Why should anyone be surprised when the ARS intends to call the "winning" HT and "easy TEA"? Give me break! Now, I guess, they have deemed HTs and Teas are the same. What were they thinking? Oh, sorry, that presumes THOUGHT. Kim

Meaningless.

I erroneously assumed that those expert rose mavens in Shreveport would eschew issuance of such claptrap.

Silly me.

Well, the "Easy Tea" thing irritated me from the git-go . . . but all that aside . . .

Refresh my memory. WHERE were these tests made? And WHY do they only rate blackspot resistance?

Blackspot ain't a big deal here, but powdery mildew and rust ARE, and downy mildew can be a problem. I'd hate for novice rose gardeners in MY town to take that list as applicable to them!

Jeri

I can't understand it at all. Is 1 best and 10 worst? Was it the way the plants looked in general? Or the blooms

I guess #1 means most resistant, because 'The McCartney' and 'Traviata' are resistant in some gardens. 'Traviata' is susceptible to cercospora here, however.

They evaluated BS because the trial was in Louisiana?

I'm very dismayed at the negativity expressed here. The goals of the "EasyTea" program were very clearly stated when it was first announced some four years ago. As far as I can tell, they have followed the protocol exactly as originally stated.

My comment on the results being localized: OF COURSE.

EVERY disease evaluation program is localized to where it is conducted. The only way to avoid that is to conduct multiple trials in different locations and average the results. THAT, I would assert, would render the results totally useless for this type of trial.

FYI, the Earth Kind trials are ALSO localized (that's why there are different lists for different locations). Also all the numerous other disease trials that have been and are being conducted in various venues.

As for objecting to the name - really, that's so petty I won't even comment further on it.

Nicki, you are entitled to your opinion about the study, and I have no argument with it. But there is enough confusion between teas and hybrid teas that rose societies shouldn't be contributing to it, so I don't thinks it's a "petty"criticism. I was one of those gardeners years ago who didn't know the difference, and there are many beginners out there who will be even more confused with this title.

Shame on the ARS! And they should know better. That title is misleading and ridiculous.

As for the ratings, I never use them to make any decisions about a rose. They're biased in too many ways. There's no indication of who rated them or where and they are indeed confusing to understand. They rarely address cold climate issues and are definitely slanted toward exhibiting, which I do but is not the main goal of my garden. I check with people here who have grown it and local people first and sometimes I just decide to take a chance and see what it will do in MY garden. That's still the best way to find out.

Lists to me are just general guidelines because each
garden is different in regards to disease anyhow.

But yes a rose should be called by it's proper name as that's just common sense...

'The McCartney' has been resistant to blackspot in a no-spray garden here, so it's good to have that information from a very different climate. It's a good one to try if you like big, fragrant HTs.

No. The name thing ISN'T "petty." There was enough argument about this in the beginning. It's confusing, and it could and should have been avoided.

I hope the reports on the study make it clear that the results are applicable ONLY to blackspot, and that they really only demonstrate performance in Shreveport.

Yes. The Earthkind tests have a similar problem as regards location. That's why we don't pay much attention to them, either, out here.

No test-growing system is going to be foolproof -- but this is where the AARS tests were superior. They tested new roses in many locations around the country. A rose which was resistant to blackspot in TX or LA -- but which mildewed like crazy in CA, or rusted like an old tin bucket -- was unlikely to be a big winner.

Jeri

I currently only grow 4 off the list (ML, Electron, The McCartney Rose and PJPII). For comparison's sake, although they will all spot some here, "The McCartney" is the worst of the 4 even with spraying. Those 4 rated best to worst resistance wise in my garden would be PJPII, Electron, ML and then The McCartney. Looking at the list based on my experience, I would have thought 10 to be the most resistantâ¦at least until I saw Chrysler Imperial (a blackspot ridden mess when I tried to grow him here) rated a 10.

Thanks, Pat. What is probably going on there is that you have a different set of blackspot races in your garden than the ones in the ARS test garden or the one I observe. These contrasting results happen often. That's why I described 'The McCartney' as "resistant to blackspot in some gardens" and "one to try" rather than "resistant to blackspot."

Myself, I never take such measurements as "absolute" indicators. Instead, I take them as "suggestions" or "possibilities" that might do well in my garden--but I never view them as "guaranteed"--therefore, I am never greatly disappointed at the results and, on the contrary, often find such lists helpful directions I might pursue.

And I never use one rating--whether from an organization or from an individual -- as an absolute guarantee either. I always research my roses I want to buy by going to as many different kinds of sources as possible.

And I am an experienced enough gardener to know that I should always make allowances for location and other variables. I do that automatically, without having to be continually reminded to do it by post after post on this forum. (Though its nice to remind newies.)

Approached with some common sense, such lists can be helpful--but should never be mistaken for the voice of God pronouncing final judgment.

: )

Kate

As a new "rosarian" I just thought it was really confusing and essentially worthless for anyone who didn't garden in the Gulf South and I didn't understand why it would apply to me...
Further, their definition of "easy" included spraying etc.
I know rose societies want to encourage folks to grow roses again but it seems they are going about it in a confusing way (seriously...I still don't know which one was more blackspot resistant). I'm assuming that a 10 in BS susceptibility meant it was most likely to spot and a 1 in BS susceptibility meant it least likely to spot but that's just confusing.
And then to call them "Easy Teas"?
Regardless of their testing methods the study seems to be junk just based on what we've discussed here--I don't really trust the results.
Makes me question my membership dues...
Susan

My disease ratings here are worthless for anyone else unless they live close to OC. Even Hoovb who is probably the closest person here to me ( unless there is a lurker nearby) has a bit cooler weather compared with mine and everyone just north of here is either in cool foggy or desert heat. Kim's probably the only other nearest person with my climate but gets hotter temps than I do.

I would like to see the antique roses that people say are easy to grow get some of their merits put before the public. At least in my area, people see my polys and ask why they never heard of them and why no one sells them locally.

Kitty, I agree completely but based on the advertisers in the ARS mag lots of businesses would lose money if rosarians grew non patented, non spray roses...
Kinda like big oil...it's just the way America works unfortunately. Guess we will have to keep spreading the gospel.
And I am not dissing modern roses or folks who spray! its just that if the ARS wants to recruit rosarians and use terms like "easy tea" they might want to look to the oldies but goodies (like the polyanthas and teas) and start promoting them too.
I meant to mention that Pam of Angel Gardens has a column promoting organic methods. Sadly it is usually sandwiched between Ortho and/or similar ads....Also Pam addressed the new rose show category titled "Organically Grown Rose" and Annie Fleming explains why 90% of the growing method may be non organic (change comes slowly) and 10% organic. On the entry card the organic method must be noted: ie "compost".
Susan

The ARS trying to sell HTs of any kind as a "gateway" rose to bring in new people who want to grow roses is so antiquated it's silly. Please tell me that the goal of this whole thing wasn't to increase general rose sales.

Believing my only options were HTs I didn't grow roses in my perennial gardens for 20 years. It wasn't until OGRs became something less fuzzy in my mind and I realized I didn't have to purchase my plants locally (since no one sells OGRs here!) that I dipped my toe in the rose world. A study that (1) promotes HTs and (2) claims something you spray is "easy." Would have done nothing to capture me and that much more to push me away from roses in general.

Having it taken so long for me to finally find Tea roses it makes me sad to see them so maligned by associating them like this with HTs--intentionally. I really get why someone like Jeri would be unhappy about this. It's like her life's work of educating us about Tea roses has been hijacked. Just as she seems to be making some traction they come in a try to steal the goodwill she and others have built for Tea roses by erronously glomming on to the "Tea" name.

Consumers, in general, have often confused HTs and Teas because they just don't understand the difference. We see it here on the forums all the time. "My Tea rose.." and it regularly is an HT. The ARS' mission statement says they exist to EDUCATE. I'm glad others see the fallacy of this "education", too. Kim