My tasted did indeed change - from not liking "roses" at all, to loving them once I moved into a home that had an old garden full of old roses! The upright HTs with their boring and/or harsh colors did nothing for me, especially since they seemed to be covered with disease all of the time, unless you drenched them in poison.

I was so astounded to discover that the plants growing in my new old garden were roses! They were growing up trees, over the garage, etc, etc. The lovely muted colors that were ever changing, the graceful growth habits, the exquisite blooms nodding down at me - these were magic.

I also think that the general public has become much more willing to grow roses lately, as the new healthy bush and ground cover roses have come onto the market. And some people are discovering that there are old roses that bloom all year, and are healthy. Yay!

Jackie

I also pooh-poohed roses as being blackspot magnets and too much work in my Fl. garden, even though I had gardened for years. Then I stumbled quite by accident onto the antique rose forum. Boy, was I smitten. I also have a few moderns that do well no-spray along with many OGRs. I have a garden with roses, not a rose garden, but still the roses predominate. I now consider it magical that day that I stumbled onto roses.

Ingrid, I haven't revisited a specific rose yet, but I used to dislike semi-doubles, preferring the fat ones. They were such floppy things with no substance, exposing some less than attractive stamens. I had a tea rose like that, and it made a quick exit (it's identity is in doubt.) Then I saw Souv de St Anne's in person. Boy, it rang my chimes but good. And then I got Bow Bells without really ever seeing its flowers, and wam! the same thing happened. I guess the difference is the way they hold their petals, i.e., their ability to maintain their flower shape. So tastes do change.

Sherry

Here is a link that might be useful: If only sweat were irrigation...

When I ordered our first roses, Clay said he didn't LIKE roses! I was shocked, and asked why.

He said that they looked like they'd all been to military school, and were "ugly plants with bare bottoms."

I assured him that THESE roses were different, and so they proved to be, and he's a better rosarian than I am, now. Or, maybe, between us, we make one good rosarian.

Jeri

As I've been fortunate enough to get to see more and more species roses, I've found that I simply love them! Last week I went to Eurodesert *again*, and this time brought home Rosa foetida Persiana, aka Persian Yellow. The intense yellow drew me in like a magnet when I saw it growing next to the fence. The fragrance is of linseed/flaxseed oil. Not everyone cares for it, but I do.

One of my neighbors came calling and asked me about this rose. She was quite intrigued by the different look.

My plant isn't this big. But WOW.

Here is a link that might be useful: R. foetida persiana

Yes, my tastes have changed considerably over the years -- and not only as regards roses. However, my tastes regarding "McClinton Tea" have NOT changed. I used to sing the praises of the rose on this forum, but quit doing so because my comments always fell with a deafening thud of silence (if not contempt).

What "McClinton Tea" may lack in refinement, it more than makes up for in other ways. First, it's a terrific "garden rose" -- ie, it's almost always in bloom from base to top. On close inspection, those wonderfully fragrant blooms may be hopelessly ragged, but from a distance they're wondrous to behold. In my garden, the foliage is virtually disease-free, even when I (inevitably) allow my spray program to slide. It's also important to recognize that MT is a rose that takes a while to settle in and really hit its stride. If you're not a patient gardener, then pass on MT and plant something else.

My friend Vee in Charleston (who was unceremoniously kicked off these forums years ago) once said that MT is a Tea for the mature rose connoisseur. Altho I may be 'maturing' in at least one way, I shall never attain her level of rose expertise or connoisseurship . . . I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with her assessment of "McClinton Tea".

jaxondel, I'm sure I was one of those who dissed McClinton Tea and I hope that means that I've attained a little maturity since then. My young plant does have mildew but that's pretty meaningless in this year of strange weather. I read somewhere that the most sophisticated rose connoiseurs eventually come to appreciate the single wild roses the most. For most new rosarians the bigger and fluffier the better when it comes to roses. It's only later that many of us come to appreciate the many varied forms of roses other than the fluffies. Like everything else it's a journey, one which I hope will never end for me.

Ingrid

I had read those same comments about McClinton Tea. But Gregg Lowery's description of it prompted me to make the purchase. I've had it in the ground for a couple of years now and it was being somewhat ignored to the point that a Russian Sage was over powering it. I ripped out the sage and propped up MT. It's now covered with blooms that look quite nice and old fashioned. Next to it is a Perle des Jardins which the time is running out on. What a dud.
The same thing is happening in my other garden(s). I have a good variety of roses but the teas, hybrid musks and Austins are the best for graceful form, soft colors and fragrance. They will slowly elbow the others out. Can hardly wait to get Lyda Rose in the ground.

I'm just starting out, so my tastes have changed rapidly. I never grew roses, although I loved to garden. Then I bought two HTs, St. Patrick and Henry Fonda, because we painted the house deep weathered brown and yellow looked so pretty against it. Next was floribundas (you mean they get lots of flowers?). Then climbers, polyanthas, now Austins. I was having a hard time liking Tea roses. Everyone said I should grow them here in CA, but I didn't care for the plants, the foliage, or the flowers. I believe this is already changing, though. After looking through a rose gallery online, I found I had "liked" mostly Teas!
Renee

With regard to roses my tastes haven't changed much over the years that I can recall; but they've been pretty broad-ranging right from the start. During my gardening career I have learned to love things that I started out disliking: plants with yellow-variegated foliage (not all of them, of course); euonymus; clematis, which I initially disliked because their foliage reminded me of that of the thorny common smilax of my Florida origins, which we called 'cat's claw' for good reason. I still have no desire to introduce hibiscus into my garden, or oleander, though they can both look fine under the right circumstances.

I can see from quite a few of your comments that the old roses are in a very different category from the more usual modern ones, other than some of the Austins (Sister Elizabeth, for example, looks quite old rose). I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who fell head over heels in love with the old roses at first sight. More and more for me it's the gracefulness of the bush and how the blooms are poised on the plant that are prime considerations. I think that's because it's the garden as a whole, or how it looks at some distance, that has become more important to me than just the individual bloom. That's not to say that the bloom isn't important, but now it's just one of the qualities I look for. I really liked Queen Nefertiti when it first bloomed because of the gorgeous flowers, but now the awkward and rather stiff growth habit are really beginning to bother me. She may possibly end up in a friend's garden. It seems almost inevitable that the eye becomes more discerning the longer we garden and the more we immerse ourselves in the wonders of the plant world.

Ingrid