I purchased it as P. Pungens 'baby blue' (you know the tags, "blue is cool blue is cool blue is cool blue is cool blue is cool"). It was only after a year or two that I noticed its branches were weeping. I think I planted it Nov 2014, but maybe Nov 2015. I do remember when purchasing it, it was different (I looked at every single one they had, probably over 200) but weeping never crossed my mind even though in thinking back I remember it looking about what it currently looks like. When I compared it to my 7 or so other P. Pungens 'baby blue', it was clearly different. I guess it would be considered a seedling with a mutation (or a mutated seedling?) ? The baby blue are grown from seed.

Nothing much to do today. I am waiting for the coldest temperatures of the winter and a approaching snow storm that is due this weekend. Arbs are wrapped with twine, rabbit protection in place and zone 6 cultivars are protected. Deer are not a problem. With that in hand why not make a long post even longer. The quote: "I don't know why but I don't like dwarf conifers" I am not here to rail against that...just expressing my thoughts from the other side of the coin. We all have our likes and dislikes. A diversified group we are. I know why I like them and I am glad to have a garden full of them. So much more interesting avenues are available in color, size and texture. With the right plan and presentation nothing surpasses the look. Much more interesting then miles of green sticks pointing upwards to the heavens. No disrespect here for species lovers. For me this look just doesn't trip my trigger and not applicable to a garden setting in the first place. This places a huge void between species and cultivars and mixing the two is impossible unless you have a large land mass to accommodate the two. In my opinion even with both being conifers there should be two forums...one for each. Just my opinion but I think a valid one. Don't let this one rub the wrong way but the void between the two is significant in terms of likes /dislikes and has been expressed on this forum many times. My quote: "I do like them, (species) but I don't know why". I suppose with out them our availability to witch's brooms would be gone. Nurseries would be void of these beautiful little guys selling only deciduous trees shrubs and flowers. I would hate the thought of gardening with out conifer cultivars. They are my anchor plants and my sea of color during those bleak winter months. With out them there would be no garden. I would just be cutting grass and raking leaves. Gardening with trees, shrubs, hostas and flowers doesn't cut it with me. No disrespect to those who do...just not my cup of tea. Waiting patiently for spring and the arrival of a few interesting new cultivars. Dave

concerning "double digit" low temps I was there in 1990 when I believe that the low was around 9!!! that said, the coastal land near-coastal area is mostly USDA 9a and fairly mild most of the time as far as winters go---but my place gets some white frost on the ground most every year so "zone 9" is not a magic charm against cold weather by any means. FWIW, the biggest cordyline australis in bandon that I'm aware of is probably about 25' tall (coos bay/north bend plants are about the same size). the big "champion" douglas fir your are referring to are actually several miles inland around coquille and myrtle point generally in protected ravines that are moister in the dry summers and protected to some degree from wind storms. no doubt there were also big trees closer to the coast once upon a time but they likely got cut down rather quickly when the logging business came in the latter part of the 19'th century. a great book about the various champion trees of many species is "forest giants of the pacific coast" by Robert Van Pelt (he also has a good book on the various champion trees of Washington state as well). the "giants' book is beautifully illustrated so it's great just to look at as well as read through.

"But there is little sign of breakage." It could be they are less prone than various other hardwoods or softwoods. I think as a vague generality, slower growth = denser, stronger wood is a valid assumption. However at the end of the day a lever is a lever and the laws of physics are the laws of physics, if 1/2 the tree is weighted down with one force vector and 1/2 is weighted down with an opposing force vector, you are setting up a breakage scenario. Here's a picture I took of a tree in an off-limits part of Longwood; I was shown this by an employee at the time. The area of trunk disfigurement makes me wonder if a low trunk or two snapped off at some point. More I think about it the more I am inclined to be marvericky and try to single trunk it. Surely someone has a thought besides the esteemed (usually) Mr. Embothrium? Here is a picture of nightmarish frozen goop that caused so much damage. Ice morphed to sleet which morphed to wet snow. All of it stuck which was the problem. This Abies firma laughed it off course. And this picture was over 24h after the precip had ended, after a lot of the somewhat lighter, snowier constituents had sublimated or blown off.