Nice work.

May I make one little criticism? The rock placement looks very unnatural - kind of like it rained small boulders :-) It is too evenly spaced. Maybe try grouping them in clusters, like you would find in a natural rock fall or rocky area. And rather just leaving them sitting on top of the soil or mulch, settle them into the soil more, so they look like they are emerging out of a natural rock outcropping.

maple,
Looks ike a LOT of work, and alot money.
Very nice, and when your conifers grow in, it's going to look even better.
Where is your bench? You need a bench so you can sit and enjoy a nice day.
Congrats!

My family tells me the rocks look like "Christophe's family", and I appreciate your comment gal.

Actually, I have given the rock placement much thought. In other beds, I have more clustered formations of rocks, but in this case I wanted them throughout. No plant is very far from a rock. While I know you are right, and the even spaced look is unnatural, I think it will look less so over time as the plants fill in. That's one of the nice aspects of gardening, if I become unhappy with it, I can always move it around in the future.

Actually, I've run into a problem in the past with rocks settling over time, to the point where they were not paricularly visible even for decent sized rocks. In this planting I actually raised the rocks up on a few inches of gravel to give them a bit of a boost and counteract the settled look over time, before laying down a few inches of mulch.

Beds, paths, rocks, conifers = Heaven. You've aced it, Maple.

In the last pic, what's the 'Jakobsen' or Thunbergii pine near the camera and what's the dark green plant to the left of it and up? Finally what's the other dark green globle top right hand corner on the last bend?

OK - I understand your intent. Newly constructed planned landscapes seldom look very natural initially. When the plants fill in, I'm sure the effect will be much different. And the fact that you thought about rock placement with that specific end in mind is a testament to some serious forethought and long range planning :-))

Good for you. And a nice selection of conifers - the maples are always a great accent.

Looks awesome! Rock placement is always a challenge. I once read that you need to bury 3/4th of the rock and make it look natural. That means you need big and rocks. I still struggle and move things often, but that 3/4th rule does seem to work well.

Round rocks make good stream beds. Quarry rocks make good outcroppings.
I'm not burdened with placing rocks equidistant, but I have to catch myself placing plants the same distance apart sometimes. Especially if they are the same size. It's not fun going back and making corrections, but I don't hesitate when I realize my mistrake.

Alex, I too place my rocks as high up as I can get them, making sure they're right side up first, of course. Quarry rocks look good placed in lumpy strings on ridges leading to a headland formation if you can. Plants are planted between the rocks and not in front of them like most people do. The rocks are placed high because of settling, mulch, and groundcovers. It's actually hard to get them high enough to begin with because they stick out like a sore thumb before the mulch is added and the groundcovers grow. In some cases I've put them on top of broken concrete to get them high enough and stay there. It doesn't take long before they look 'settled in'. Rocks are expensive and a lot of knowledge and work to install correctly. You don't want to bury what you paid for.
Here's some rock work I did in my garden a few years ago. it needs enhancement now. The areas between the strings of rocks need to be dug out and lowered and I can use that topsoil to help raise some of the rocks to make the whole area more dynamic.
Mike
{{gwi:62130}}

Alex,

Looks good to me.

Most important thing is you did it your way and you can be proud of your accomplishment.

Changes will come in time and without a doubt the grassy area in the back ground of the first photo will succumb and be a player or extension on what you have already accomplished.

Have fun.

Dave

This post was edited by Davesconifers on Sun, Nov 9, 14 at 9:28

Real nice Alex, Damn good job ! Kudos!

Al

stunning ....

the beauty of rocks that size ... is that anytime you are bored... you can go move them ... and ever changing scape ... the ultimate puzzle ... [unlike mikes glacier-esque scape]

keep up God's work

ken

Thanks Ken, Al, Dave, Shawn, and severnside, and butterfly4u!

butterfly4u, I think you're right about the bench. If I can muster up the motivation, next year's plan will expand this into the area labeled as "end of path" with a circular sitting area surrounded by another bed.

severnside, that's Pinus nigra 'Black Prince' near the camera. Picea abies 'Hillside Upright' is to the left and up, and P. nigra 'Gaelle Bregeon' in the distance.' Some of my first conifers and still favorites.

Shawn, I used to try to bury 1/3 of the rock; now I feel that so long as it settles into the ground and the bottom is not visible sitting on the surface, it will look right.

Dave your garden is always a source of inspiration and your comments carry weight. And yes, large swaths of lawn are certainly doomed to succumb as things continue to evolve.

Alex

Mike, the photo of your garden area is beautiful and inspiring. My bed is an entirely different beast both in terms of the means and the end. I am in no way attempting to represent a scene from Nature, such as an alpine outcrop. Indeed, this would be impossible since the plant matter consists of unusual looking cultivars of disparate species from around the globe, many in bright shades of blue or yellow, some variegated, with one plant of each. The purpose of this bed is to showcase these plants, shown to their best advantage in the presence of rocks. Also, since I have (too) many plants in containers, it was desirable to plant as many as possible here, while leaving enough space for the plants to grow for several years without having to be moved. This goal makes some amount of equidistance inevitable to avoid wasteful empty space. While this look would not be found in nature, I believe that it can still evolve into a beautiful composition of color and texture.

I have planted the largest plants in the interior of the bed and weighted toward the top of the hill. Mostly, the largest rocks are near the largest plants to maintain the proper scale and smaller rocks near the bottom, but there are exceptions. As the plants obtain some mass over time, they will fill in much of the space between the rocks and importantly, they will block the view of more distant parts of the bed. This will greatly diminish the overall feel of equidistant planting. In other words, from any particular vantage point, you will be able to see only or mainly what is directly front of you. I feel the use of rocks in my close-up pictures is attractive, and this is what will be salient as the blocking effect develops. Yes, the overall view presents something of an ugly duckling face at the moment since the plants are essentially invisible in this view. I shared those pictures to present the scope of the project. For the time being, I like to think of it as a hill studded with gems. Currently the rocks are the gems, but the true gems are the plants as will become clear over time as the rocks subside into their proper roles as supporting characters.

The rounded shape of the rocks contrast with and draw attention to the pointy needles on the conifers, as well as their angular outline, the same way that the jagged rocks in your photo contrast and draw attention to the rounded leaves on the deciduous plants. The round rocks in my bed also serve to echo the shape of the round stone used in my path, as well as the round shape of the bed. Again, as the plants spread onto the rocks these factors will become noticeable, the micro will predominate over the macro view, and the bed will grow into a look much less drastic than what you see today.

I remember reading somewhere an essay or book where the main thesis stated that collectors' gardens sometimes suffer from the liability that they look unnatural, like a series of trophies arranged on a shelf as the author put it. The author (I forget who it was) felt that a proper collection should be arranged so that it looked natural, including proper spacing, repetition, and use of appropriate plant material for each situation. Someone with this point of view may well frown on my bed. But I have never accepted this view. This may be fine advice{{gwi:9241}} for certain types of gardens, but it seems mismatched with a "collector's garden". I guess the question is, which comes first, the collection or the bed? And if one is following these principles, it seems there is not room for much of the collection in the garden (unless the collection is very small or limited in the scope of the plants collected), so where does the rest of the collection go? I ask this seriously, and would be interested to know what you think. BTW, I am limited to one and a quarter acres.

Alex

This post was edited by maple_grove on Sun, Nov 9, 14 at 10:32

Your plants look very happy and healthy, you obviously know how to treat them right. If you don't mind my advice, look at Japanese gardens for inspiration for rock and conifer placing. Of course, our colorful and weird plants do not translate to japanese aesthetic, but Japanese gardeners perfected rock work over the centuries and no one comes close to breathtaking natural looking beauty they can achieve. My garden is very young, but I feel that any rock that I can lift is basically useless in the garden (I use those smaller rounded ones in my creek). It is better to get a few huge ones that require heavy machinery or the ones that me and my husband together can barely roll on the tractor cart. They can be easily buried to look like they have always been here and will not get lost in mulch and plants. Don't take it as a critique, please. It is just my personal opinion and I am lucky to have access to huge boulders to be a little bit of a rock snob. In Japan beautiful big rocks with character were considered something of a status symbol, they play more important role in the garden than plants do.

This may be fine advice for certain types of gardens, but it seems mismatched with a "collector's garden"

I'm not sure I'd agree :-)) It is entirely possible to have a very natural looking garden and still be a serious collector. Sara (formandfoliage) outlined this very clearly in her blog using Coenosium Gardens, Bob Fincham's magnificent property as her inspiration. Her own garden is a pretty nice example of this as well, as is Adrian Bloom's conifer garden at Bressingham. Yes, these may offer greater acreage than your own but I think it is still possible to achieve the same result on a smaller scale.

Lots of time it is just the correct juxtaposition of plants so that they play off each other in terms of various sizes, forms, textures and color. Sometimes it is the accents that tie them together, whether it be rocks, statuary or other types of plants. But it can be done very successful, as these gardens illustrate.

Here is a link that might be useful: a conifer collector's garden

I'm not saying that graceful presentation is somehow contradictory to the display of a correction, far from it. But I do think that the particular style which relies on repetition of plants, etc. may not be the best suited for the purpose. An outstanding collector's garden would rely instead on a pleasing juxtaposition of elements as you mention, and as we see in the scenes from Coenosium Gardens you link to.

Thanks everyone for your comments. The initial rock placement is never the final one and and I appreciate specific suggestions. Perhaps I'll start by moving the some of the smaller rocks out from periphery and accumulate them at the bottom of the bed.

Moving the discussion onward, here's the list of varieties planted in the new bed (the central ellipse-shaped bed), which is approximately 32’ x 18’. Some I grafted myself, many were purchased over the past several years and maintained in containers, a few are new purchases. 41 plants in all. Groundcovers and perennial material are not in yet.

Abies balsamea 'Wolcott Pond'
Abies concolor 'Bryce Canyon'
Abies concolor 'King's Gap'
Abies concolor 'Morton'
Abies koreana 'Blauer Eskimo'
Abies koreana 'Blauer Pfiff'
Abies pinsapo 'Glauca'
Abies procera 'Glauca'
Abies procera 'Sherwoodii'
Acer palmatum 'Murogawa'
Acer palmatum 'Tana'
Cedrus brevifolia 'Kenwith'
Ginkgo biloba 'Troll'
Ginko biloba 'Mariken'
Larix kaempferi 'Bambino'
Picea engelmannii 'Bush's Lace'
Picea glauca 'Eagle Rock'
Picea omorika 'Pimoko'
Picea omorika 'Wodan'
Picea pungens 'Blue Pearl'
Picea pungens 'Mint Julep'
Picea pungens 'Sharp Cheddar'
Picea rubens 'HB'
Pinus aristata 'Joe's Bess'
Pinus banksiana 'Wisconsin'
Pinus densiflora 'Edsal Wood'
Pinus flexilis 'Blackfoot'
Pinus flexilis 'Comanche'
Pinus flexilis 'Damfino'
Pinus koraiensis 'Blue Ball'
Pinus koraiensis 'Gee Broom'
Pinus monophylla 'Tiny Pout'
Pinus mugo 'Little Delight'
Pinus parviflora 'Billie'
Pinus ponderosa 'Mary Ann Haecock'
Pinus pungens 'Doughton Park'
Pinus strobus 'Diggy'
Pinus sylvestris 'Calle'
Pinus uncinata 'Baby'
Pinus virginiana 'Driscoll'
Tsuga candensis 'Jervis'

This post was edited by maple_grove on Tue, Nov 11, 14 at 12:24

I think that your garden is going to look great in a few years, when trees get bigger and the contrast in sizes, shapes and colors becomes more noticeable. You can reevaluate then and see if any of the rocks need to be rearranged. It will not be difficult to do. Nice list of plants. I especially look forward to Bushs Lace and Sharp Cheddar playing off each other.

I also have a suggestion. I can see your rocks rearranged into dried up, half buried creek sneaking through the bed. Not directly across because of the grade, to the side and a few curves. Dig shallow but wide indentation and arrange your rocks - biggest on the edges, smallest inside. Take care to place rocks randomly to avoid necklace effect. Half bury them in mulch, arrange plants on the banks. Of course, you will lose the effect of having a rock near every plant, and one side of the bed will be almost rock free, but you can place few (3) best and biggest rocks on that side randomly.

Alex, sort of off topic, but on the ones you grafted, where did you get all the scion wood? I noticed you had a nice array of different cultivars in your old grafting thread, and just curious if it was all from trading with members of this forum, or if they were a lot of copies of plants you already had and sourced yourself? Or maybe a few snips here and there touring an arboretum : )

Shawn, yes, some of each. Usually, I don't propagate as many of my own plants as planned when the understock runs out. I can fit maybe 150 band pots in the humidity chamber.

Alex, thanks for pointing out your reasons for designing your bed. It makes more sense now.
A collectors garden is one of the hardest to design for all the reasons you pointed out. Strict attention to scale is the way to overcome most of the difficulties in arranging plants and rocks. It's a good way to overcome the disparity of different shaped and colored plants. The use of appropriate groundcovers can go a long way to unite the composition also.
Collectors usually treat their plants as individuals and put less importance on the overall composition. I'm not saying it's wrong, just a different set of values. Different strokes and all that.
My garden is going through constant changes throughout. Some changes are made even before I'm finished with an area. I think changes with an eye for improvement is a good thing. Plants are always getting larger, which necessitates most changes in my case.
I have moved and redesigned several collector's gardens. One in particular comes to mind. The customer moved from a large shady garden on a 23 acre farmstead to a small sunny lot on a corner. She was the president of the local Arboretum. Difficult choices had to be made....for both of us. Anyway, it turned out alright and I got a number of jobs from it. It's a matter of scale that carried the day.
Keep us posted as your garden progresses, Alex.
Mike

That's how I'd of done it. I don't know anything about rocks.
Of course the other posters have a lot of experience.

Some really good plant choices. Of course and I know you're aware but Pinus koraiensis is correct.

That's a lot of work and I like the way the bed and the paths around it open up to the turfed areas, Alex. The last photo on your first post is great.

Dax

Thanks, Dax.

Ack, 'Pinus koreana'! Typical Monday morning-induced typo. Just went back and fixed that one...

Lots of work involved in this but the results were well worth your effort and you picked some great plants for this new area.
Cher

Sweet, thanks for sharing the pics.

I myself gave up on rocks. Field stone is readily available here but extremely difficult to work with unless you're simply creating a dry creek.

I just have more room for plants instead! Groundgrounds become much more important though.

I ordered up a ton of Juniper Gold Strike and Dazzleberry Sedum for ground covers next year. It will help with repetition as well.

Give it a couple years and the difference in texture, habit and heights will become more evident.