"tolerate" is not the same as "thrive". Roses are sun-lovers, give them sun, 6 hrs for the full growing season.

You want to fill a prime focal point spot in your garden, put something there that is really going to thrive and look stunning, not something that is going to struggle and look so-so at best. Why not put in a plant with beautiful foliage? Not every spot in the garden is appropriate for a rose.

You've just had one growing season with roses, see how they do for a few years before adding more. The first year they tend not to have the diseases they may later develop.

Oops. Here are the June blooms after the April flush.
{{gwi:211883}}
Kathy

Hello Hoovb and Kathy,

Thanks so much for your responses. I'm a slow decider...

so I haven't decided yet on Ingrid Bergman.

The main thing slowing me down is the large area in which to switch rose possibilities around in, and imagining so very many different combinations of colors and plant forms on the roses to mix in with the other plants that will also be new, plus the majority of other plants that are already there. In a way, it's like decorating a room, but outdoors, and except, of course, the "furniture" that I'm moving around exists only in my mind at this point, so it moves, uh, really easily... I'm enjoying this!

Hoov, there are plenty of plants other than roses in our yard, so a disappointment on an Ingrid Bergman would be rather insignificant. If the Ingrid Bergman doesn't do well, the nearby large gumpo azaleas will just grow more sideways into her spot once she stops taking their sunlight. The potential Ingrid Bergman area is actually already a very nice area overall; the roses will just be a big plus.

Kathy, your pictures are gorgeous!

Thanks,
Mary

P.S. For anyone in a warm enough zone for gumpo azaleas, it makes a wonderful plan to plant gumpos *very* close to a rose, forming a foundation covering for the ground under the rose and separating it from a major source of blackspot infection. No noticeable blackspot where that has been done here and the combination of looks is terrific. I'm enclosing a link so you can see what the combination looks like.

Here is a link that might be useful: Fragrant Wave rose with gumbo azaleas nearby

just thinking... you can try a camellia or gardenia for that shady spot if the roses don't like it. I don't know a whole lot about hydrangeas but if you don't water regularly that most likely wouldn't work.

Mary,

I hesitate to be the contrarian here, but I'm compelled to offer my 2 cents regarding your most recent post above. IMHO, if evergreen azaleas and roses are used as companion plants, one of the two will certainly perform at LESS than full potential. As gardeners, I believe we need to provide first for the innate, most basic needs of our plants. A rose struggling to hang on in a too-shady location, or an azalea gasping in a sunny spot that would be ideal for the rose seems pointless to me. Most of us 'push' zones and take risks, but close commingling of roses with azaleas (or most other members of the rhododendron family) is, I feel, a prescription for frustration.

The rose/azalea combination may work in your garden. My intent is simply to state for the benefit of others here that some gardeners embrace an opposing point of view on the matter.

Growing2010, I am crazy about camellias, and we are buying a bunch of nice new large ones right now. I want to try gardenias too, though I've not done enough thinking on where to put them yet. I once lived in a house with a gardenia by the front door, and the memory there is wonderful. We have an area of our yard that abuts a clearing in the neighbor's backyard, and are planning more development of that area eventually, so we do have another reasonably sunny area to look forward to planting (soon?). But this area isn't near the door. I'd love to have a gardenia where I could easily smell it often.

If we end up planting hydrangeas, we'd have to keep them watered, I know. But my grandfather had them, and that's a really good memory too! So... eventually I hope we'll find a spot for one or two or three to try. We have been in this yard for a very long time, but there's still so many wonderful plants to want to try.

Windeaux, don't hesitate to tell me what you think. If I weren't interested in others' opinions, I'd not bother posting.

The point you make is certainly not illegitimate, and theoretically makes a whole lot of sense. It's one I've tossed around in my own mind for, oh, maybe the last 40 years or so. I've come down on the side of "Try it; see whether it _might_ work." I've experienced too many things in life overall, gardening included, where what will theoretically work or not work doesn't always come out that way in practice. Details can make a difference.

For sure I've had good luck thus far in the gumpo azalea/rose combination. The two roses I've done that with like it, and better than those roses that don't have that situation (but those other roses also did reasonably well, offering lots of blooms to bring into the house). The site is more iffy for roses than ideal, that's for sure. Still, eventually I'll find what works there and what doesn't. If _no_ roses do well there, I'll figure that out, though it seems highly unlikely at this point. I've already had some good luck with some roses that aren't even supposed to have shade tolerance, so I've a mind to stick with roses for awhile. I'll be paying special attention to those varieties that others have found shade tolerance in.

The site is a bit iffy for many plants in the azalea/rhododendron/camellia family. Still, there are many varieties that work, and work quite well. I've discovered that those rhododendrons that have ended up doing well in that spot happen to be those on lists of those varieties tolerating more sun and heat than many rhododendrons. When it works, it really works, and makes me glad that I tried them there.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, please see a picture of rhododendron 'Mother of Pearl' in our yard as it existed five years ago (before a car ran off the road into our yard last fall and destroyed that rhododendron, along with many other plants):

http://www.peterbealesroses.com/forum/img/gallery/906_1265501563.jpg

Not shown in this photo, but near there now, there's a very healthy camellia covered in buds. It's in too much sun for many camellias, but this one happens to be a sun-tolerant variety. This is a part of the area to be planted with, among other things, roses.

I haven't figured out a way to explain why the gumpo azaleas have done so well there; theoretically they aren't thriving at all! But they are! And they are a joy to have in the landscape. They reward us with a lovely carpet of tiny green leaves all year around, with the bloom period a definite plus.

My conclusions thus far: that the spot is too sunny to be ideal for the general type of plants that we have there, and too shady for roses in general too. But varieties can make a big difference with those plants that I know something about from experience. And I'm guessing that that generality will hold up for roses, as well.

One other thought about the plant site: you can't tell it from the photo, but the dirt and its elevation/drainage is much better than might be typical. And it has never had ordinary gardening chemicals applied to it anywhere. (Well, I just remembered using some superphosphate about 38 years ago, but I learned better than to use chemical fertilizers pretty quickly.) I think really good soil can help plants to do as well as they can do.

Best wishes,
Mary

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:224308}}

Although I like Ingrid, I don't think she would do well in a no-spray situation.

You might want to consider Traviata. I spray so I'm not sure how it would do no-spray but it's not a BS magnet so it might get by.

But more important is it will do well, I believe, under your conditions. i have 3, 2 in full sun, 1 under an Oak. This one is never in full sun. My plants in full sun are about 10 x 6 and have about 4 flushes/year. The one under the oak is about 6x4, blooms about half as much but looks pretty healthy.

Here is a link that might be useful: Traviata

Ingrid Bergman will work in a partially shaded spot but not in conjunction with a no-spray garden. To use your words it will " reliably completely defoliate" due to blackspot.

You can make it work there if you spray, especially if you use the Bayer Advanced Disease Control for Roses, Flowers, and Shrubs.

I am lucky to have saved mine which is in such a spot and did, in fact, completely defoliate. It took several summers to recover fully and never would have made it without spraying.

Good luck...

Thanks very much to all for your thoughts and information. I've decided against trying Ingrid Bergman in this planting area. Perhaps I might try your lovely Traviata, Dennis, when we get around to developing the rose garden spot near our vegetable garden. The strong fragrance sounds wonderful! I'm also thinking of Pope John Paul II for that spot; the two might look nice near each other.

I'm primarily interested in non-HT roses, though. And I guess that's a good thing, given our situation in this spot and the intention not to use sprays! Anyway, I have a General Schablikine there now and will be getting two more, so there will be a good dash of bright color to join the pinks and a few yellows. And the more I think about it, the more uncertain I am as to the way the two different reddish colors of the General and Ingrid Bergman would look in the vicinity of one another, even if Ingrid were totally healthy and happy. I think I probably have averted a big mistake, in more ways than one. Thank you again!

Best wishes,
Mary

carolinamary,
A couple of points since I don't have a good sniffer, I can't vouch for Traviata's fragrance.

I have JPII but only for a couple of years. While I like it so far I doubt it will come near Traviata's size. So just keep that in mind when planning your bed.

Dennis, thank you so much for this information. I'd never have guessed that from the HMF site, but that's exactly what I'll need to know when we get around to doing that other area. Size descriptions (in addition to everything else!) do so often vary from what you read on a website, don't they?

We were going to get started on that garden site last year for roses, and with one thing and another, didn't get that done. Now, it will be a good while. We are redoing another area where a car ran off the road, destroying a noticeable swath of our front yard, and redoing that is a huge project that might take all year to get done. The roses are all ordered for it now, though, and I'm so excited about getting it done! (And the rabbits and deer are probably looking forward to those yummies, too... ;) )

Best wishes,
Mary

Dear Mary;
I have 2 Ingrid Bergmans for the past 3 years. One has not had a wist of BS the second one has had a tad. I do not spray. However, both are in full sun. I'm not sure that the bush is vigorous enough to overcome some shade.
A suggestion for how to locate shade and disease resistant roses. I visit the Rogue Valley Nursery website. On the lower left is options to search for disease resistance and shade tolerant. I recently did just that and have decided to try Abraham Darby, while I dont expect this rose to be totally disease free it is resistant.
Hope that helps.
Jeannie

Hi Jeannie,

It's so good to hear of growers' experiences. Thanks so much! I'm far from deciding anything about that other sunnier garden area, but might still consider Ingrid Bergman then.

Thanks also for the Rogue Valley website information. I was familiar with it, but it's so good for everyone to hear about it! I do think Rogue Valley has an excellent web site and one that gives me some confidence that I know what I'm getting before ordering. Lots of information on every rose, just as if you were asking everything you need to know before deciding on a rose.

Rogue Valley has such a good website in so many ways. And when placing an order there the other day, Janet said that they were working on improving it! The one negative--the lack of a quick way to simply search on a single rose name--is going to be fixed within the next few months. They've already hired a programmer to do it. And they might be able to make the site load a little more quickly too.

Another vendor website that has been very helpful has been the Antique Rose Emporium's site. You can click on a list of shade tolerant roses at the bottom of the homepage. It's not as discriminating as the Rogue Valley site and doesn't repeat that tidbit once you get to the rose's individual page, but it's still quite helpful.

The best homepage information as to shade tolerant varieties is at the Woodland Rose Garden website:

http://www.woodlandrosegarden.com/rose/shade1.htm

Thanks again for your information, Jeannie!
Mary

I really like this rose but it is definitely NOT BS resistant for me.

CarolinaMary,

I like the way you think. You should experiment and see what works and what doesn't in your garden and for your needs. This is often half the fun of gardening and roses and plants in general, not to mention the environmental interactions they grow in, are complex and different enough that generalities such as, 'must have 6 hours sunlight to thrive' are not always applicable. It may be accepted wisdom for the majority of roses, but it is certainly not true for all.

Too much of 'accepted' gardening lore is simply tradition and routine which has then been passed down as accepted de facto rules. While there is a valid reason for these traditions, if they were indeed always true, nothing would ever advance because people would never try new things and push new envelopes. Imagine a world with no advancement in cultivation and breeding and where everyone believed the same thing. It is not a world I would wish to live in frankly and it explains a lot on the sad state of most rose societies around the world.

Are you adamant that you must have an HT in this spot? Many Polyantha's, OGR's and shrub roses will still thrive on less than 6 hours of direct sulight and some will even reward you more for not having them in sun all day where they will have diminished flower output.

If you are adamant on wanting a red HT, there are better choices for health in a no-spray garden. I love Ingrid Bergman and it a classic which has better resistance than most HT's, but it does still BS by end of season and it has been superceded by better varieties in disease resistance terms.

For instance, Royal William is a very similiar red HT with stronger growth, better flower production and a higher resistance to BS, mildew and rust.

Another red HT, which is more of a bright red vs. the dark red of Ingrid Bergman is Grande Amore 2004. It won an ADR award in 2005 for disease resistance, which is a rarity for an HT, and has been entirely free of disease in the east coast of Canada which has intense BS pressure. I realize our climates are different, but it is one you may want to look at, if not for this position in your garden, then perhaps another area where you wish to make a floriferous, bold and bright statement. It is entirely suitable to be grown in a no-spray garden.

Good luck in your search.

Dennis, I appreciate this information. No Abe Darby for this spot!

Morden, I appreciate your thoughts.

About Royal William, I've been noticing that one for a long time. It sounds so good at HMF! It's hard to figure why it's not more widely available someplace that might sell it ownroot here. I'll save the information on Grande Amore too--it sounds wonderful! Thanks so much!

I'm not at all decided that we simply must have some HT's, though my huband particularly likes that bloom form. But this year's orders are completely finished now, and the closest to a HT that we will have is one Belinda's Dream. Its bloom form looks to me very much like a HT, and this should make my husband happy. I did see one place mentioning that Belinda's Dream will take a little shade, so we'll see how it does no-spray in its spot. For me, I nearly faint every time I see a picture of "Mrs. Dudley Cross" blooms and I'm expecting my husband to really like that one too, when it gets around to blooming here. (Have one and ordered some more of that one. Its beautiful plant form and foliage are a big plus. Lights go off in my head every time I visualize how beautiful it is going to look in the landscape!)

I'll skip a complete discussion of the roses on order but you'd probably be delighted to see the disporportionate number of OGR's, teas, polyanthas, and hybrid musks. I am heavily disposed toward roses that managed to get along reasonably well before the advent of heavy chemical use.

==Skip the following rose society thoughts if you are not into LONG reading!==

The decline of rose societies is a huge and complicated topic and one I'm not qualified to spout off about. I do have a few thoughts, just the same... :) I doubt that the decline is the result of one single facet of modern life, but more of a conglomeration of trends. Some of the influences are probably things you can't do anything about.

The trend that perhaps you (generic "you") can do something about would be the widespread belief that roses are so difficult to grow. This is going on my second year with roses so I can't holler adamantly that I know differently from experience. However, it makes intuitive sense to me that roses couldn't necessarily be all that difficult to grow, or we wouldn't still have roses around in the world anywhere. After all, it's only in the last century that we've had all those chemicals that seem so necessary nowadays for so many roses. And lots of early rose hybrids that have been found have survived just fine on their own with zero care.

To me, the job for a new rose person is to discover those varieties that have not been so hybridized and selected that they need something so unnatural as dangerous chemicals in order to thrive, as well as discovering those varieties suited to the local microclimate and site conditions. I don't expect all rose choices to succeed here in less than perfect conditions, but I'd be surprised if they all failed too. We're having some success, as long as "success" isn't defined as absolute perfection in every leaf and bloom. The perfection standard is more for competition, and nothing that matters to us.

So I think local rose societies need to appeal to prospective new rose people to join their ranks by offering friendly help towards those discoveries of good-grower varieties, help that is difficult to come by through any other means. Local societies need to expand the base of local knowledge of varieties that prosper in a no-spray yard, tell what conditions they are thriving under, and make that knowledge easily accessible. Rose show competitions are enjoyable for many but are probably less important in expanding the base of rose growers in general, because there are relatively only a few who are going to get into flower competitions, big time. But the base numbers needed to find enough people interested in joining rose societies are so much greater than that. Downplaying the emphasis on flower competitions as a very important rose society activity might be good idea, as that is not what is on the mind of someone in the initial stages of deciding whether to plant a rose or not and then whether they ought to join a rose society.

Not to mean not to have rose competitions... But I'd suggest rethinking those a bit too, maybe by setting up tables at the local shopping mall, with as many tables as possible with a large sign on them that says, "All these roses have been grown without the use of inorganic chemicals." Nevermind that the rose leaves are going to show a few imperfections; the passers-by who might think of growing roses as a result of seeing the displays aren't looking for or expecting something unnaturally perfect. The big sign would update what they think they know about roses and would draw them in for a closer look.

In my view, a primary mission for a local rose society, if it really wants to thrive and expand, would be an educational mission so that more people could get started with roses and feel comfortable about it. The public education would not primarily be based on an assumption of the needs of all those HT's that were hybridized before anyone started to think much beyond the goal of the beauty and cutting of the blooms, but based on the assumption of plants that will likely have overall success in the local landscape without becoming a burden to the new rose grower.

If you take any gardener who isn't yet into roses, and simply ask them whether they want to take up a hobby that is going to involve spraying around poisonous chemicals, maybe even to the point of having to take a shower in a hurry afterwards, or suiting up, or anything even mildly in that direction... well, it seems obvious to me that you're not going to be attracting a whole lot of flower lovers to keep the ranks of rose societies filled up. If you mainly wanted to get into pesticides, you'd probably be busy holding down a job in a pesticide company instead of getting your hands in the dirt and enjoying nature.

I've more than once seen advice relevant to blackspot as to how important it is to pick up every fallen leaf before the new leaves start to come on in the spring. I suppose this is picking up the leaves one-by-one? And if anyone has more than a young rose or two, I suppose this could amount to thousands of fallen leaves to pick up? Does that kind of necessity for success sound like something to attract new rose growers? To put it mildly, we have no intention of doing all those kinds of things here. Of course, it's not a bad thing to share what rose society members know about handling a problem when and if it does arise to an alarming degree, but the most important thing to begin with--if what you want to do is to promote the numbers of persons interested in growing roses--ought to be to share what you know about choosing varieties that will succeed without those kinds of worries.

The friendly help that local rose societies ought to be offering in today's fast-moving world ought also to include local society websites that are extraordinarily well-designed and carrying huge amounts of information, from both the local and the national levels. And always, it would be the most helpful to have forums for the participation of those who join, places where a member could post an interest in getting started with, say, the variety "Prosperity", and later see someone else posting that the variety was blooming right now in their yard and to call about coming over to see it. Rose chats nowadays ought not to be waiting until the next Rose Society meeting to take place.

I recently joined a camellia society that is maybe 250 miles from my house. They have a very good website. The local chapter effectively had no website and no easy means to quickly answer my questions regarding variety choices as they so frequently come up; as far as I know, their only activity is to host a camellia show once a year.

I know that a strong web capability is easy enough to prescribe, and lots more difficult to accomplish, especially given the degree of computer-saavy of most rose society members, who are often not youngsters, not by any means. But this is just my idea of what to try for, not what anyone has a right to expect. Anyway, I do hope that rose societies do manage to keep going, however they might need to update what they do to encourage many flower lovers to try growing roses.

As always, thanks very much for all who contribute to the rose information existing right here on the Garden Web.

Best wishes,
Mary