Hear! Hear!

Jeri

Oh know, they're one of my favorites. Are they closing for personal reasons or lack of business? Just wondering why they didn't sell the business to someone else. I'm so glad I recently ordered Julie Link.

Laurie

That is sad news! They've posted a detailed explanation on their blog (see link below)

Here is a link that might be useful: Uncommon Rose Blog

Uncommon Rose was an outstanding resource - a large # of my collection came from them. I'm sorry to see them go, but understand why after reading their blog. I certainly wish them the best in their endeavors and am glad that they are still going to represent Paul Barden's wonderful roses!

If you read their blog, right below the closing announcement is an entry titled "Shipping Rate Disaster". The new Postal rate increases are likely to be felt all through online sales in general, but especially with live plants where Priority Mail has always been the most affordable of the "fast" shipping options. I hesitate to label their decision to close coming right on the tail of the new shipping rates as "coincidental".

Good luck, Scott and Kevin - I, too, wish you good fortune in all that you do.

It is no surprise to me that this excellent and unusual rose nursery is owned by a software company. Their website is tasteful, informative, and has wonderful functionality. They have a lot of hard to find roses, including the Paul Barden collection.

I do understand, however, why they are getting out of the business. The recent hikes in shipping and the failure of Uncommon to earn enough $$$ to meet their goal of providing employee health insurance must have been very frustrating for Centaur S&E Inc.

Here is hoping that the Antique Rose Emporium and Vintage don't go out of business. Because if they do we are all ... well you know what I mean.

Good bye old friends. I will greatly miss you.

Patrick

I too was very disappointed to hear of the closing of Uncommon Roses - and want to say Thank You to Scott & Kevin for all the wonderful roses that are growing happily in my garden - it's a great loss to all of us that this wonderful place for unusual roses is closing - they fueled my rose addiction :o)

Good luck with your future endeavors - you will be missed.

Aprille

The new Postal rate increases are likely to be felt all through online sales in general,

*** And beyond that.
The other night, this subject came up in a TV news panel discussion. One participant discussed the impact of the new postal rates on "small publications." The effect is NOT minor.

I work with two quarterly rose publications, both mailed First Class:
"Gold Coast Rose" for our local Heritage Roses Group,
and
"The Rose Letter" for the national HRG.

In the past, both, bet. an ounce and 2 oz, have mailed for 63 cents.
Under the new rates, Gold Coast drops to 57 cents.
BUT "Rose Letter," with 32 pages, does not make it through the Post Office's "1/4-inch" template. It will now cost NINETY-SEVEN CENTS per piece to mail.

I've only ordered from them once. All of the roses I got from them are growing happily in my garden! It was nice to have a place so close that had such wonderful roses. (Less time in transit) I planned on ordering from them more. I will request to vendors around here to carry Paul Barden Roses as well. His creations are beautiful. Thank you Uncommon Rose.

I've about had it with the often-changing mail rates. It's really starting to bug me.

I ordered from The Uncommon Rose for the first time this year - and I am shocked that they are going under. I had no idea they were associated with a software company, even though their website was great, but I guess I am naive about business ventures, well thought out or not. It is a great loss for rose lovers, and rose entrepreneurs, but maybe for every loss there is an opportunity waiting.

I'm sure opportunity waits for you, Kevin and Scott. Good luck in your new ventures.

The increase in shipping rates was only one of many factors in our decision to close the retail portion of the nursery.

The problem with the shipping rates is that light large packages are penalized in the new system. A watered band sized rose with a lot of top growth weights between 1 and 2 pounds. The top growth means that we've got to put it in a large box. If that box is greater than one cubic foot in size, then at a minimum, it will be charged the ten pound rate by the post office. A one pound package that under the old rates would have shipped for six bucks is now twenty bucks under the new system. We got around the problem by cutting large plants down to smaller sizes - not a very satisfying solution for any of us.

-kevin

Apparently, the USPS has a greater commitment to the smooth operation of their machinery than they do to serving their "customers." Benjamin Franklin would be dismayed.
IIRC, one of the reasons for this draconian increase was the fact that they are "losing business" to the Internet.
I'd expect that, after this move, they're going to lose a whole lot MORE business.
United Parcel Service and Paypal look better and better by the minute.

Jeri

The problem with UPS, however, is that they are tooooo daaarrrnnnn sllooooowwwww for shipping live plants cross country. UPS was always more viable for sellers in the central part of the country, but for those on the coasts it took too long to get a package all the way across the country. Unless they've improved over the last few years, that is.

I'm sure a lot of sellers will be taking a long hard look at their shipping options... and will be faced with restructuring their rates, as well. :-(

I suggest we all click on the link below and email the USPS. Let them know the effect that this this is having on USPS customers and the nurseries that those customers do commerce with. Explain how penalizing large boxes that dont weight very much are affecting the nursery business and the shipments that USPS customers get.

At the bottom of the web page, find the tab titled 'email Us' and click on it.

Luis

TYPO: At the t-o-p of the web page, find the tab titled 'email Us' and click on it. Luis

This news saddens me. Each time I hear another story about a small operation closing, I wonder about the future of our roses. I sometimes get beat up on this Forum for scolding those who buy roses at Walmart. Quality costs money. If you love roses, you must be willing to pay the good suppliers who love them too.

Seems like some of us may be restricted as to our selections, pending cost.
Sorry to hear this news.

Carla

OH NO!!! This is really terrible news!!!

I have about half of Paul Barden's roses, and I was hoping to complete my collection, but maybe I never will now. The ones I really can't live without (that I don't already have) are Dragon's Blood, Golden Buddha, and Connie Lohn. I was going to order those next season. I was so mad that I delayed too long on my order this year, and missed out on Dragon's Blood, because it was at the top of my list for this year.

Another great loss is the mini Baby Darling. I bought that for my little girl's fairy garden a few years back, and it is just so precious. She adores it. But it is so small that we had determined we needed two more to fill out the space. I checked UR, and they didn't even have it listed anymore, so I meant to call them to find out if they would ever offer it again. No one else carries it in the US or Canada currently. I don't know how to propagate from cuttings. Guess it's time to learn.

The only other one that I was concerned about was Tangerine Jewel. Mine died, and I have a policy to not replace deaths for unknown reasons, but this is an exception. It is a favorite, so I'm going to get one from Sequoia asap. Goes to show you shouldn't put off getting those rare ones in case they become utterly unavailable.

I would love to extend the offer of cuttings from my Paul Barden collection to all the other Paul Barden fans out there, but as I said, I don't know how to do it properly. I will promise to work on that, though, now that I hear this sad news.

Good luck to the guys at UR, and thanks for the awesome roses you've provided us. It was my favorite vendor, for sheer style, amazing selection, and superhealthy little bands!!! I hope the website stays up for informational purposes.

Thank you for posting this. I have 2 Paul Barden Mariannes that I bought last year and they are very healthy (not much bloom this year, but I have great hopes for next).

I just quickly ordered:
Aimable Rouge
Cramoisi Picotee
Ellen Tofflemire
Gallicandy
La Belle Sultane

I guess I like Gallicas more than I realized! I hope these are good choices.

How sad! I hadn't ordered from UR but another Carolina Gardening forum member has and loves them.

PLEASE do not propagate Paul Barden's roses without his permission. He makes his living from those roses. Send him a note and ask him for the roses you're interested in and I'm sure he'll work something out with you. BTW, Uncommon Rose is still shipping on June 11. Buy something!!! ;-)

Sue

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Uncommon is my favorite place to buy roses other than Vintage. I'm crushed! Especially since I lost a couple over the winter which I planned to replace later. I'd better go make sure they don't have any laying around, or I will regret it.

I'm glad I bought as many of the Paul Barden roses when I did because I still don't have as many as I would like. I lost a Paul rose and a Moore rose over the winter that may prove difficult to replace now. Ugh.

I'm not a happy camper. I can't afford it, but I'm going to zip right over to Uncommon and make sure they don't have anything I can't live without before it is too late.

Suze,

Sorry, I didn't know the rules - I thought you just couldn't propagate them for sale. Thanks for the info. Which roses can you propagate for your own use or for trade? For instance, what about the mini, Baby Darling? I would like to have two more of those. At this point, since I don't know how to propagate from cuttings anyway, I'd much rather just buy it, but I can't find a source. As for the Barden roses, maybe it would be a good idea to start emailing other vendors to ask them to start carrying some of those...?

Another question - sorry I'm so out of the loop - what about trading suckers? I have lots of suckers from Nightmoss and Gallicandy. Can I give those away? It seems a shame to waste them.

BTW, I tried to order October Moon, last minute, but couldn't get to it fast enough. Picked up two cute little "coffee" minis, though - This is the Day and Iced Tea.

Devastated! Uncommon has always been the first place I looked when shopping for another rose. Of all I bought from them, None, failed, I can not say that for the other sources I purchased from. It was always a pleasure to go to their excellent website, enjoy seeing what was new with the lovely photography, then selecting the beauties I could not live without and now so deeply grateful for the expanding perfume and healthy abundance we created around my home - together. No words can express how deeply the quality and honor of Uncommon Rose will be missed. You are THE BEST, Kevin & Scott, I love you so and I will make Uncommon Rose markers to signify all of your roses in my garden. I humbly thank you for your pleasures to keep growing for years ahead.

Good thing I ordered 2 pairs of roses when I did. I'm really saddened by this news. I've not much hope that taking it up with USPS will do much good because it sounds like it is the airlines calling the shots on size.

Now getting a local vendor to carry Paul Barden is well and good, and shipping in larger quantities would probably be cheaper, especially if they ship bare root earlier in the spring, but I'm not real hopeful we'll get a nice selection like we did from their website.

I will have to be extra careful with the ones I got. They were one of two vendors for Hettie, she is a beauty, don't know about Awakening. I've got them potted up, and they are putting out buds, but think they will bloom nicer once they are in their permanent locations. They are putting out new growth really nice.

Maybe the box was pretty large with four roses in it, but their roses aren't all that large to begin with.

Hope they do well in the wholesale business. This is going to hurt a lot of people who do business via the internet.

Robiniaquest -- The Plant Patent Act of 1930 prohibits propagation of plants (not just roses) for a period of 20 years after their introduction.

That means that you can propagate to your hearts content any of the Old Roses, and even the older modern roses introduced up to -- what? 1987???.

That's why you see that little line on the tags, warning you against "asexual" reproduction. You can BREED from them, but you cannot split them, or make cuttings, or or or. And when you think of it, that's only fair. The breeder makes only a tiny fee for each rose sold, but it's better than nothing -- which is what, in many cases, they got -- prior to the enaction of the Plant Patent Act!

We all hope that, before too long, we will be seeing new sources for Barden roses -- so we won't have to break the law.

Jeri

Jeri,

Wow. Ok. I never thought this through entirely. So, the jillions of people who are selling newer iris and daylily divisions on ebay are breaking the law? Or, are the ones who say "licensed nursery" paying to be able to do it? Who do you have to pay, say to propagate a given iris or daylily? Again, forgive me for being so dense... I have bought a lot of stuff from people that are just doing this in their backyard.

I always knew certain plants were protected - like the ones that have that tag - so I thought it just meant you couldn't sell them. Like how you can record videos or music for your own private use only, but you can't make money off them. In one case, when I bought a certain fruit tree, I actually had to sign a non-propagation agreement. It seemed clear in that case that you were in no way allowed to propagate that tree - like maybe it had some further degree of protection or something. Of course, to propagate a fruit tree, you have to go to a considerable amount of very deliberate trouble. Same with a lot of roses. For instance, there are people who sell own-root Austins who try to get around the law by referring to them in ambiguous terms, i.e., not by name, but that rose fanatics would understand. This seems very obviously to be in contravention of the law. But, daylilies and iris are sold very openly as divisions from private gardens, and very clearly identified as to breeder and year. That never raised alarm bells with me.

I'm not complaining about it. I emphatically don't want to hurt the people who go to the trouble to breed new plants for us. Plant breeders are a certain sort of hero to a lot of us gardeners, and I'm happy to pay them for their trouble. And I don't sell plants, but I do buy them from all kinds of sources that now appear to be possibly questionable. Like farmer's markets, ebay, etc. A lot of these are pretty recent introductions.

Maybe I'm the only one who's been confused out there, but I kind of doubt it. I always took asexual propagation to mean deliberate creation of another plant. If the plant itself is reproducing without your even wanting it to, then it's a bit more nuanced to see how you are doing something wrong by giving away a division. It makes sense from the standpoint of protecting the interest of the breeder to make money off his/her creation. But the reality is, you are being asked, I guess, to destroy all additional bulbs, prolifs, suckers, etc. that you end up with from a recent intro, unless you can allow them to sit exactly where they are in the ground. As soon as you move them - even within your own garden - you are propagating, and that is illegal. Do I have this right, or am I still confused?

Apologies to all who are irritated by my tedious stupidity. I come from a huge family of attorneys....

- robin

Robin, I honestly do not know how the law is applied within the Iris or Daylily community. Perhaps they do not patent their new creations???
I do know that it applies as above in the rose industry.
As one of the J&P hybridizers said to me:
"That's why we DONATE plants to rose societies. So you won't DO that!"

LOOK, no one is going to send the Rose Cops to your house if you split an own-root plant or dig up a sucker.
In fact, if the rose is not patented, you're not even breaking the LAW. And because of the expense involved, many smaller breeders to not patent their creations. You can usually ascertain that by looking them up on HMF.
But consider that the breeder's only return on his/her investment of time and intellect is the small amount a grower/seller pays him/her per-plant. Then ask yourself how you feel about "cheating".

Me, I deal for the most part with Old Roses. There, the issue is irrelevant.

But when I wanted more plants of the newly-released 'Jeri Jennings' from Paul Barden, I BOUGHT them.
And if I want more 'Midnight Blue,' or 'Fourth of July,' or 'Berries 'n Creme,' I will buy them.
IMHO, that's only fair.

Jeri

"But consider that the breeder's only return on his/her investment of time and intellect is the small amount a grower/seller pays him/her per-plant. Then ask yourself how you feel about "cheating"."

FWIW, What little I make on the sale of my own varieties doesn't even pay for the cost of the materials used in creating them, to say nothing of the time I invest in growing, culling/selecting, and housing them.

Regards,
Paul Barden

Bummer, I've been checking the site to order Paul Barden's 'Nightmoss' but it hasn't been available for a really long time. They are offering an alternate that is similar but it is a single with smaller blooms. I really wanted 'Nightmoss.' Does anyone know of another source for Paul Barden Roses?

I'm not sure, but I'm afraid I may have given the wrong impression. I don't want to cheat. I just want to try to understand the rules. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to protect what they create/market, etc. I was just hearing stuff I didn't know, and thinking about the implications in terms of the other plant material I have bought. I really respect all you true rosarians who know all the stuff I don't, and I don't want to offend anyone inadvertently. I'm just an ordinary gardener - probably a bit of a simpleton - who dabbles in all sorts of plants, but doesn't belong to any societies or anything.

I wasn't trying to argue, or imply that anything about the law is unfair. I don't think it's unfair. My questions really were geared toward trying to elucidate the matters that seem somewhat murky to me, so that I DON'T do what's impermissible. It's relevant to me now because I've been buying iris and daylilies recently off ebay. Hmm...I'm thinking...how does this apply to that? Some of it you don't know intuitively. I'll ask about it on those forums, because I guess it might be useful for people like me who are still really at the newbie level on a lot of things.

There's probably no way to tell you guys how much I respect you all. I have a beautiful garden today because of the stuff I learned from you all here. And all my kids are really into gardening now. But I still have a lot to learn. This legal stuff is new territory to me. I never really had cause to think about it until this UR closing was upon us, and I was lamenting not being able to complete my Barden collection. I suppose it's all irrelevant in a way because it looks like demand for Paul's roses is very high, and surely another vendor will come along to fill the void, what with UR continuing in a wholesale capacity. That's what I'm hoping, but I want to assure everyone that I have no intentions of getting around the law or anything like that. I have six kids and am a full-time grad student, so I'm usually behind the curve in a lot of ways. I am thankful for people like Paul and Jeri and Scott and Kevin, who have devoted so much time and effort to spreading the beauty and love of roses to the rest of us.

I really hope I didn't sound like I was griping, because I fully respect the law and the reasons behind it. I'm just trying to sort it all out in my head. I'd be more than happy to buy plants that I want to give away - that's what I've always done before (except for mints and monardas - even these may be protected cultivars - I confess I don't know) just because I am not skilled enough to do it any other way. But now I see a greater degree of thought should be put into all this - like knowing what you're buying, which plants are protected, which you shouldn't divide to give away, etc. I still want to learn how to do cuttings, but I promise I will stick to old roses. It's especially nice to spread the wealth that way, and encourage the love of historic plants. I know that's what you guys are all about, and I love that.

Thanks again for the good info, and for your patience. And thanks for all that you all do for the rest of us out there. Like Paul, I can't imagine how much time, work, thought and money is put into your breeding program. And Jeri, how much of those same resources you must devote to rescuing old roses, and the educating you both do...WOW. It's amazing. These really are public services, and so many of us appreciate it so much. Everyone deserves some sort of compensation for their contribution to the world. So, I'll pay for my roses, and sing your praises too! And spread the word in my own little locality, to the extent I can.

Sorry so long.
With sincere appreciation,
robiniaquest

Others can probably be more exact, but I do know there is supposed to be a fee paid back to the "inventor" each time you sell a patented variety. Or at least some type of licensing fee. It should apply to EBay and other plant types. I have done some patent work. While its one thing to get a patent, its another to enforce it- i.e. takes time and money, and who knows what it will get you in the long run except a bunch of lawyer bills.

Robin -- I didn't think you were.

But, you know, a LOT of people don't realize these things. EYE didn't, until I met John Walden, when he was with J&P. We spent a lot of time talking, and I learned a lot from John -- and I began to understand things like plant patents, and why they were important (not to mention the education I got on virus!).

I mean -- who pays attention to those tags? I never did!
And I think most people wouldn't "cheat" if they really realized that they WERE cheating!

Jeri

Paul,

I feel so fortunate to have acquired 3 of your roses from Uncommon Rose (Jeri Jennings, Oshun, and Marianne...Heddie I missed out on as it was "sold out").

The roses are beautiful, so I'm the "winner" in the exchange, but I did feel good that in some tiny portion of my purchases would get back to you, and that these (and other purchases) would help Uncommon Rose (in part because they have sponsored your wonderful website). From which I have derived endless hours of pleasure.

The way I looked at it, the "purchases" were almost like "donations" for your good work with the website...and the roses were free bonus. Just don't think I'll value these beauties less for my way of thinking. I deeply respect your work and will give these beautiful roses loving care. I'm only sorry your "cut" is so small. I am still in your debt.

I wish you the best of luck sorting out the distribution of your roses in the near term. This can't be an easy time for you, I'm sorry.

Best wishes,

Bill Cartwright

Jeri,

Thanks for understanding. Now it seems (from Paul's message on the other thread on this topic) that Paul's roses will most likely be in retail again soon. Yeah!!!!

- robiniaquest

Our first day with out Uncommon Rose ..... I am so sad. Hope the sale was helpful. Thank you for all my roses. You are missed already.

Robin- the daylily world works differently than the rose world. A daylily planted as a single fan will over time multiply and make more fans, easily dividable. Ditto irises. Roses generally don't unless they are a type that suckers. So roses as new introductions (patented) are generally priced in the ballpark of other roses, but a new daylily or iris introduction is priced way above older varieties. A new daylily could be $100 to 150 if it is a substantial breakthrough. This is how the breeder benefits from a new introduction. Most daylilies and I think most irises are not patented. I think there was a move to start patenting some but I'm out of the link on them. So, newer daylilies and irises, higher prices.

ARRRRRGH! They CAN'T close!

I mean, well - they can do whatever they want to, I guess, but Uncommon Rose was my absolute first choice, hands down. I recommended them to absolutely everyone I could. What a wretched world where WalMart can thrive, but something wonderful like UR has to struggle. Is it really just all about the lowest common denominator? Should I just give up and put in nothing but bush after bush of Carefree Beauty? Sigh.

The hell of it is that I just bought my first Bardens this year (2 Mariannes), and they're struggling. Not sure what I may have done - my other purchases from UR are thriving. If they don't make it I'm doomed, it seems.

To everyone at UR - thanks for a great job. Your absence will be hard to bear.

For an explanation of why irises aren't patented, read this discussion on the iris forum.

:(

I'll also miss Kim and Joan's rose introductions, and of course Paul's.

Is it possible that Ralph Moore's business will carry these hybridizer's roses?

Just found out today about The Uncommon Rose's closure when I went to their website to look for 'La Belle Sultane.' I ordered from The Uncommon Rose for the first time this year: I hadn't even heard of them before. I'm glad I had this one shot at getting some of the roses ('Oshun,' for example), but I'm bummed that I didn't get 'Dragons Blood,' which had already sold out when I first stumbled across the website. By the way, does anyone know of a different source for 'La Belle Sultane'? (Or, for that matter, 'Dragons Blood'?)

I paused and missed out on Oshun..... hope it is a beauty for you.

I'm very depressed by this news... I have ordered from them for several years, and always received the best plants! I wish they had done an email notification to all past customers to let us know. I would have bought many, especially ones that I already have from them, and know from experience that they are terrific.

[ sniff ]

I haven't weighed in because I've never purchased from UR, but I definitely feel sad at the loss of another good rose nursery. I do hope that more will rise to fill the void, and that Paul will continue his work - and perhaps find a way to make that work pay better.

On the issue of patents, in this case I doubt very seriously that any of Paul's roses to date are patented given the cost and effort involved in acquiring one. If the sales of his roses don't even compensate him for his labors in the first place, there's certainly no reason to protect/secure his financial gain with a patent - it would only hurt his bank account to do so. Patents are there purely to protect earnings, and thereby reward the breeder and help encourage further breeding activity. I would like to say that they exist to help buffer the cost of breeding, but because obtaining a patent is so expensive, that clearly isn't the case.

If the government truly wanted to help breeders and ensure continued ingenuity, it would lower the cost and complexity of the patenting process and regulate the amount of money a breeder is owed for each plant propagated. Otherwise plant patent legislation seems to me like one more way to help reward big business and trip up the little guy.

Here's an idea. What about a sort of 'shareware' concept applied to roses. If
a plant isn't patented, but the breeder is currently alive, if someone sends you
a cutting, you voluntarily send the breeder $10 or something. Perhaps it could
be managed as a sort of club with an online forum, with payment on the honor
system, and encouraged by friendly social pressure. Perhaps who sent what to
whom could be kept track of so that the burden of supplying cuttings could be
equitably shared. All a breeder would have to do is supply a name and
address to make checks out to. It could be a sort of distributed, virtual nursery.

Of course, I'm sure there are a lot of issues I'm not thinking of, but it's a nice
daydream.

There's too many people not honest nor kind hearted enough to pay the hybridizer. It's a good idea though.

In essence, that's how the system works now with nurseries - although the process isn't open to just anyone, necessarily, but those whom the breeder allows to propagate are entered into an agreement for compensation as long as certain rules are followed. I completely agree that the nursery industry ought to be kept on the same short leash it's already on because of the potential for abuse, but I also believe that the purchase of a patented plant should be treated somewhat as a license to own one copy of said plant, somewhat the way computer software is licensed. If private individuals are inclined to propagate the plant (i.e., request more licenses) as long as the plants are for private, non-commercial use, it would be nice to have a process for them to directly purchase the license to propagate X copies of that plant without having to deal with a middle man. Someone could easily and willingly afford to pay the hybridizer much more than the nursery industry does, and still be getting a heck of a deal over buying the plant through a nursery. Even a dollar or two per plant going to the breeder would be a significant improvement over the standard today, and this is obviously a pittance compared to what people pay for roses at the garden center.

The breeder wins in this scenario. Profit from individuals wanting to purchase licenses from the breeder, with very few exceptions, is arguably not going to take away from the nursery industry's earnings on ready-for-planting patented roses. The vast majority of people are too impatient or lack the skills to propagate their own roses anyway, so it seems fair to give those who are willing a way to make and own copies permissably. In fact, the idea of having some kind of tangible "license to own" could catch on as a way to police illegally propagated or sold plant materials, not that I'm advocating anything like that without further study :)

The nursery industry on the whole wins because the breeder gains financially, which ultimately stimulates the creation of more new roses that can fuel sales. They are too short-sighted and profit-driven to realize that paying a bit more to the breeder ultimately helps their own bottom line, but it would.

Finally, average-Joe-gardener wins because there is more freedom of choice, less fear of having to do something illegitimately because there is a reasonable, affordable alternative, and because the better-compensated breeder can afford to generate even more roses.

I'm sure I haven't thought of everything, but it is something that's crossed my mind on a number of occasions. There are probably all kinds of horrendous side effects to this kind of good idea.