier treatment from me. Poor old JC still lives in a pot after 8 years - not sure whether I have even ever top dressed it! There is a massive one at my allotment site (about 3m x 3m) which has had no care at all for 7 years! Bboy mentioned the declining health of many species within the rosaceae family and their capacity to increase their viral load. This has been my understanding that, at least when propagating, the mother material must have juvenility; using old material has a significantly reduced chance of success. Whether this applies over successive generations, I could not say. Otoh, could the age of older roses give increased immunity to other diseases which would devastate a modern rose? I realise I do not have much of a grasp of biology and plant science but I am interested to hear scientific debate concerning longevity and health - while taking on board that garden circumstances vary too much to give definative assurances. I guess the only real test is suck it and see.

These are all interesting topics, Suzy, and I'm sure we can talk about these too.

In the meantime, here's the reason why I love Austins - this is our house in North Carolina in May 2006, 3rd or 4th season for these plants. All are Austins except for the climbers. In September, we moved to the UK.

{{gwi:224160}}

Andrea

Andrea, how lovely your front yard was in that home. You should have sold that house to me. I would of bought it in a heartbeat after seeing those roses. Am I seeing WS2000, AD and Molineux? Please post photo's from your English garden when possible. Thank You!

Juliet

What an INCREDIBLE rose garden! Truly a garden grown with much love and hard work.

Sandy

goodness, andrea, leaving that behind must have been a bit of a wrench. Are you one of cambridges wandering academics? I am really interested to hear how long people spend making a garden and how quickly it starts to look mature or at least well furnished. Although I am in my 7th or 8th season on the allotment, it looks rubbish because i have been in the habit of trying out different things, especially before recommending any ideas to my customers. So, i have had an alpine garden,(OK) a scree garden,(hmmm) a gravel garden,(great, low maintenance) a wildflower meadow,(mainly ox-eye daisies) a 'californian meadow'(disastrous), a foliage jungle (snail food) and so on. Mostly, it all gets pulled out and plants redistributed around but i am now getting fed up with it and settling down to grow fruit and roses. Inspire us; i second le jardin's request for some pics of your garden in the UK.

Andrea, I have young roses in the front yard that I have selected for shorter height because my DH didn't want the house hidden. I emailed him your front yard photo. Guess what? He LIKED it. NOW he tells me!!! Well, you know how teas are. They'll probably be taller anyway. If mine ever looks half as beautiful as yours, I'll be in heaven!!!

Sherry

Juliet, this is so sweet of you! I had indeed WS 2000 planted in the front yard, but you can't see it on this photo because it sits all way to the right/back (next to our drive way, so I could see and smell it when I came home!) The deep cerise roses you see are 3 Othellos, two in the middle and one all way to the left. And yes, there are 3 Molineux, and Abraham Darby is 'hiding' slightly to the left behind the 3 Tamoras at the front left (they were about 3 ft tall, and AD about 6, but it doesn't show on this photo for some reason). They were too close in color, but it looked alright in the end with all the other colors around them.

Many thanks, Sandy. You are absolutely right. This was certainly a lot of work, especially the spraying and feeding.

Thanks Suzy, yes it was a bit of a heartbreak to leave all of this this behind. What you see on this photo grew in 3 or 4 seasons only. The clay soil was very fertile, and I used a lot of organic and inorganic fertilizers throughout the seaon, including one or two treatments with alfalfa (lupine) tea, which always worked wonders. I managed to sell all but the climbers, one Abraham Darby and Reine des Violettes in the backyard which did not want to come out of the ground, and I sold all of the roses on the right side of the house (not on this pic), in total way over a hundred plants, plus a few of the roses from the front yard, but I left most of those in place. From what I've heard, the new people took out a few of the front yard roses and don't take care of the rest. That's how it usually goes, I guess. Pity.

And yes, I am "one of Cambridge's wandering academics." We've just moved house this fall for the second time in three years (within Cambridge), and we don't know where we'll be come this fall, it all depends on my job. Needless to say, our garden does not compare to what we had in America, it has barely been planted yet (most roses still waiting in pots)! I'm impressed by your many garden styles, and it would be nice to learn more, also to ameliorate my rose fixation. But I'd be happy to share more info on roses.

Sherry, that's nice to hear! I have to admit that I had no clue that the Austins would get so big so fast when I first planted them. The grass had essentially disappeared by the time we left, as you can see on the pic. I bet your teas will get big, too. Which ones did you get?

Andrea

Andrea, in the front garden I have Bermuda's Anna Olivier, Enchantress, Mrs Dudley Cross, M. Tillier, Mme Lombard (coming) on the side away from the front door so they can get tall and big (and Perle d'Or and SdlM.) On the side in front of the door right now I have Mme Abel Chatenay (an early HT), Souv de Francois Gaulain, Jean Bach Sisley, 3 Hermosas, 2 Clotilde Souperts, Sally Holmes on an arbor, and I think I'm going to add Mystic Beauty and either Souv d'Elisa Vardon or Mme Antoine Mari. Oh, and Le Vesuve in the middle of the circle. And no Austins.

Sherry

Sherry, this sounds like an exquisite collection. Are they own root or grafted on Fortuniana? Among those you've mentioned, I grew SdlM (grafted on Multiflora), Bermuda's Anna Olivier (own root), Clotilde Soupert (own root) and Monsieur Tillier (Multi) in the US, and SdlM again here in the UK. They all stayed relatively short, unlike those Dr. Huey grafted Austins that took off like rockets. I think that Clotilde and SdlM especially are terrific roses in terms of looks, performance and health, although Clotilde tended to ball a little more than I liked, SdlM not so much, not even here in England.

Enjoy!
Andrea