LOL well done!

I do think it's a step in the right direction, somehow, if only in spirit. However, for indexing purposes if nothing else, he would have done well to stick with "Austin Roses"!

It's probably overly simplistic to apply many sweeping generalizations to his roses; not all of them are based at all recently in old rose genetic material, after all, nor are they all closely related except as hybrids of modern roses, when you really think about it. I believe that his roses, like those of any breeder, will ultimately fail or succeed on their individual merits, so their class is not altogether so important anyway. I would personally not want to invite comparisons as a breeder, because someone will say one day that "out of X hundred introductions, only five proved worthy of surviving to the present day"... but I suppose this is likely whether or not they occupy the same classification. Oh well, let history be the judge.

Does he mean by this that he's not using any modern roses in the breeding. I've heard there is a breeder in France who is doing this.

I think Stefan is right on the money.

When people ask me how to treat "Austin roses" -- my invariable answer is: "Which Austin roses."

Jeri

Stefan, as always, a pleasure. Good point.

Pam, the Romanticas fall, in my mind, into the same general grouping as the DA roses based on the goal of what the breeders are trying to achieve.

I think my suggestion is tilted more towards the marketing aspect of the DA and Romantica roses regardless of what the genetics/lineage of any particular one of them may be.

To that end, here is the opening paragraph from his U.S. site:

After fifty years of intensive breeding, David Austin's English Roses combine the forms and fragrances of old roses with the repeat flowering of modern roses.

How they achieve that goal genetically seems almost, certainly not entirely, irrelevant.

Anyway, just a suggestion. I wouldn't think it too presumptuous of them to call them "neoclassics" for marketing purposes. For other purposes, official nomenclature, I do think it'd be a stretch.

MichaelAT

I resisted for a while barging in with my less than flattering opinion about DA's.

However, after reading where a poster was looking for recomends to his really long list of already owned DA's, I thought this mania has gone too far. Even I with my obsession for Kordes roses have others as well. Let's hope they do as well.

And if you want an OGR looking rose with fragrance get a real one. And they come also as repeaters. Finally, if the rose is still around after some 100+ years maybe it is something worthwhile whereas we have yet to see how many Austins will survive.

Grumble, grumble......

From what I've read on Austin's rose breeding there were lots of moderns involved. Way more moderns than I would have thought, considering the results he achieved.
As far as I am concerned down here in Texas, he didn't just redefine the hybrid perps. HPs don't rebloom here (not for me at least). Their shrubs are awkward and ugly. The Austins that I grow are magnificent shaped bushes and many are continuous blooming. Not quite as continuous as teas and chinas, but more continuous than HTs, bourbons, HPs, etc.
The romanticas that I have seen in person do not have the graceful habit that most Austins do. The blooms are wonderful, and there are some Romanticas that I want because the blooms are so fragrant and old fashioned looking, but they are produced in the upright manner of HTs. Maybe this is an over generalization, since I've only seen around 5 of them in person.
Either way, I commend any rose breeder who tries to get blooms that are just as beautiful fully open as they are in the bud. So many of the HTs are dogs because of that one flaw. And I'm so glad that they are aiming for fragrance.

David Austin has roses in categories of Old Rose Hybrids,
English Musk, Leander and I think the other one is Albas.
The Leander group being the ones most developed from
modern roses. They are mostly apricot, which is a modern
color in roses.

I agree with cweathersby about being glad for the return
on an emphasis on fragrance for roses.

Thank's to breeders like David Austin, Harkness and Meilland,
we are free of the bondage of breeders that
focus on developing one hybrid-tea after another and
many with not much fragrance like those roses for the
florist trade.

But it is true that not all English Roses will stand
the test of time. There are a few very average roses
in his collection and even a few duds. Time will tell
indeed!

I like variety in the rose world, but there is nothing
like a rose that has old-fashioned form and a perfect
rose fragrance in one's garden.

Most of the recent Austins have "seedling" listed as a parent. I wonder if they are still introducing OGR blood.

They are nothing more or less than reinvented Bourbons, Hybrid Perpetuals, Noisettes (the so called "Hybrid Musk" hybrids) and Portlands. A trend that I welcome with open arms.

David Austin's English Roses combine the forms and fragrances of old roses with the repeat flowering of modern roses.

*** Not everywhere, race fans.
You want repeat-flowering, try Teas. Try Chinas. Try Noisettes.
If your conditions are favorable to Hybrid Perpetuals and Bourbons, you will probably succeed with Austins.
If not -- if your climate is too mild for those roses to excell -- you may do better with "evergreen" roses.

Location, location, location. :-)

Jeri

Expanding on what Devon Gardener wrote, the USA edition of the Austin 2007 paper catalog describes a "new classification for English Roses...... We are for the first time this year, dividing the English Roses into four groups." English Old Rose Hybrids is just the first of the four groups: "These were the original English Roses. They have much of the character of the true old roses - the Gallicas, Damasks, etc.- although they do vary widely between one variety and another".

Of the roses in the 2007 catalog, Sister Elizabeth, Brother Cadfael, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Cottage Rose, Eglantyne, Fair Bianca, Falstaff, Gertrude Jekyll, Glamis Castle, Harlow Carr, Hyde Hall, Jude the Obscure, L. D. Braithwaite, Mary Magdalene, Mary Rose, Miss Alice, Noble Anthony, Othello, Sharifa Asma, Spirit of Freedom, Sophy's Rose, Tamora, Tess of the d'Ubervilles, The Dark Lady, The Mayflower, Tradescant, William Shakespeare 2000, and Winchester Cathedral are the only ones listed as "Old Rose HYbrids" A motley crew, to be sure.

And all of those in the latter category wildly different, one from another. Hmmmm . . .

Jeri

Working from Mike's list:

Sister Elizabeth: Seedling à Seedling

Brother Cadfael: Charles Austin ® à Seedling

Charles Rennie Mackintosh: Seed: Chaucer à Conrad Ferdinand Meyer
Pollen: Mary Rose ®

Cottage Rose: Wife of Bath ® à Mary Rose

Eglantyne: Seedling à Mary Rose ®

Fair Bianca: Unknown

Tradescant: Prospero ®
Pollen: Charles Austin ® à Gloire de Ducher

William Shakespeare 2000: Seedling à AUSbloom (the dark lady)

The Dark Lady : Mary Rose ® à Prospero ®

Winchester Cathedral: Sport of Mary Rose ®

The Mayflower: ,Seedling à Seedling

Tess of the d'Ubervilles: The Squire ® à Seedling

Tamora: Chaucer à Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

Sophy's Rose: AUSpero (prospero) Ã Seedling

Spirit of Freedom: Undisclosed à AUScot (abraham darby)

Sharifa Asma, Mary Rose ® à Admired Miranda ®

Othello: Lilian Austin à The Squire ®

Noble Anthony: seedling à Seedling

Miss Alice: AUSmary à Seedling

Mary Rose: Wife of Bath ® à The Miller

Mary Magdalene: Seedling à Seedling

L. D. Braithwaite: Mary Rose ® à The Squire ®

Jude the Obscure: Abraham Darby ® à Windrush ®

Hyde Hall: Seedling à Seedling

Harlow Carr: Seedling à AUSman (the countryman)

Glamis Castle: Mermaid x Quatre Saisons

Gertrude Jekyll: Wife of Bath ® à Comte de Chambord

Falstaff: , Seedling à Seedling

I copied these from HMF. Obviously, the farther one goes into the lineage the more the "old" roses start to appear.

MichaelAT

"seedling" 19

"other Austins" 31

"old roses" 4 (including Conrad Ferdinand Meyer x2)

"unknown/undisclosed" 2

Glamis Castle is really: Graham Thomas ® à Mary Rose ® :):):)

One of the things I most appreciate about David Austin is that he apparently considers overall plant habit & fragrance in his breeding. Not only do my two Austin roses have "old fashioned" looking blooms, but they also have nice plant forms, a heavy dose of quality fragrance, not to mention admirable rebloom even in my hot climate. Many of the other hybridizers of today that have jumped on the Austin bandwagon have produced plants with nice blooms, but the plants that bare them are merely upright sticks. They look like Mr. Lincoln with an OGR-like bloom at the end of the canes. No thank you, I'm not interesting in introducing that look to my garden. I appreciate David Austin's work more and more as my two specimens continue to mature. They blend beautifully with my true OGRs.

Randy

"You want repeat-flowering, try Teas. Try Chinas. Try Noisettes."

Unless you live in the north where teas, chinas, noisettes won't live through the winter.

DAs give us northerners an alternative to OGRs that repeat. The gallicas and albas are totally hardy here but are once blooming. I am starting to get into the bourbons and h. perp but they're a mixed bag re: hardiness. Nearly all DAs are reliably hardy and repeat like crazy.

Unless you live in the north where teas, chinas, noisettes won't live through the winter.

*** You missed my point -- which was that the success of Mr.Austin's roses, as is true of most roses, will be location-dependent.

We have grown MANY Austin roses. They are NOT good repeat-bloomers everywhere, and in a really mild climate (no winter chill) may not bloom well even in the spring.

"Evergreen" roses don't work where you are.
Austins aren't great choices here.
Location location location.

Jeri

Just wanted to add, do you notice how much David Austin
is using Graham Thomas and Abraham Darby in many his
latest introductions? Crown Princess Margareta has a
definite Graham Thomas influence and Jubilee Celebration
has Abraham Darby all over it. I love those roses, so I'm
not knocking it. But they sure are important roses in
his breeding program.

I also notice breeders like Heirloom Roses using Austin's
in their breeding program. Like Louise Clement's having
Graham Thomas in it's background and April Love having
a myrr scent.

Jerijen, you are right about differences in performance
with the English Roses. Someday, David Austin will have
to create some decoder pamphlet to let us know how each
of his roses will perform in different climate zones.
For example, I got Constance Spry own-root a year ago.
Still waiting for a bloom on this once-bloomer, but after
I got it, I read somewhere that this rose blooms better in
the north-eastern part of the U.S. than the warmer zones.

Well, with David Austin, I guess rose-experimenting is the
key. I love many of his roses, so I'll keep testing to
see what works on the California coast.

Someday, David Austin will have
to create some decoder pamphlet to let us know how each
of his roses will perform in different climate zones.

*** Mr. Austin can tell you how his roses perform where he is. He can't tell you how they do where he's never been.
Clair Martin wrote a good book on Austin roses, discussing them from a California point-of-view.
His information on size and remontancy will be helpful to you -- less so for someone in the NE.
The best information on performance of roses for your conditions will always be people who grow them
in like conditions.
If the roses are new introductions, you may be a pioneer.
If they were introduced 15-20 years ago, someone else in your area has probably already "tested" them.
You probably don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Jeri

I'd rather Austin roses be sold as "Austin Roses", for the fact that few or none of his roses are "O.G.R. seed X O.G.R. pollen"

Luxrosa

I'd rather Austin roses be sold as "Austin Roses",

*** I agree -- and wonder why he would now deviate from that.

Jeri

I was looking at Pickering's catalog. There was a separate listing of "English" roses. All 80 of them.

Now how is it that David Austin's roses have been singled out and have their own section. And why English. Giving the finger to Harkness and other English breeders.

Then there is the matter of why arn't his roses listed as shrub or floribunda roses. Or maybe Portland roses with others of that type? Hasn't he really reinvented Portlands?

Well soon they may be obsolete in his native England as the Gulf Stream no longer warms it. It could happen sooner that one might expect given the weird weather Europe has been experiening this year.

Well you should give him credit for bringing back a style of rose flower that is really so far superior to those awful older hybrid teas. And fragrance. And repeat flowering. Maybe he needed to give special attention to them to get them accepted. The first one was introduce in 1961 and very few in the years that followed. It has only been the last ten years where the number has increased.

But now maybe it's time to rejoin the rest of the rose world! Perhaps he is thinking just that in his new designation, old rose hybrids!

"I was looking at Pickering's catalog. There was a separate listing of "English" roses. All 80 of them.

Now how is it that David Austin's roses have been singled out and have their own section. "

Jim, you do know where the classes Noisette, Lambertiana, and Pernetiana came from, don't you? Thats right, they were classes created by the breeder, for the breeder to distinguish them, for multiple reasons, not the least of which was a marketing ploy. (Lets not even mention the Generosa, Renaissance, and Romantica roses, each one an artificial class designation created by the breeder) David Austin has done nothing different in choosing to designate his work as "English" roses. Or perhaps you don't recognize the Noisette, Lambertiana and Pernetiana classes either?

Change the record Jim....this one's broken. If you are going to pick on breeders for their choices, then you can't just single out Austin on this particular issue: they all do it to some degree. We all know about your singular disdain for David Austin's work and we hear you loud and clear. Now lets hear about the roses you do like, and less crabbing about the ones you don't.

Regards,
Paul (Who is thinking about creating the Bardeniana class just for Jim!)

Bardeniana class! I LOVE it!

Jeri

I just wish some rose gardens did'nt need to make more room for them at the expense of some older already established roses. Enough said

From a marketing perspective, it seems strange that DA would deviate from the old the brand name as there is so much brand equity in the 'Austin' name. I guess he could call this 'new' breed 'David Austin presents: Old Rose Hybrids.'

Well, it depends upon the garden, and its mission.
If the garden is one of modern roses, it makes some sense to show people the "newest thing."
They may want to grow some of these roses, and it's good to be able to see them first.
But I do not enjoy seeing really old plants in a historic location removed and replaced with Austins.

Jeri

Mr. Trospero

Your need new glasses, I also said:

"Well you should give him credit for bringing back a style of rose flower that is really so far superior to those awful older hybrid teas. And fragrance. And repeat flowering. Maybe he needed to give special attention to them to get them accepted. The first one was introduce in 1961 and very few in the years that followed. It has only been the last ten years where the number has increased.

But now maybe it's time to rejoin the rest of the rose world! Perhaps he is thinking just that in his new designation, old rose hybrids!"

I don't know how those older breeders where treated as to listings but it is a fact that the new ones from Meilland, etc. are included with other roses from other breeders.

So there!

And furthermore QR lists most of the "English" roses as shrub roses. That is where they really belong. When I had them I liked them. My wife adored Graham Thomas. But as I said they all died. Probably not all their fault as I'm not the most terrific rose grower.

I wonder how others will find them in the future?

I wonder how others will find them in the future?

*** Some are very good roses, and will probably become "staples." But time will act to "sift out" those that are weaker of constitution, or fussy about where they grow.

And there will be worshipful devotees who scour older gardens, looking for "Lost Austins."

Jeri

And there will be worshipful devotees who scour older gardens, looking for "Lost Austins."

*** ...which they will promptly identify as a rare French Tea Rose and give it to a well-meaning but clueless nurseryman to propagate. It will then be distributed to every well-meaning, hopeful, clueless collector and public and private garden across the nation. Meanwhile, a flower of almost - maybe - in certain lights - with the right soil - on the right rootstock - an exact - well similar - sort of look will be found in the Australian outback, prompting renewed calls for the completion of the Tea Rose Book.

Years later, a diminuitive but determined, eagle-eyed third generation spotted-dog lover from, oh, perhaps Southern California, will expose the fraud . . .

Thus ensuring the existence of the Antique Rose Forum into perpetuity :)

Best wishes
Jon

Jon--you gave me quite a chuckle and spilled my coffee to boot! We are indeed lucky to have this "diminuitive but determined, eagle-eyed third generation spotted-dog lover from, oh, perhaps Southern California" on this forum, as she keeps the Rose powers that be in check.

Hee Hee Hee . . . Too funny!

But I sure hope we don't have to wait so long for the Tea Book!

Jeri

I have some Lost Austins. Missy has some too, except she actually knows what their names are.

8-)
A

Ahh, lost Austins . . . those are the very best kind!!! I lost all of mine to the wood chipper in the fall of 2003.

We lost almost all of ours to the landfill.

Jeri

Jeri

Please tell me, who is writing a Tea book? A freind gave me a book that's called "Tea roses" and to my dismay and horror it includes many Hybrid Teas.

Thanks,
Lux.

Lux, the Australian "Tea Bags" have been working on a definitive book on Teas for the past few years. Just as it was about ready to roll, they lost their publisher. So, unfortunately, we are back to Square One. DARNIT.

Jeri

Too bad they can't self publish and sell it online.