Rosemeadow -- Your Alister Clark roses are of great interest to all of us who need roses suited to warm climates.
(The same can be said of Viru Viraraghavan's work with "Evergreen" roses.)

Clark did a fascinating lot of work with R. gigantea, and I wish more of these roses were available to us here.

Jeri in SoCalif

The David Austin English Roses proved to be a gateway for me in discovering the Old Garden Roses. Without them I never would have learned about the older rose classes. IMHO removal of the DA roses from discussion on this forum will be its death.

Kate, Just my own H.O., but I DEFINITELY think you should discuss any sort of HMs here.

Jeri

The other forum, FWIW, is just "Rose Forum" without any adjective at all in front.
It's the forum that gets spammed a lot more often than this one.
It's the one that gets odd advertisements.
It even gets a troll or two each year.
It moves fast and nobody reads the FAQ and the search function is unappreciated.
It used to be the biggest of Spike's covey of forums. It also caused him the most angst. It probably also made the sale of GW more profitable for him.

If you're still reading this, it's because you enjoy this forum and that's something that we all have in common, HERE.
So, let's talk about our future here.

I'm a bit worried about when Comcast buys NBC and I think we're the redheaded stepchild that's gone along for the ride. We're several 'marriages' away from Spike Hernandez' ownership, authoritarianship, control of GardenWeb. At some point, somebodies are going to look at our bottom line and figure out how much it costs to provide this space and are we worth it to them.

This leads me to say, Keep DAs here. It kicks our readership up. And the more hits, the more potential for ad $$$ coming to our owners. And that might ensure our survival.

Its clear that the popularity of English Roses touches a nerve among some OGR devotees. Maybe for this reason alone there should be a separate English and Landscape Rose Forum. I personally love the form, flower, fragrance, and repeating blooms of English Roses and the habit of Hybrid Musks. Additionally, I have followed Ralph MooreÂs work with Hybrid Bracteata and Moss Roses. The roses I am most interested in follow these lines. None of these roses are OGR but I find this forum to be the one place that really discusses issues related to them. I am currently not growing a single hybrid tea, although I love many of them. If I had more time I would grow a few but since they are not at the top of my list IÂve not planted one in many, many years.

To be honest, while I love visiting OGR gardens in the Spring, I am probably not going to grow a rose that does not repeat bloom. Maybe I will change my mind someday but for now this is where I am. If there was a separate forum for English and Landscape Roses I would follow it and I suspect so would many other fans of these roses. While only an occasional contributor, I do enjoy reading the forum faithfully and probably would continue but my interest are more with what has been pejoratively described as "reproduction" modern roses.

. . . while I love visiting OGR gardens in the Spring, I am probably not going to grow a rose that does not repeat bloom.

*** Old Garden Roses DO rebloom.

Jeri

Jeri, You are certainly right that some (maybe even many) OGR rebloom. I think it is partly that steady reblooming among cupped form OGRs with a nice habit (many HPs and Bourbons are as stiff as HTs) are hard to find that fueled David Austin's work. I don't think he has been entirely successful but I do like his roses.

BTW, I read your comments with great interest and have enjoyed the first year of growing your namesake.

Scott

This is all much ado about nothing, isn't it? For better or for worse, the stated raison d'etre of this forum clearly incorporates David Austin's modern roses 'cause (one must assume) some of them bear a resemblance to old garden roses. It's highly unlikely that a separate forum will be established, or that the inclusion of David Austins will be deleted from this Antique Roses Forum, so the issue is moot. Isn't it?

*** but my interest are more with what has been pejoratively described as "reproduction" modern roses.

Scott, I don't think "reproduction" is pejorative. It's a description, that's all, which I kind of think DA probably likes. (Just a guess.)

Your situation in Zone 6/7 probably explains your perspective on OGRs not being great repeaters. Perhaps you could try a few of the hardier Tea roses - maybe in a warm sheltered spot. I believe you'd be happily impressed with their continuous blooming through to your first freeze. There are several recent threads here on the subject of cold-tolerant Teas that you might want to check out. They should be on Page 1 or 2 of the opening list. With some Teas in your garden perhaps you'll visit us more and share your thoughts more often - and we love photos!

Gee, Ann, you wrote some scary thoughts. Survival of the fittest is kind of contra-indicated when folks are squabbling, but I think all this is just good conversation among friends. Little debates now and then are fun, and this one hasn't gotten out of hand - yet. :))

Sherry

I just did a little research on HMF and found 27 Alister Clark roses listed as H Wichurana, H Multiflora/Noisette, H Gigantea, Hybrid Perpetual, Noisette or Tea. Those would definitely qualify for posting on this forum. Names like Borderer, Cherub, Gladsome, Jessie Clark, Kitty Kininmonth, Lady Mann, Lorraine Lee, Milkmaid, Nancy Hayward, Squatter's Dream, Sunday Best, and others. He introduced lots of HTs, too, by crossing with R Gigantea.

Do I need to stop posting pics of Mme Caroline Testout and Mme Abel Chateney here? And Perle d'Or? Cornelia? And I guess my baby Etoile de Mai will never see her picture here.

I find it difficult to tell a rose friend, no, she can't share her pride and joy here. I thought I was friendlier than that and more gracious, but if those are the rules... but maybe I'm being too much of a stickler.

Sherry

To my mind, the variable growth habits of Austins, in various climates, separates them from HTs. If you buy an HT, grandiflora or floribunda, you have few doubts, I think, as to it's habits. The Austins, however, have spawned numerous threads as to what does well where, and which is true of many OGRs. So, to me, they have that similarity to OGRs, as well as flower form & fragrance, not to mention that they are less readily available than are HTs.

Besides...I like this forum a lot & I don't want to go elsewhere to read about Austins!

Bellegallica, as an aside, I will mention that of the above repeating rose classes you list above, only a FEW HPs, bourbons, and damasks are hardy in the north. And of these, one has to be very selective and research thoroughly because so many of them aren't hardy within those classes.

So for us in the northern zones that experience significant winterkill, David Austin has tremendously improved our quantity and quality of reblooming choices. Those of you in CA and the south have a lot more choices and can supply a garden full of reblooming OGRs.

That last post was meant to help dispel the myth that Austin created reblooming OGR's. It wasn't intended to raise reblooming roses above the once-blooming.

This forum is far too heavily weighted toward the west coast and southern growers. The photo heavy gallica thread that came through here recently was a breath of fresh air.

Note my screen name, which I chose long before I learned once-bloomers aren't happy here. If I lived as far north as you I'd have a whole hedge of Belle Isis.

Of all the antique roses, I think the once-bloomers should be discussed far more.

We can't grow them here. Our winters are too warm and too short to make them happy.

It certainly is not my desire to stir up conflict. I am a United Methodist Minister and I certainly find more conflict in my daily work than I care for. My original point was that if the love some people have for English Roses is a problem for some OGRosarians then maybe a separate list for those who Grow English and other Modern Landscape Roses would be a good idea. I signed up for this list when we moved in June and I needed to establish a new garden and wanted to hear what people were interested in these days. I have been on a couple of other rose lists (both old and new roses) beginning in 1993 but it has been several years since I was active on any of them. I dont remember the details but one was a newsgroup something like rec. roses.etc.

I am glad that others find joy in growing OGRs, I would very much like to grow some that I do not have experience with and a few that I do but with the time I have to devote to gardening, I choose to grow mostly English, Hybrid Musk, Hybrid Perpetuals, a variety of other Shrub roses, and miniature. The minis are a love I picked up in the 70s helping my mother with her two dozen or so minis. While new to this list, my real devotion to rose gardening began in the late 80s while a graduate student in Atlanta at Emory University. I did yard work to support myself through school.

Two clients I worked for were great rose devotees. They were both retired (one a teacher the other an Episcopal Priest) and neither were able to work their gardens as they had before. He was in his early nineties and had about forty roses and she was in her seventies and used to care for her 100+ roses with her husband who had passed away the year before. I would spend four hours every Monday in her, Martha Felder, garden and she would fix me lunch and teach me about the many varieties she grew. Of her OGR she did grow serveral that were repeat bloomers but she also taught me that to say they were repeat blooms did not mean that they would repeat like her Hybrid Teas. They both taught me a great deal about roses, old and new. I cherish their conversations.

It was in the early nineties when I began rose gardening for myself. Since then I have grown a wide variety of OGRs and modern roses. Again, for the time I have to devote to gardening I am going to grow those roses that I have found to be reliable repeat bloomers of an OGR style. I dont think I ever said that OGR dont repeat bloom, but as I am establishing a new garden I have decided that I am not going to plant some roses that I very much enjoy, simply because they do not repeat very well. I dont think it is news to say that many of the OGR that repeat bloom do so sparingly. With that being said, part of the reason I am following this list is that I am certain that there probably are some varieties I could learn about which I might decide to include. If this bothers someone I will gladly drop off the list. It is not essential to my joy in rose gardening to follow this list, but in the small town I live in there are not very many (none that I know of) who share my interest in roses.

Scott Keneda

Me? I dont care if people post about Hybrid Teas here..I say the more the merrier. More is always better. The only reason I can think of to redirect some one to the Main Rose forum is if they are not getting the imput they need on this one, not that this is an inappropriate forum. When people are posting about roses there cant be anything wrong about it-just less efficient since sharing is what we are all about.
As to Austins or what ever, I say leave things alone since Main Rose Forum people will need to visit here in order to gain the most insight into growing Austins and perhaps will hang around to learn what all the excietment is about. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

patricia

I am particularly sensitive to replacing older roses with Austins as a number of years ago the Roses of Legend and Romance Garden in Wooster, Ohio replaced a number of older Kordes roses with Austins. Although the Kordes roses had survived nicely there, the Austins have struggled. Whether this is due to replant type disease problems or the area being too cold for the Austins selected (the particular bed was in a low spot in the garden) is not clear to me.

I was disappointed as there were probably very few public gardens in the U.S. where the removed Kordes roses were available for viewing.

Re the comment above by the Reverend Scott . . . Generalizing about roses is often a tricky business. It's true that many repeating OGRs don't provide much of a show after their spring flush, but the very same can be said for a great many modern 'repeating' roses. OTOH, there are OGRs in my garden whose repeat bloom puts my most prolific modern roses to shame.

I still maintain that, that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.
Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet meet and fall in love in Shakespeare's lyrical tale of "star-cross'd" lovers. They are doomed from the start as members of two warring families. Here Juliet tells Romeo that a name is an artificial and meaningless convention, and that she loves the person who is called "Montague", not the Montague name and not the Montague family. Romeo, out of his passion for Juliet, rejects his family name and vows, as Juliet asks, to "deny (his) father" and instead be "new baptized" as Juliet's lover. This one short line encapsulates the central struggle and tragedy of the play.

I still don't understand what this thread is about????

Tea = old garden, but Teas are the originators of today's "classic" florists' rose form, the hybrid tea. so even "modern" roses are "old garden".

English / David Austin

Although not officially recognized as a separate class of roses by any established rose authority, English (aka David Austin) roses are often set aside as such by consumers and retailers alike. Development started in the 1960s by David Austin of Shropshire, England, who wanted to rekindle interest in Old Garden Roses by hybridizing them with modern hybrid teas and floribundas. The idea was to create a new group of roses that featured blooms with old-fashioned shapes and fragrances, evocative of classic gallica, alba and "damask" roses, but with modern repeat-blooming characteristics and the larger modern colour range as well.

I suggest reading the Wikipedia

My opinion is that simple is good, complicated is bad. Making things more complex than what they really are is even worse.

I would like to have you tie together Romeo and Juliet, the subject at hand, and Wikipedia.

Sammy

windeaux,

You mentioned that "there are OGRs in my garden whose repeat bloom puts my most prolific modern roses to shame." To learn about such OGR varieties is precisely the reason I follow this list. I would greatly appreciate knowing what OGRs you have had such success with. It might be exactly what I am looking for.

Thanks and please just call me Scott

big fuss about nowt! I zip around various forums and do not want to be made to feel silly or ignorant because I have queried something about a post 1867 rose. It is all a bit blah as definitions are changeable or unworkable. Yep, I am all for including a wider definition in the thread although I had previously thought that 'antique' was nicely vague (especially since the 1950's and 60's has been classed as antique in local retail outlets). Rules can be exclusive and frightening - this forum should surely welcome everyone and if they mistakenly witter on about a modern rose, so what! We can either reply, disagree or ignore it. Surely we are all adults without resorting to hair-splitting and dogma. Isn't it enough that we all love roses and want to continue to become better, more competent gardeners, sharing each others experience.
By the way, I started growing what I always called old fashioned roses and DA roses came later (along with other modern shrubs such as Nevada and Poulsens rennaissance roses) The age of the rose is utterly irrelevant to me whereas scent, health, colour, habit, remontancy are all of greater importance.

Scott, I'm not windeaux, but I'll submit Marchesa Boccella (aka, Jacques Cartier). Fragrant, near bullet-proof, fairly disease resistant (not Knock Out, but doesn't defoliate if not sprayed), usually one of the first to bloom in the spring, and one of the last to bloom in the fall.

Thanks Diane. It looks quite beautiful. Burling Leong has it listed as a Hybrid Perpetual but I think I have also seen it listed as a Damask somewhere. Either way, I think I will put it on the list for spring.

Scott

It was by coming to this forum looking for information on old roses that I discovered the Austins! :)

If Austins aren't welcome here, I'll happily move on.

From Luxrosa,
I'm surprised at the number of responses to my posting.
My original intent was to improve methods taken to educate the public about Old Garden ROsea and Antique roses.
Traditionally one of the most reliable ways for a person who wished to learn about the different characteristics shown among different rose species, and different garden rose classes, was to visit a Heritage Rose Garden or Botanical garden. In such places it is easy for an observant person to see the differences between types of;
-foliage. a wild rose may have as many as 9 or more leaflets per leaf, species hybrids as many as 15. Wild roses are typically as useful used as foliage plants in landscaping, as for their being flowering plants. So are many Old Garden Roses.
-armature. Prickles. Scotch Burnet and Rugosa are among the prickliest.
-different scents. Two rose species have quite fragrant foliage, R. rubinigosa, the eglantine rose that Shakespeare mentions in a Midsummers Night Dream. Even more intensely fragrant, its nickname is the Incense rose which to me smells as strong as a Buddhist temple with several sticks of eastern type incense. (compared to frankincense that the Catholic church uses).
Scotch Burnets, in the U.S. called garden class is Hybrid Spinosissima, have a lovely refined scent like that of lily -of -the- valley, or as a freind put it "like a good quality French bar soap", Damask roses have what is typically assoiated with the phrase Old Rose scent, the scent we expect from a modern red H.T. rose.
Each species, as well as each garden class is different, and some classes have unique characteristics not seen in others.
Historical education regarding roses: because some film makers go to great trouble to get everything correct to the period in a period film, they often make the mistake of tossing an obviously modern rose in a historic era, such as in The Virgin Queen, clothing is period, jewelry too, then a very long stemmed medium to deep yellow Hybrid Tea is handed to Queen Elizabeth the Great, a rose that did not exist anywhere in the world until after 1900.
-Where would a filmmaker get the idea that a modern yellow rose was grown in England in the early 1600's? Possibly from visitiing teh Berkeley Botanical Garden, where in order to add "color" to an area planted with Old European Roses a gardener decided to plant a yellow Austin rose, Graham Stuart Thomas which has a high percentage of modern rose in its breeding, as 90%+ of all Austin roses do, which makek Austin roses have
-different foliage, armature, growth habit "Tamara" is a good example, scent:myrhh is prevelent. The yellow and red hues and the fact that they are remontant, and bred from two HIGHLY HYBRIDIZED ROSE CLASSES,Florabunda and Hybrid Tea, makes them very modern indeed, plus the chronological dates of introduction, all were introduced nearly 100 years after the first modern roses were introduced in 1867.
I've reconsidered this, and feel that instead of seperating the Austin roses, from Antique roses, perhaps a little information could be added, a page or two at gardenweb, to describe what is an Old European Rose, what makes a rose an Old Garden Rose, and why modern roses can have traits that didn't exist in earlier roses.
-Austin roses. A group of modern Shrub roses. Though most have both a modern mother seed parent and a modern father, pollen parent,(usually a Florabunda or Hybrid Tea. Those introduced after 1980 a majority have these parents;
Austin rose X Austin rose. As a group, Austin roses show modern colors, modern rose foliage and modern growth habits. Many of these beautiful pretenders mimic older roses in bloom shape.

Peace to you all,
Luxrosa

sounds like from luxrosa's description, David Austin has failed. She states that the DA roses are a group show modern color, modern foliage, modern habit. That means that David Austin has failed. Quick, someone send a letter to Mr. Austin, let him know he needs to go back to the drawing board.

Now after that is over with - how can someone just make something up, write it, and expect us to believe that it is true just because. And everything else that I see, know, and read is wrong???

I have an idea that Lux is more to be believed than an advertising campaign even if it is David Austin's.

Thanks, Lux, for your last post. It clarified a lot for me, and I think a page or two of enlightenment would be much appreciated by newcomers. I know I've bought a lot of books since my addiction began, but then I probably would have anyway. Unfortunately, I fear those bright yellow roses will still appear in those period movies. The history of roses is a very esoteric subject, amazingly undisseminated. We need some billboards along the interstate.

Sherry

My original intent was to improve methods taken to educate the public about Old Garden ROsea and Antique roses

HUH ? I read parts of the thread as meaning: some might want to have a DA rose growing class room ? If they get an A then can they grow antiques ? and go to a different class? Antiques 101 ? from DAs 101 to selected top honor growers graduating class ?

Hey teacher(s) got some more questions for you.
Are you sure you have the right degrees to make out all the grades?

Ok maybe you do, thats realy good I am sure someone may even proud. Go ahead knock yourself out then reinvent the wheel.

After you do that (Yes I hope you get an A ) maybe just maybe Mr Austin might want to have a word with you.

Last question from me.
Share some penny candy ?
thats all I got left from my 2 cents.

Wes

I do not give it a thought many times myself. Guilty when it comes to Clark roses here as well. I do not use classic or antique usually, I use the word old. Classic perhaps would be better, but with hundreds of roses in my garden, I do not sort by date. I had never thought about new sports on old roses very enlightening, either way glad to have this forum

Hi Jeri ! Thankyou for your post regarding Alister Clark roses. I have been waitting for you to say something about them because I saw you had something to do with Alister Clark roses in America. So I am very happy now, and it is good to talk with you.
This has been a very educational debate.

Apparently a touchy subject with some..I agree that most Austin roses are floribundas in habit-a nicely vague sort of category but I also think we must be as inclusive as we can be and the flowers are as you say often old fashioned in look and seem to form a bridge for people to move into the old once bloomers which is a postive thing and I personally doubt that directors of movies use Hybrid Teas because they are confused by public plantings-I think they are just that ignorant and use what they think a rose looks like. Certainly people who are into period clothing frequently have issues with colors, fabrics, prints, and so forth that seem as crucial to them as ours with flowers out of season or era. As Sherry says it is a very esoteric subject.
In the spirit of education: SCOTS roses. Scotch is a drink ;)

patricia

Put simply, I would like Gardenweb to create a new forum/section for "David Austin roses" and the "Delbard roses".

I'm only interested in David Austin roses - not hybrid tea roses, which is why I barely go to the "Rose" section.

I forgot to add:

Few months ago I posted a question about David Austin roses in the 'Antique section'. Next day, I realised that my thread was moved to the 'rose section'. I was really unhappy that my thread was moved because the Antique section is a "forum for discussion of antique, Austin and old garden roses."

Hello Jumbojimmy, where abouts in Australia do you live ? I live in the Central Tableland of N.S.W., north west of Mudgee. Near a town named Gulgong.

"This forum is for discussion of antique, Austin and old garden roses." hmmmmmmm....

Austins aren't antique or old, plain and simple.

They are so popular amongst many, that a special forum just for followers might not be such a bad idea. Or change the name of this forum to "Antiques and Austins" to end the confusion.

BTW, has anybody seen Pretty Jessica?

I see that you hold a cynical view, that David Austin is just a self serving phony, and he advertises himself and trumpets himself as one thing, whereas if the truth be know (and you seem to be the bearer of truth and all things that are true), he is just an impostor, a phony rose breeder who advertises one thing, and we all buy his stuff because we are dupes, that only buy a product because of its advertised merit, and not the true value, and that we here all that disagree with you, are of a very weak mind, and cannot judge merit or value by ourselves - we just read the advertising, and then make our purchase based on that, and that we are not even aware that a product might not be as advertised, without your wonderful help.

Well, I suggest again, google is your friend, I suggest you read and learn. You seem mainly interested in "write and teach, even if wrong", and do not seem to be interested in "read and learn". I am of the school called "think for myself, read, and learn"

If you are still reading at this point, then the following, was written, not by me, not by David Austin, and not by any sockpuppet or mindless follower of David Austin, but an actual knowledgeable rosarian, who actually breeds roses for a living, and probably knows more about roses than the collective knowledge of all the people on this forum.

So, for your reading enjoyment, study the opinion of David Barden:

The English Roses, bred by David Austin of Shropshire, England are newcomers to world gardening, and as such, are NOT Old Garden Roses. Rather, they can be thought of as "reproductions after a style", which is not to suggest that they are in any way less wonderful than the true OGRs. Their heritage includes Noisettes, Portland Damasks, Teas, Hybrid Perpetuals, Hybrid Teas, and others.

David Austins intention in breeding these new roses is to marry the OGRs with modern shrubs with the hope that they would have the best qualities of both. In many cases (but not all), he has acheived success. Unlike any other group of roses I know, the English Roses are very "climate specific" from variety to variety, and you may need to try some of them to find out which ones will do well in your particular area. Some are well suited to the colder regions that have hot summers, some are better on the west coast, where the winters are wet and mild, and summers dry. There are now several "tried and true" cultivars from the earlier years of his breeding program, and choosing from these will likely prove to be worthwhile. The newer roses from the 90's are to still in their trial period, and many have not yet proven themselves. You may choose to try some of these, but understand that you are testing their merits. I have both older ones, and some of the very newest ones, and there are "keepers" in both groups.

This is a good class of rose to experiment with if you hunger for the one quality that most modern roses lack: FRAGRANCE! Most of the English Roses are exceptionally fragrant. They are also very big shrubs, most of them, so they may not be suitable for small urban gardens where space is at a premium. Some of them are also quite subject to disease, namely Blackspot. In cases where I have found very disease resistant varieties, I will mark them with an * in the chart here. These roses are generally very winter hardy also, with a few exceptions. Most will grow happily in at least zone 5, and some will likely do well even in zone 4.

klinko, I agree with you: Paul Barden's comments are the best I have ever read about the Austin roses, and the most insightful. I've already read it three times to understand what he's saying in relation to my garden situation.

I've also reread all of the above comments by forum members to try and understand why your tone is so caustic. So far that understanding has eluded me.

because when I quote DA himself, about his goals with rose hybridizing, the OP accuses me of falling for DA's advertising, which we are told, is just a cynical ploy of DA to misrepresent his product to increase his own sales and the size of his paycheque. DA's own description cannot be trusted because it consists of "advertising", as if I cannot look at an advertissment myself, and decide for myself whether it is accurate or not. David Austin, lives and breathes roses. Roses are David Austin's life, they represent far more than just a paycheque, and to suggest otherwise groups David Austin with the many many soul-less corporations whose sole reason for existence is profit. David Austin's sole reason for existence is roses, and I resent grouping his advertising with the owerwhelming commercial profit-seeking and maximizing which a great deal of the world has become. Because roses are the last sanctuary of the human spirit, and are one of the few things we can enjoy for free. And the sole reason for David Austin's existence is to increase our joy, yours, and mine, and the original poster's, even though he/she seems to have it out for him (for whatever reason I don't know, and we can only guess at).

Luxrosa back here,

My concern regards education.
Because Gardenweb has chosen to place Austin roses after the heading of Old Garden Rose-Antique roses, anyone who wishes to learn more about Old Garden Roses or Antique roses might naturally assume that since Austin roses are placed here by the owners of the forum, that they are in fact Old Garden Roses, by breeding or Antique roses by date of introduction.
After much contemplation, I would suggest that the term modern be added to 'Austin'. Because the way it is now one sees the word "Austin" right after reading "Old Garden Rose and Antique Roses". I think Austin roses do belong here, because of their bloom style. Even though none are (Old Garden Roses,( by breeding) or by date of introduction (Antique).
It seems I've ruffled some petals.
Luxrosa

Lux, I think you're zeroing in on it.

It's probably too long for GW to accept it, but I think I'd say:
"Old Garden Roses
and
Modern/Shrub Roses
of Antique style
by David Austin and others."

Jeri

I think most readers who re-visit here even a couple times and bother to read a number of the postings quickly understand the Austins are different from the other categories. And those who don't quickly pick up on the distinction probably don't care one way or another.

I think some of you are searching for "solutions" to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Kate

I also think that Austins are the gateway drug, if I can use that term, to OGRs. And I don't think they are that similar to HTs. At least not the ones I have.

greybird, no, I haven't seen her. She's gained the wisdom to no longer go anywhere near topics such as this :-)

Randy

just 2 things, maybe i'm blind: i went looking for this "modern rose forum" and i can't find it. seems the "modern forum" doesn't exist, and this whole thread has just been a practical joke - congratulations to the OP, you had us going there.

and now that i noticed that, i realized something in addition:
roses are not actually "modern", but in reality are very old and historical. when speaking of the rose, it might be prefaced by something like: "And now...introducting...the Queen!" a Queen is obviously not anything very modern either, so the whole premise, (or practical joke), of the discussion, is just a farce. There are newer hybrids, of course, just like there are newer hybrids of apples, but no one talks about "modern apples", or "modern wheat", or modern any other plant, because, simply, they are just not
really "modern" at all, not like a modern automobile, or a telephone, or a washing machine, or an antibiotic or chemotherapy medicine,rose are, have been, and always will be highly historical, steeped in tradition and culture, and there never will be this alleged "modern rose forum", because that is very simply, a contradiction in terms, and cannot exist.

Indeed, if we use the modern search engine "Google", and type in "modern rose forum" - guess what? - there does not even exist a "modern rose forum" anywhere.

so before talking about a forum that doesn't exist anywhere, I suggest using "Google", and remember - Google is your friend. Cheers!!! all the best for the holidays and new years, Klinko.

I think we need a forum that says "all the plants that grow well with once-blooming roses when they quit blooming" :) That's what I'm trying to find. Or maybe, "roses that will actually survive in zone 5 and below without a huge amount of work protecting them". That would be useful too! (Just in case someone gets the wrong idea, I'm joking about these forums, but they might make good threads.)

Being new to the GW, it's hard to know what forum is the best to post a question. I think it's a little too broken up. Some forums hardly have any "traffic" and others are very busy. I've posted a few questions and gotten very little response...many times I've had to post the same question on three or four forums. I like that there are so many people on this forum that offer help and ideas to a newbie like myself. Whatever happens, don't break this into three or four forums, because I think many people would no longer be here...and I can use all the help I can get!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

I think it has been great that the lines have been blurred a bit on this forum. It has made the discussions very interesting, and very few things in life have absolute cut and dried demarcations anyway.

I also do not take the time to jump around several different forums, since I find it difficult to sit still long enough to do so.

No complaints here.

Sandy

great debate though!

no one talks about "modern apples", or "modern wheat"

True, but people do talk about "primitive wheat". It's just that the older versions of wheat go by less familiar names, such as "durum", "emmer", "farro", and "spelt".

You can also find examples of "antique apples" if you search out the right nurseries.

At the same time, you're quite right about them all being hybrids, and hybridization is hybridization. Very often a plant's "antique" status is really in the eye of the beholder.

I think we need a forum that says "all the plants that grow well with once-blooming roses when they quit blooming" :) That's what I'm trying to find.

If you live in a dry summer area and have a very well-draining soil, have you considered the genus "Agastache"? Another genus that might work well for you might be Penstemon.