Hi Jeannie, I've been thinking about MAC for a long, long time. It might work in that spot if we were younger here and more able to stay after the rose all the time and if we were willing to let it work on the obelisk without too many horizontal turns requiring much bending. The problem is that MAC isn't very flexible once a cain gets some age on it, and will do its own thing, sort of set in concrete, if you don't keep at it. We'd have to train it frequently to avoid the walk path beside the camellias as well as to keep it from totally taking over the obelisk and choking out the Mortimer Sackler. We're probably not up to that much rose work nowadays, though I do love the rose and want it somewhere where it wouldn't have to share a limited amount of supported climbing space with another rose. I've thought about it more strongly for one or two other spots where its own growth ideas might line up better with ours and not take too much work on our part. The same considerations apply to Lamarque, but the difference in flexibility might be a real difference. Once or twice a year of pulling the rose away from the camellias would probably work for Lamarque, but might come too late for MAC. Both roses are such vigorous growers that they'd be expected to outgrow the obelisk and start to claim other areas by year three. With Lamarque a discreet peg here and there when you get around to doing it might work? With MAC, my thinking is that perhaps you'd better get around to doing it now, or perhaps get handy with a saw later. That said, I still do keep thinking about MAC. What a wonderful rose it is! Thanks for thinking about this, Jeannie. Best wishes, Mary

FWIW, I haven't grown the climbing CS but I have the bush form and I agree with Jackie. It ALWAYS balls, even in our mostly low humidity climate. For instance, 40% humidity is "high humidity" according to our weather folks. I just have to think of CS bush form having round flowers, then it doesn't bug me too much. Obviously some folks get gorgeous blooms from this rose, but it might have to be in the high desert to be reliable. I'm impressed that Patrick didn't have much problem with this - I think he's on the east coast. It must be lovely where it's happy, and this love letter is almost enough to make me want to try it in the climbing form. It's also possible I guess that the climbing form is more resistant to balling than the bush form, but with all those petals it's probably still susceptible. It looks like the rose Patrick was talking about is the Dingee and Conard rose, and hmf lists the following vendors: Angel Gardens, Antique Rose Emporium, Rose Petals, and Roses Unlimited. It's listed at one 5b and I've had good luck with polys, so I might give this one a try next year just to see how it does. Cynthia

Please use the new list, thank you. Ron S

Jeri J, Thank you for bringing to my attention, a correction in the October 2005 “AEN” supplementary “Rose” List. Should a correction be noted on ARS or my part, the correction will be addressed in a following post. The November post will reflect a correction, removing the name Bevoniensis from the list. As stated in the header, the primary purpose of the “Supplement Rose List” is to compliment the 2005 AEN, by address Corrections / Additions / Deletions a continuing process. Devoniensis is listed in the 2005 AEN, indicating eligibility for Dowager Queen (the reason it was originally included); therefore its removal from the list is in order. Happy Holidays. Ronald Schwerdt