Thanks for your responses, and njoasis, I will go outside and try to get a good pic of the leaves. hoseman.....I'd say on the tree that looks the worst, about 30 to 40% of the tree is affected. On the other, about 10 to 20%. There is a VERY large pile of leaves on the ground today after the bad storms we had yesterday. It is definitely a much larger amount than in years past, and I don't recall seeing the black spots in previous years. These tress had a rough start. We bought them while living in Atlanta, and paid $200 a piece for them. They were growing on a lattice. I know there is a name for that, but can"t think of it at the moment. Our intention was to keep them pruned and growing on the lattice, because it was so pretty. Shortly after planting them, (abut 6 mos) we were transfered to Birmingham. We asked the new owners of our home if they would mind if we planted something of there choice in their place, as we would like to take them with us. They were not plant people, and wanted no plants or trees in the back yard, so they were more than happy for us to take them. We also took all of my rose bushes, which are also doing great. We carefully followed the advise of someone on these forums, dug the trees up, put in a huge pot and moved them. Our house was being built so we left them at my Mom's form April until October. We re-planted them in our new house, and prayed. That was 4 years ago this October, and they were flourishing and absolutely gorgeous, even though the advice was it was risky to dig up nd move them. We eventually removed them from the lattice, because they were growing so fast it was becoming increasingly hard to keep them pruned on the lattice. They grew into lovely trees, about about 13 feet tall now. After all the work, and TLC these tress have received, I would be heartbroken to lose them now. I will post pics as soon as I can.

at brandons link.. find out that you plant HIGH in clay.. actually about HALF the rootmass.. and make a berm .. so that the roots above get air.. as compared to the roots in the clay ... what this accomplishes.. is that a plant.. can put its roots down into clay.. what they can not always cope with.. is you putting its whole rootmass down in clay ... so we give things a chance by doing half and half.. also.. if you basically put a big pot worth of a PEAT based media that holds water.. and your clay holds water in spring.. then your hole is probably.. holding too much water .. at certain times of the year ... NEVER FORGET ... the problem.. is NOT necessarily when you see the result.. the root problem could have been months ago ... next to your name.. i wish it gave the closest big city. rather than NONE .. so we would know where you are ... i cant commit everyone locale to memory ... heck.. i dont know where i am half the time ... lol and forget about comparing two of anything.. even duplicates.. why one has problems.. lost likely.. will never be solved.. short of digging it up,.. and finding out what is going on underground.. and that we can not predict with any certainty ... if it were me.. and it is in a prime location.. i cant tell from the pic.. i would move it.. in fall .. back more out of sight .. and the transplanting.. may rectify the whole situation .... and try again.. with a specimen tree for the center of the grass ... bottom line.. it can live.. i just dont know if i would want to be fixating on it.. every single day of my life ... [the spot light cracks me up .. lol .. at least move that to a prime specimen .. lol .. you cant even get away from it in the dark .. lol .. ] good luck ken

Perhaps 'unethical' is a better term than 'illegal'.....although illegality will still come into play with any patented cultivars even if it is highly unlikely the plant police will come knocking on your door :-) The issue is that with most woody plants - and my previous comments were directed only at these - named cultivars seldom (like hardly ever) come true from seed. Even if they look identical to the parent there is no guaratee that they are or will remain looking so throughout their lifespan. Assigning the cultivar name to seedlings of that cultivar - rather than those that have been vegetatively propagated - and introducing them into commerce just distorts and dilutes the validity of that cultivar. We see this all the time with seed grown "cultivars" of Japanese maples, 'Bloodgood' being at the top of the list. As much as they may look like Bloodgoods, they are a just a red leafed version of Acer palmatum. Nothing wrong with seed grown JM's.......or Magnolia grandiflora or any of countless other named cultivars of most other tree species. This is often where new cultivars arise.....a random seedling that offers some unique attributes. But it is never valid/appropriate/ethical (and in the case of a patented plant, legal) to call these seedlings by the parent cultivar name.

They're quite different when seen in person, try looking for them at independent garden centers in your area. Then of course there is 'Kay Parris', which is from a crossing of the two others. It also is on the general market. I've seen 'Little Gem' over 40' tall in the LA area, genetically it is actually a narrow grower rather than a bushy one - the broad habit shown by so many propagules is presumably due to them coming from side branches on stock plants. And actually quite a few of these clones do go on later to start pulling themselves up into the truly characteristic shape. So it being marketed as "dwarf magnolia" isn't really apt. Although 40' is of course small for a southern magnolia, which can otherwise grow more than double that height - given enough time and an environmental setting that promotes the development of such stature. In my area the M. grandiflora cultivars presented by local retailers tend to come from this company: https://plants.monrovia.com/search?w=magnolia+grandiflora