Your comment intrigues me. I don't have much space, and I want what I want. There is a site that encourages planting 3 fruit trees in one hole. Hmmmmmmmm Could we do this with roses?

Here is a link that might be useful: Fruit trees, Why not Roses?

I have seen some great pictures of roses grown in groups of 3. If fact I saw them at at a workshop I attended at Ashdown Roses and Michael Marriott who is the Technical Director for David Austin Roses in England was the guest speaker. Michael brought with him some great slides of the gardens and many of the roses were planted in group of 3 and then pruned to look like one rose. I can remember him saying spaceing was about 2 to 3 feet between each rose plant depending on the mature size of the roses. If you have the space I say why not?

I think with planting three as a group you will get the looks of a big impressive shrub faster than with just one rose. It is probably most appropriate for a specimen planting although I am sure opinions will differ. It is beautiful, but the big limitation is space available for the trio. I personally like to interplant my roses with companion plants so they blend into the garden and would much rather spend the money on three different roses than three of the same one. However, three roses planted together would give you an amazing display of flowers.
Masha

This is very exciting!! I'm willing to try!! Limited space and bare roots to plant. Soooooooooo We put floribundas together, and Teas together?

sounds good to me. For some reason i plant alot of red and white alternating, but i suppose you can just about do anything, I don't think there are any rules. Have some fun and see if you can't clash the colors!lol! It's pretty difficult.

The pictures I saw of the grouping of 3 were of the same rose and yes as Masha stated, when the roses are in bloom the look is breathtaking.
I have to keep my roses in containers but I have shrub roses next to minis and floribundas. But then again I have very eclectic tastes and I also believe there are no set rules either on what types of rose to plant next to others.

I have three of Austin's Molineux planted together. At first, I just had one--really liked it, but it was in the bed back by the alley and just didn't really show up that well unless you actually walked all the way back there. So the second year, I planted a second Molineux about 18-20 inches away from the first one. That made more of an impact, but looked too much like a straight row (in my cottage garden), so the third year I added a third Molineux right in front of the other two--they form sort of a triangle now. Makes a great impact now--I love my trio.

One reason it probably worked so well for Molineux is that it is not a very wide rose and its growth is somewhat upright. With three together, it looks rounder and fuller--more like we typically think an Austin ought to look. If you already had a wide or very full rose, don't think I'd advise adding two more. Three Shakespeare 2000s planted together would be just too, too much, I think--although I've never tried it. LOL

Definitely try combining three roses if they are a bit on the narrow side. I think you will really like it.

Kate

I have 2 Tamora and 2 of The Prince planted as pairs planted about 18" apart. It works very well because they are small growers and rather upright. I could have easily added a 3rd to each pair for an even fuller look. I believe Mordenman (Tim) has Wm. Shakespeare 2000 planted in groups of 3 but I've never seen pictures of the result. I've planted Crocus Rose as a group of 3 and it is quite a clump even after 2 years. It is a very disease resistant rose and I think that helps if you are going to attempt this.

Ruth

It also depends on climate. In warm areas planting three of the larger Austins together would probably take up half of your yard.

Ingrid

Ok so it sounds like grouping three Austins like Abraham Darby together could be a monster eh?

I'm also wondering about crossing branches from the three separate plants. Isn't that generally a bad thing?

Oh Boy,
To answer the question Yes I would plant in three if I know the rose growth habit in my yard. BUT
I just moved a few Austins because they were way to big. I mean I moved the root balls of the whole monster Austins.I used a comforter so I would not have to cut off all the canes. Lesson Learned: It is easy to plant roses close together. It works and looks great for three year! The problem is happy roses grow. It took me a few years to really believe this. So, knowing what I have experienced, I would do what Dublinbay did plant one rose , wait a year, plant another and wait. For example I now know that Graham Thomas and Hertiage are tall and wide at the top only. I can see planting two of a much shorter rose like Tamora three feet in front of either or them. But if I plant them closer than 3 feet it will be under the roses and not get any sunshine. Another lesson I learned, A group of three tamora is shorter but it gets a bit scary not being able to see inside the circle of three. I did not believe I would ever need to reach in blindly, to prune, place mulch, dead head. However, roses need maintance. eventual you will have to deal with snakes and snapping turtles and all kinds of things that live in the warm dark center.

After years of growing Austins, I would plant threes now, even here. Yes it takes up lots of room but it looks faaaaaaabulous.

From the start, I wanted a substantial look to many of the roses, and I planted many in twos and threes, mostly, 18" apart. They do just sort of grow together, and the crossing canes will happen anyway, even if just one is planted. Depends on the space/proportion you want to achieve. I do like the look.

I agree with most comments here - mass planting is the way to go if you want a constant supply of blooms. If your roses do get large, you can always dig it out and give it to your friends e.t.c.

For example, my favorite Austin so far is Tea Clipper (although the blooms don't last very long). I only have one TC, and the plant is still young. None of my roses open at the same time: you will see a bud here and a flower there, which can be quite frustrating because I always cut those blooms off to enjoy indoors.

So, next year, I'm planing on getting 2 more Gertrude Jekyll ( love the scent) and another Tea Clipper :the blooms are gorgeously beautiful with a subtle tea fragrance - its downside is that the color fades very quickly.

Having said that, not all roses look "striking" when mass-planted. For example, I used to have this strip rose that looked great by itself. I saw the same strip rose being mass-planted at the botanical garden recently, and thought to myself- it's just too much, less is best because a strip rose should add excitment to your garden when you see it. Too much of it ruins this mood, if you know what I mean.

I also like to add, the reason why I started off with one Austin is to get a feel of whether I like it or not. Once my mind is made up, I will buy the same variety again.

I think that's a great idea for visual impact. Having said that, I specialize in drifts of one for the most part...

I've planted in threes....used a great specimen rose and added two others around it in contrasting or complimentary colors, and also planted in drifts. There's no right or wrong way...I look at it like painting with roses. But do add irises, daylilies, veronicas, salvia, and other companion plants to complete your canvas. Vertical interest is also good...don't be afraid to throw in a climber or two to draw the eye upwards.
-terri

I agree with Terri. Just have fun and if you don't like what you did just grab a shovel and plant it somewhere else. Merry Christmas, Judy

I've planted some rose varieties in pairs about 18 inches apart. Playboy, Fabulous, Europeana, Hot Princess, Marchesa Boccella, Symphony, and Irresistible were my test pairs (grouped 2 of each variety). In every case, one partner of each pair took over as the dominant plant by their 3rd year together. Although the "pair" looked like one big bush, in reality, each individual plant (even the stronger one) was smaller than if I had planted them separately at my normal 36 inches apart. I don't anticipate growing them in pairs anymore, and in fact have removed the weaker partner of each pair, except Playboy and Europeana because I would have to dig up both in order to remove the weak partner.

Painting with roses... what a wonderful metaphor. :)

Maggie, snapping turtles! Really??

I'm wondering about kitty's comment regarding weaker plants in a grouping as to whether Austins exhibit different properties that makes them more suitable for this. Here's a direct quote from their catalogue:

"Wherever possible, we would always advise planting in groups of three or more although, in small borders, single plants are very satisfactory."

I'm not sure what others have in mind, but when I plant three of the same rose fairly close together (18-20 inches apart, planted in a circle or triangle), I see myself as creating ONE LARGER PLANT; it is no longer three separate bushes that need to be cared for separately.

This is a somewhat different concept than "mass plantings" or three different bushes planted a little too close together and therefore sometimes difficult to care for individually.

Does that make sense? It works for me and helps me decide where and how I want to locate my three-in-one bushes in the garden.

Kate

Ahhh yes. That makes perfect sense. So I'm assuming if a plant would normally get about 5' wide if you planted in a tight group of three 18" apart and everything grows together you're really only adding at most what a couple of feet to the girth of the plant?

I understand the mass planting effect, which can be
breath taking, but I personally don't do that. Since I
have limited space, I'd much rather plant as many different
varieties as I can. To me this keeps the yard from
being boring, and there is always something in bloom.
Ray