Oh wow. Lucky you, alisande!

Mmmmmmmmh, funny how the only other post from Stuart2009 on here is one noticing a previous sale at pumeria2u. Check out the link on his homepage and you will see why. A bit of self promotion maybe?

I just posted on primitive patterns and cabbage patch patterns . I didnt notice the dates Iam sorry..I had so many I sent them to my daughters for a yard sale . If she still has them I'Ll snag them and you all are welcome to them . I know there was like 20 or so of just cabbage patch patterns .. Ill let you know Sunday when I return ..

I very much believe that David Austin Roses is now a corporation which is likely wholly out of the hands of David C. H. Austin himself. David C. H. Austin senior is now 89+ years old. His breeding program has been highly successful and his vision as a rose hybridizer is un-arguably visionary. I began to grow his roses in the early 90's when his roses were new in North America. I bought his book "English Roses" in the early 1990's and it was his writing which inspired me to grow his roses. So,,, the fact is, that the corporation which bears his name, is bound by law to provide profit for share holders, and; is operating in accordance with that imperative. Rather than the aesthetics and vision of David C. H. Austin who's writings I have read for more than 20 years. I suspect that DCHA is most likely conflicted with the ideas of the corporation that now run his visionary program, and the desire for profit. Providing for family and his legacy as a visionary in rose hybridization would likely matter more to him than the establishment of a large corporate success. The corporate in our world is very much dominant and I expect that he is under pressure to subsume other imperatives to the corporate one , or perhaps even excluded from final decision making. A corporation in the modern western world is answerable to no man, unless he is the majority share holder. Profit is all! When I see these marketing tactics in any corporation, I see greed, rather than legacy, or aesthetics. I find it difficult to see the man David C. H. Austin as the author of the current state of corporate imperative with respect to the business he founded. Davis C. H. Austin, the man, writes about his early roses as if they were "family". IMHO, the recent marketing decisions and ploys of the modern company are more likely the result of the corporatization of David Austin Roses, rather than the will of the man who created the English Rose himself. At least that is my hope. I suspect that David Austin the visionary would applaud the sharing and propagation of his early varieties outside of the corporate vision. This is my personal perspective only, but I wish to hold fast to this idea based on my personal esteem for the man David Austin and his vision. I do not like corporations or the reason for their creation. Long live the individual and the creative spirit in human kind. Cheers, Rick