Don-Les is unvailable at this time but I can answer for him: He has had no success with Great Expectations in two states and four gardens. Three ago he bought Dream Queen because he does like the Great Expectatios appearance when prime, but last year he lost that too. Last year he bought Dream Weaver for me to start me with my hosta container garden, hoping I will have more success. I m excitedly waiting for dormancy to break to see how she is doing. If she does well I am very tempted to try GE in pots. I'd helped pot up the two teeny remnants of DQ last spring, which is what has gotten me started in container hostas. They were eaten by vermin. When dug up the plant showed evidence of crown rot. He told me when he bought it the roots looked ike octopus arms. He has records showing all of the GE he'd lost looked the same way, regarding their crowns. Each had been planted at different depths and it didn't seem to matter. For what he spent on his GE's and DQ, I wouldn't balk at the cost of Beach Boy from what I have just read in your thread, if it is sturdier. My girlfriend has Thunderbolt and I love it. She also has GE's that are growing like weeks. Which brings me to ask if unusually heavy fertilization helps with growing the GE family. I feel she uses a lot of liquid fertilizer during the summer-like once a week. Her DH mixes Miracle-Gro literally by the buckets and pours it over her hostas. (He does this in the evening, of all times!) It could have to do with the volume of water too. I don't know if this helps or hurts, Don. All I can do is pass on the message. Theresa

Mosswitch, thanks for your pic of a mature Great Arrival. My picture was taken in May. A cutworm has been at him, so mine doesn't look that great at the moment either. Nice looking Dream Queen , Moccasin. Paul, I like the look of your DW leaf but I 'm vacillating about adding Dream Weaver to my collection because I've heard that Thunderbolt is a look alike. I have a very young Thunderbolt. I understand Thunderbolt is a slow grower. What is your opinion re looks and growth rate of DW in comparison to Thunderbolt?

Your gardens are beautiful, as are your hostas. Thank you for posting the photos. The H. 'Sum of All' I bought is a nice big division, I put it in dappled shade, with good moisture. The nursery it came from has a v. large, beautiful plant in full shade. If I need to move it I will. I'm thrilled with the Wild Green Cream, I'll put that close to a walk way. I feel as though I am learning so much just by reading all your posts on this forum. Wonderful!

Deborah, Yes, all the roses you have listed are eligible to be exhibited. You are correct none of the roses listed appeared in past or present ARS publications. The six you mention are but a few of (by a rough estimate) of thousands of roses missing from the 2004 official "AEN" publication. The problem is that the CRL contains Roses in Commerce and Rose Registration updates. When a rose is listed, it may have a "NR" (not registered with "IRAR") or the new CRL notation, indicating rose introductions have not appeared in any ARS publications. When a rose first appears in the "CRL" with the "NR" notation, the following year it generally has an approved exhibition name "AEN". The problem is ARS does not post these "NR" changes in the next AEN publication, in the "Rose Registration" column of the American Rose or the handbook. This is preciously one reason why ARS should reinstate the Combined Rose List "CRL", as an official recognized publication to verify an "AEN" as the ARS Board approved in 1999. (Not a "temporary AEN" until the name is listed in one of the ARS publications). As it is stated, if there is a difference between what is in the "CRL" and the ARS "AEN" publication, ARS publication will prevail. Posted on the GW on 5-12-04 was a listing of all roses in the 2004 "Combined Rose List" having the new CRL notation, indicating these roses have not appeared in any publications of the American Rose Society. This only covers roses with the CRL notation. There are roses in all the back issues of the "CRL" with "NR" notation that need researching, to find out if the "NR" listing have been changed and now have a "AEN" designation, like all the roses Deborah had on her list. All of Deborahs roses started out with this "NR" notation, but were changed the following year having an "AEN". In the meantime her roses will be included in the next monthly posting on the GW of new or any corrections to the new 2004 "AEN". It may be to everyone benefit, if judges and exhibitors check their rose against what is in the 2004 "AEN" for missing or incorrect information. E-mail this information to me, and it will be on the next GW post. Waiting until the new 2005 "AEN" is published to share this valuable information, is doing an injustice to all exhibitors. The Combined Rose List is not a source for verifying AENs; it is only to be used as a reference if a rose is not listed in an ARS publication, but considered having a temporary "AEN". And as ARS stated, the handbook is no longer a reliable ARS publication as it previously was for verifying AENs. (See the post on new judges manual arrives). 5-13-04 Ronald Schwerdt