Sorry... technical mind here... but I'm glad I got ya laughing!! :o) Guess you didn't need to know all that! (Grin)

I just sent you an email.

Steve has the right plant, his leaves are green. ROFL

Well,

I may not be real bright...but I'm not upset at this point. At any point most likely...lol. My picture was taken at sunset. I took it then because I liked the form. I don't expect it to look just like Frank's picture...something close to white would be wonderful. I also grow MICHAEL MILLER, and that one is really hard to beat for white here.

I imagine rebloom on WEDDING GOWN will give me something different. I'll be sure to post a new image on rebloom, taken in the morning...and we can compare. Too early judge at this point.

I do go by a simple rule, however...and maybe that's because I'm a simple guy. If the only image I see used on the auction, is the same image used by the hybridizer...over and over again....then, I tend to lose interest in the flower.

I sell 1000s of seeds every year, and try to use my own photos 95% of the time. I think folks 1) would like to feel that I have the plant I'm selling seeds from and 2) that they would like to see it in the "real" world...lol.

I have to say, that most things I buy come very close to the hydridizer's image...even in the first year.

Steve

Oh Steve, I hope you didn't take my post as an insult... I certianly didn't mean it that way at all. I am actually very appreciative of you posting your pictures. It really does help me, because I am looking to buy new things, but want to learn from others before making a mistake I regret. I'd love to see more pictures... and I do hope it gets whiter.

I think, for me, you are 100% right on. I really want to see the flowers in a yard, or in a garden... and a LOT of pictures too. The more I can find the better. I find that if I like 90-95% of the pictures, then I really like the flower. I usually have a pretty good idea at the end of my research about what the plant should look like. And, I guess it is kind of like when you get a taste in your mouth for your favorite pizza, and take a bite and someone changed up the recipe... not bad, but not what you were expecting. You know?

Somehow I doubt anyone who could keep track of thousands of crosses all the way to seed and then bring them to market is simple. Geesh, I had a hard time with about 150 seeds! :o)

I like White Mountain, if I was buying whites.

What I am having a hard time understanding is the edge color of WG. Smith's pic shows a near white edge on the ruffling... Steve's is showing a gold/yellow egde.. which is more in line with what I have observed from another owner of WG. Seems flower expression in WG is more unstable than the norm.

Here's a reliable hardy near white for the north. Very bright white.. EMO also.

Victorian Lace is still the best of the near whites.. IMO.

okay, thanks for understanding (I hope) that I meant 'now' and not 'not'...relative to Last Snowflake (so embarrassing).

Today, I am getting rebloom on Mount Rainer and I have to say it is not what I would call white, just my opinion...still a lovely flower.

I have both Michael Miller and Victorian Lace...and White Mountain is whiter..in my opinion. Although, I have been told that Michael Miller does work well to clear colors...really, any white.

I'm also getting rebloom on Mal...and I find it to be pretty white....not nearly as yellow as I perceive the pictures on Tinkers to be....who knows.

Once again, I agree with Dot...go for White Mountain...easier to find (although might be pricey)...I just don't think you'll be disappointed there.

I didn't even see what you wrote about Last Snowflake LOL. Mine is reblooming still today. For a near white it is my absolute favorite. I posted some pics the other day but here it is again. It makes large fans and flowers, very healthy.

Dot

Just for fun. I wanted to show you Steve's picture with the color saturation turned way down. See the effect on both the flower and the foliage:

Now they look the same! So I suspect the color saturation has been decreased on Frank's picture.

Still - I need to buy seeds from this plant! I do love the shape and that it's dormant. The fringe is just perfect.

Now see them again, but with the color saturation raised by the same amount!

Wow! Changing the color saturation does make all the difference.

Debra

Good sleuthing uroboros.. hope it works out for you. WGown ranks as the worst new plant I've ever flowered here.

Anyone making this cross? I can't as neither plant is fully hardy here.. yet AL opens excellent.. chilly morns do not slow it down. VL is a great opener too... I'm told hardy to the Chicago area having done well here with protection. AL is going into it's first winter here outdoors... and will get protection. I hope to get some decent kids to work with from them.

The AL pic is a cloudy day shot... failing to show it's bright white face. The VL pic is showing more pink per camera bias than is there. Both shots 'as is'.

That looks like it would be a nice cross, northerndaylily.

I'm looking for a well-fringed, white cross dormant to cross to some edge-no-eyes that tend to be evergreens.

Hence my interest in 'Wedding Gown' crosses.

How did it perform poorly for you? Vigor? Bloom count? Shape?

WG wouldn't open as a new plant this summer.. when it finally managed to open it was dingy grey and not flat. And while many would wait yrs to evaluate a flower.. here I won't bother when initial results are so poor.

While WG is rated dormant one has to wonder how hardy far north. A rating of dormant only means it goes down in the fall prior to initial freeze-up.. it has nothing to do with how hardy it is. I've had southern dormants fail to make it here.. even under less than the worst winters. The parentage of WG are southern tender.. ((Michael Miller x LindaÂs Magic) x (Glacier Bay x TET Siloam Ralph Henry)) being that lineage.. 3 of those are solid Ev's. SRHenry while rated dormant isn't fully hardy here.. requiring protection to survive. Lindas Magic while rated sev like so many Smith's is definitely ev. MMiller is ev & very tender north.. Glacier Bay I have no idea yet it's rated ev.

Dormants can be "photo dormants" too.. which means the shorter days and diminishing sunlight signal the plant do go down.. not cold temps. Given a dormant hybridized deep south like WG I'd guess that is the cue it uses to go down. I'll guess WG will prove to be very tender far north... if indeed it lives.

You mention form.. here's a bright clean white sdlng from ALace.. the other parent Candid Camera which is all Plain Jane. AL's form came thru entirely.

AL is from a branch of the Stamile genetics I favor and use.. going back into dormant plant habit.

Thanks for the info! I'll be on the lookout for seeds of that plant.

THANK YOU ALL!!!

You saved me a few bucks!!!

I wanted a few whites --and was thinking about WG---but no way now.
I'm going to take your advice.
I could not believe the pics you posted--mostly the saturation shots.

I should know better. I work in marketing!
"You cannot believe what you see in print--you have to FEEL it."
above is a quote from a very famous PR man I work with in NYC.

Very true when it comes to DL----

cole

That was very interesting...as one who knows nothing about color saturation...I appreciate the demonstration!

One more white you all should look at is Small world Michael. It's real white. I need to line out my clump of Small world snowfox this coming spring. Maybe i will have some to sell for spring. The pic of Small world michael on my web page is not as white as it is in the garden.

Good whites are hard to come by. I hope to come alot more coming out in the next few years.

thanks Michael --for the info. I did go on your site and WOW MM is truly a beautiful WHITE--

the picture of Frank Smith's WG is very nice, some of my club members showed me some shots but NONE look like the of picture of WG on his site.

oh what one can do with SATURATION!!!!

colette

Some times i wonder how pics look so much diffrent then they do when you get them. I take bad pics. Mine look all most like what they do it the garden. lol For real it is a hard thing to do is get a pic that looks 100% like it does. All of mine are as close as i can get them.

Michael

There is a number of reasons why pictures look different on photo than they do to your eyes.

Here's ONE. Images from your eyes has a combination of high-light and low-light values and your BRAIN makes adjustment, so you will perceive, in your brain, a wide color rage in shaded areas, and in sunny areas, whereas the a camera will slavishly give you a picture of washed out sunny areas, and near black shaded areas.

Here's another. Incadescent lighting. It's really pretty amber colored, but our brain makes adjustments to our physical eye capture of this amber glow, but our brain turns it way down, and the light looks white to us, when in fact it isn't. If you want the camera to 'see' what you see, you need a 10A filter, which is pretty dark blue and cancels out the amber of incandescent lighting.

But... there's a difference between poor photography and deceptive techniques.

Look up any picture on the LA of "Featuring the Gold" and it looks like a red and yellow combo. But compare with the new pictures on Patrick Guidry's site (3 pictures in fact) and you'll see that it's actually a beautiful light pink. I am inclined to believe that the hybridizer's picture has been overcooked - saturation turned way, way up.

Example:

That's why I love Patrick's photographs, the garden pictures posted here, and the pictures on most hybridizer's websites. I find the untouched pictures far more spectacular, 'Featuring the Gold' included.

For incandescent light, the filter is 20A, not 10A as stated in my post above.

My best near white is White Perfection. Very thick scape with good branching and high bud count. The second picture on tinkers looks alot like it in the garden. I think it may be slow to increase. Mike.

Very interesting uroboros!

At least now, I feel for sure I got the right plant in WEDDING GOWN...lol

I don't know about doctoring pictures and all that. I would think that it wouldn't take long to be run outta business if all your pictures were untrue.

Heck, depending on the light, or time of day...a bloom can look very different from one moment to another. Photography is kinda tricky.

Even your picture of SMALL WORLD SNOW OWL looks whiter on the auction, buck, compared to what it is one the website...and it's the same picture...maybe uploading does something to alter it or whatever.

This is my view. I know, when I buy a Florida plant...that there is very little chance that it will look the same in my zone 5 yard. I expect that it will NOT.

I assume that many, if not most, pictures are taken on second or third rebloom...when they might look extra special. I will never see rebloom on most, let alone third rebloom.

But, that doesn't mean that the plant is not worth having...in hybridizing...or just for it's pure beauty.

WEDDING GOWN was NOT the worst performing plant here this year. And...I'm not going to say what was...because maybe I had something to do with poor performance...overcrowding, planting too deep, too close to a water and sun sapping tree....or set too many pods on it!

My whitest one here is still MICHAEL MILLER. It is a great daylily. My whitest dip is WHITE SATIN. WEDDING GOWN wasn't as white as I had hoped this year, but was still worth having.

Glass half full,

Steve

Steve. I know it came out whiter for the auction pic then what i have on the web page. The one on the auction is ture to color. It's real white. I just got a new camrea to take pics with. I will be retaken alot of pics on all mine that i have ever done. See if i can gte better pics.

If you are looking for some real white white ones to breed with. i would get my ( Small world snowfox, Small world Michael, And Small world snow owl. They are real white. Small owl can be breed to round ones as well. Dad has done that and came out with some 8 inch whites. A few more good ones to breed for whites are my ( Small world Matthew. And Small world beach music ).

My Small world snow capped mountain is a good one for monster whites. I will need to line out my only clump this spring so i can make more to sell.

Michael

Michael,

Just a tip from a webmaster. The images on your website take forever to load and I have hi-speed internet. People that have dialup out there on the countryside will have to wait half an hour, I kid you not, for a ful page to show all the pictures.

Here's what I caught (this is in the code):

2560px à 1920px (scaled to 141px à 125px)

That means that although you are showing only a picture of 141 pixels X 125 pixels (which should load instantly), you website visitors are actually loading a picture about 20 times larger than necessary, ie, 2560 pixels X 1920 pixels, or 420.42 KB PER PICTURE!!!! Multiplied by the number of pictures on the page (35), 14 700 KB, or 14.7 MB, or 0.0147 TERABYTE - that's enormous! Not only that, but the browser has to make calculations in order to shrink those mega files so fit into the tiny space allocated on the screen. I would be astonished if someone with dialup and a slow computer would have the patience; though they may be very motivated ;-)

There is NO advantage to doing this at all, because it's way, way way way beyond screen definition. It's wasting people's bandwidth allowance, it's wasting your site's bandwidth if your host limits you, and I guarantee you that people with dialup give up entirely. I mean, I almost gave up on high-speed...

You should ask whoever oversees that website to scale the pictures to the size that is shown, ie, to run them through PhotoShop, resize them, and give them a small dose of 'sharpening.' If you do that, the pictures will load really quick.

Also, when you click on SW Snow Fox, you get this page instead: http://www.distinctly.on.ca/smallworldgardens/small_world_christopher.html - SW Christopher.

=======================

On another note, uploading pictures doesn't change their color, but different screens will show colors a little warmer, or a little cooler, depending on the brand.

Do y'all realize you are saving me a bundle of money? I thought I wanted Wedding Gown. I guess not.

I have two daylilies that are snow white by 3 P.M. in the hot Texas sun. Do they count?

Nancy

lol. Nancy

"I don't know about doctoring pictures and all that. I would think that it wouldn't take long to be run outta business if all your pictures were untrue" writes Steve/ahead.

Steve when you post I always read.. always a well reasoned overview. You've allot of experience in daylilies and I respect that.

I report what I see.. my focus is only on the genetics.. the characters I see here. Yes to mitigating circumstances.. culture and yes southern genetics are a stretch north in most circumstances. Yet.. I wouldn't give WG a "worst" rating unless it deserved it.. and it does here.

WG was planted on the south side of our house.. the best location in the yard.. in enriched soil.. dug deep and then coddled too much. Late spring cold saw it covered for protection.. making sure that cold didn't kill it or set it back. Culture was ideal.. plenty of good food with the sunlight warming that area off the house.. and the plant sat and 'knitted'.. doing little of nothing. I was encouraged when I saw it start to 'go'.. figuring just a plant slow to transition. Yet the flowers were so bad... not even in the same area code as what Smith promoted.. so bad I didn't.. won't post them. The question arose if indeed this was the right plant.. yet I found others with similar experience per bloom quality. The plant rec'd a better chance to perform that other new inbounds.

Why did I try WG? Two reasons.. curiosity.. and the lack of a gold edge per Smith's picture... the latter reason the deal maker. Yet WG clearly is showing a pronounced GOLD edge in pics from growers other than Smith. WG appears to me very unstable.. as so many new intros are.. requiring lots of heat and high culture to show anything like what one sees promoted on the net. Just the facts.. from what I saw.

Granted most often NO new inbound plant is going to show to it's full potential as a young plant.. yet where is the line? What is acceptable and what is NOT? From my view when a daylily isn't showing enough to be reconized as the flower it's registered as.. that is NOT acceptable.

Here's two that showed very near what they promised to deliver.

Northerndaylily,

I am very hopeful with RUCKUS and BLUE DUDE also!

Your post is well written, and I can't argue with a single sentence. Please know that I am not saying that you can't name WEDDING GOWN the worst plant on the planet. It sounds like you took extra care to insure it's success.

I'm just saying that I did not.

Time will tell if WEDDING GOWN is a poor plant...in terms of photo likeness, hardiness (I've heard some say it isn't dormant), in terms of what kind of parent it is, etc...

Each plant leaves it's own legacy. What I am saying....is that if you run a program that is filled with nothing but flawed plants and flawed representation of images...that the free market system would eventually wean these programs out it would seem. It does on the LA, and it has with flawed hybridizing programs in the past.

I had assigned WEDDING GOWN a pollen wire at the beginning of the season. As soon as I saw it bloomed, I gave that pollen assignment to one of one of my seedlings...lol. As I've said before....look at the LA....if the only image you see of a particular plant is the hybridizer's image...then a small red flag should go up in your brain.

I'm willing to give WEDDING GOWN another year. I seldom give up on a plant during one growing season.

If this thread helps other's in their own purchasing decisions...then that's fine. Since I've already made the investment...I am hopeful still for a better result.

Steve

"I'm willing to give WEDDING GOWN another year. I seldom give up on a plant during one growing season." writes Steve.

I understand that sentiment Steve... yet from my view I see no reason to continue with slow developing genetics that show poorly right otta the box. So many southern daylilies now require high heat and high culture to get any semblence of their promised performance in the north. The GH/Green House daylily culture is now a prominent presence in the north.. incorporating southern genetics passed off as "hardy"... which is a large stretch for many of these plants.

How many buyers realize the majority of daylilies hybridized today are NOT reared in what most of us would call soil? How many have heard or read comments of daylily gardens who find new plants problematic when they 'have to make their living in real soil now'?

How many buyers email hybridizers and ask specific questions per say: sunfastness, opening ability, color stability, the kind of culture employed.. or better yet.. what size plant can I expect? Try that.. and see what response you get.

Many hybridizers push the envelope per internet pics.. this is obvious to anyone who compares the best in garden shots we can find vs what is represented on so many websites. And garden shots from people who have visited these gardens and taken photos... the disparity in images is too great.. no matter the technology which is so often passed off as that rationale. Is it dishonest.. is it untruthful to pass off a 'once in a thousand shot' of a flower as representative of that flower? What if a garden visitor visited ALL the hybridizing gardens and submitted pics on the net per a set of equal standards.. do you think this would be welcomed by the hybridizers? How about later afternoon shots when most of their flowers have long melted?

Just the honest facts.. truth in marketing... a better daylily for all.. is the goal.

John paet just got back with me and he will work on making the web page faster by down sizeing the pics. And he will take the link off the year on the past introduction so poeple don't chick on that and have that one daylily come on.

Michael

Great news, Michael, I look forward to seeing the more 'zoom zoom' version!

You know, I really admire somebody like Karol Emmerich, who is secure enough to share images, not just the best...but various shots showing what her plants may look like in other people's gardens. I give Karol a lot of business.

I appreciate somebody like John Rice and Curt Hanson who have always given me the straight story on how their particular plants might do for me. I give them both a lot of business.

Even Dan Hansen, who plants may not all like it here (who the heck would like northern Illinois this time of year...lol), but at least feels confident in saying which ones might be tender, and which ones may thrive. I give Dan my business.

There are a lot of folks that I no longer order from. Not because of dishonesty, but because their plants don't look good here. I've learned the hard way in some cases...that certain plants are more annuals than anything else.

But, when I see a hamburger on TV, I don't believe for an instant that the squashed burger I get from the drive up window will look anything close to the glossy images I saw in the commercial. Do I take the burger back...nope...I'm hungry!

I don't blame a hybridizer for using the best image possible when selling their product. If they want higher customer satisfaction, then I certainly think the Emmerich way is the best way to go.

I don't want to be lied to about what the flower will actually look like...or be told it's pod fertile when it's really not. I have been around long enough to know I have X amount of money to spend, and who best to spend it with. I venture out of the box from time to time...and for the most part have been pleased.

I understand honesty in selling...and appreciate it greatly! In the long run...truth wins out. I'm not looking to tar and feather anybody. I think most people do the best they can at what they do. Those that I think do it the best get 95% of my business.

Steve

There is no way i could get john to put up 4 and 5 pics of ever one. lol. Sorry.

"I understand honesty in selling...and appreciate it greatly! In the long run...truth wins out. I'm not looking to tar and feather anybody" writes Steve.

I'll raise my glass to that Steve.. yet I don't think asking questions about plant performance is 'tar & feathering' anyone.

Is it dishonest to avoid those questions.. to omit information which surely will limit sales? That is for each person to decide.. as you say.. the market place determines that in the end. But why not have that info prior to purchase? After all.. plants are not hamburgers... :)

Yet even suggesting a critical viewpoint of new daylilies goes against tide. Plants are just that.. having a list of characters that can be graded under varying cultures. That information is difficult to access for many.. this venue one potential source of 'real world' data. And that is why I post my experiences.

lol, could be a problem, buck:)

and I don't think asking questions about plant performance is 'tar and feathering' either...

happy turkey day one and all!

Having someone tell you what there plants will somewhere else is just a guess. No one knows for sure till you do grow it else where. You can move a plant no more then a foot in your own garden and have it do 10 times better or ten times worse. By the way steve. How did small world looney tunes do for you.

Michael

Very interesting discussion, and I have to take the time to do more than skim it. For now, Northerndaylily, I have just one comment. I hear what you're saying about tossing/giving away/composting the bad doers in your garden, but I'm with Steve on giving every daylily at least into its second year before pitching it. (Listen to me LOL....like I've ever actually made myself get rid of a daylily. Ha!)

But really, more than a few do need that full year of settling in. Case in point, and the plant I have here that immediately came to mind when you commented about not wanting the slow developing genetics -- Gossard's 03 intro WHEN BEARS FLY. It arrived in my garden as a bare root plant, shipped from a reputable reseller, in time for the summer 07 bloom season. It was indeed a very nice looking plant, and I let it bloom. I then took a picture of that bloom.

Please trust me when I say that that picture showed -- without a doubt -- the absolute. ugliest. most. hideous. mutation. of. a. daylily. flower. EVER.

In fact, the word "ugly" doesn't even come close to accurately describing that bloom. If bloom it indeed was lol.

Happily, I had the good sense to wait a year to judge the plant. It flowered away this summer -- and it was GORGEOUS!

So. That's my lesson for the day. :)

"You can move a plant no more then a foot in your own garden and have it do 10 times better or ten times worse" writes M Miller.

Allot of hybridizers of good plant habit would disagree... as 'face x face' crosses do often in the end produce very poor plants not capable of taking movement or much variation in their culture. High culture selection leads to these 'cutting edge' wonders... all one time internet pic and very low garden performance. The coddling of poor, weak genetics that only exist under shade cloth.. in some exotic growing medium... some soil specialist pumping them full of who knows what.. is that a quality daylily?

As to giving a plant another yr.. sure why not.. but not here. I say why bother...? I'm not interested in hybridizing more of the same.........

I will always give a plant another year to show me what its got. Ruby Spider did not bloom until this summer - its third year in my garden. Bloom started 2nd week of June and went into 1st week of September. I gave a friend who lives in zone 4 a fan this past summer and told him that it probably would not bloom. It increased in size and he got two scapes with lots of bloom. I don't know what the difference was, but Ruby Spider stays in my garden and I used it in my backyard hybridizing.
Maison Carree an introduction of Munson's first two years in my garden was okay; however, this year its performance was spectacular. Great branching and very high bud count. I have had similar experiences with other cultivars and I am just trying to learn as much as I can from my plants and other gardeners experiences, this is why garden forums are so interesting. Mike.

Am sorry you don't think am right. But i have seen alot of plants do this. You plant them and they don't do good and then you move them and now they start to bloom and and grow real good. Am not talking about plants that we breed here in small world gardens. As we test are plants for years. 4 to 5 years. We move them around about 2 to 3 times in that 4 to 5 years. We like things that don't take 2 or 3 years to start doing good. We want them to be shipped and them bloom that year and in most cases of ours do wonderful that same year.

To name a plant. ED Brown. I have seen it look bad in our garden and only have around 2 way with 6 buds. And we move it and the next year have 4 way with 25 buds. Same bed. Not moveing it 100 feet. We are talking 5 feet or so.

And as far as given a plant more then one year before you compost it. You sure better. Just think if you dig something up and cut off your heads. And then put you in a box and ship you for 3 to 5 days. And then maybe not get planted till the next day. You would be set back some. You have to give a daylily 2 years in the same place to tell what it can do.

Michael

I found another photo, from P. Guidry's website. There's a definite yellow edge. Just follow the link.

Again I thank Patrick for doing all this photography work in order for the rest of us to really know what these plants look like and make better informed purchasing decisions.

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:885513}}

I saw Patricks photo earlier, and too me WG is no nicer than Arctic Lace. In fact, I think I like AL better. :)

Most of the time, you can tell if a photo has been "tinkered" with by looking at the background colors. The photo of Frank Smiths WG shows a very blue background which indicated to me right off, that the photo had been manipulated.
Jan

The thing that absolutely amazes me is that the "doctoring" is so poorly done! I've look at the Smith site and the Kinnebrew site -- it baffles me. I just don't depend on the Floyd Cove site, either, but for a different reason. The pictures here and on the Lily Auction are better, if the pictures are taken in the garden. I sorta had that discussion with the Stamiles yesterday. They just don't understand why some people have the knack to take pictures. Some of their pictures are downright unkindly to their flowers!

I find this thread very interesting. Thank you to everyone who posted their photos.

Steve - I hope the size and texture of WG make it a winning plant for genetics for you. Seems like the texture is outstanding.

Michael - Please let me know if you do line out more SWSF... I am still looking to add that one white, and I like the genetics behind it!

Fairysoapgirl Email me at buckmdm@aol.com.

Michael

"To name a plant. ED Brown. I have seen it look bad in our garden and only have around 2 way with 6 buds. And we move it and the next year have 4 way with 25 buds. Same bed. Not moveing it 100 feet. We are talking 5 feet or so" writes Michael.

Your making my point for me.. Many plants do show finicky requirements for culture. My point is.. why bother with them. Why propagate slow developing genetics.

Yes the many DL's take 2.. and 3 yrs to show in gardens. Again.. why not breed from the best genetics.. for vigor.. ability to withstand stress. Chasing internet faces is why it TAKES 2-3 yrs..even in warm climates.. for some plants to show.

Crossing "face" genetics.. slow developers and primarily internet wonders.. with the same type of plants.. only means more of the same. The "GH/Green House Daylily" is a reality.. but how many people owning and enjoying daylilies are going to grow them in GH's.........

Thing is... some of us aren't selling the listening group anything.. just relating experience. Others are marketing for all their worth.. some via 2nd parties. Sales.. raking in the $$.. has a way of ignoring facts... often the seller is what is being sold.

northerndaylily

Just clase a daylily wont do good in one place does not make it a bad one. U tell me one that does good any wheer you put it and we will see if i grow it and how it has done for me. Name a few so i can make sure i know one of them.

Ever daylily i have ever let go from small world garden grows wonderful no matter where it has grown here. I won't put out something i think wont do good ever where.

Michael Miller