..I have to say a 'no' to that.... I wouldn't like to mix these, apart from the singles perhaps.... although these days other breeders are latching on to Austin's style and bringing out modern roses that look old fashioned, and these are alright I think..

..I'm also of the opinion that Austin's look better amongst themselves, although I don't always stick to this argument... mainly for reasons of space...

I mix them all together and they work just fine. When they're all in bloom in the spring it's gorgeous!

For me it depends on their growth habits. The one big problem is with roots spreading from aggressive growers like Gallicas mixed with something that is grafted like a HT or Floribunda. Tried it once with Tuscany Superb & TS tried to take over the bed. Also Rugosas don't play nice with grafted roses.

If the roots spreading from aggressive growers aren't a problem for me I would have to go with whatever pleases my heart whether it be old or new roses. And do they repeat bloom and when? Also added into that mix is the condition of my physical health and the time it takes to care for them. I love all the types of the roses! For me weaving a tapestry of roses is fun. Hope you have a good day, Nancy. :)

I mix mine , but I do not grow any hybrid teas and I think they would look weird in my beds.
I love to look at pics of others who grow them tho !
Also I try to make the colors blend as nicely as possible .

I mix them, Trying to take all needs in consideration and coloring. My beds are still young, so we will see how it works :)

I don't care for the classic hybrid teas or floribundas that look too modern, but there are modern roses that look more like older roses, and I have no problem mixing them, and that includes the Austins, with the old roses. Harmonious colors are important to me, and shapes that don't look too "artificial" against my backdrop of wild hills. Mostly I think it's a matter of personal preference and whether the mix makes you happy. Often it's a matter of trying different roses and seeing what works for you.

I think that provided the individual shrubs are spaced appropriately -you don't want a Rosa rugosa 36" off of a HT as indicated above- the eras of neighboring roses matters far less than the shrubs and flowers complimenting each other in a way that appeals to the designer. Planting in threes, only planting old or reproduction roses together, and other bits of advice from David Austin seem more motivated by selling more roses than by helping to grow healthy roses.

I do think it would look odd to have a row of bushy true Teas alternating with gangly, vertical HTs, but there are plenty of shrubbier modern roses that would blend well. I've planted HPs next to Hybrid Musks as climbers along a wall with floribunda and shrub type roses in front and I like the look.

As for shape, I try to always take flower shape variation into account when planting roses. I like singles, semi-doubles, and doubles mixed together. I especially like single or semi double climbers behind very double shrubs. Simple flowers en masse are just terrific compliments to other more extravagant displays IMO.

Jay

I mix everything everywhere, and I never "design" anything or worry very much about colors, or roots, or whatever. Not for everyone, but it seems to work out OK.

In this mix of stuff there are 2 HTs, Iceberg, Buff Beauty, and a modern large flowered climber. I think that is all, but not sure! They just crawl all over each other, and don't seem to mind at all.

Jackie

I mix,although I prefer old roses. But, there are some HT's I just have to have, like Fragrant Cloud and then I have to find others to go with that rose and I end up picking some bright colored roses, HT's or Floribundas but then I just have to have an OGR like Kronprincess Viktoria, which I love, etc etc. So, I end up with a mix because I love them all.

I mix mine together too. In the background near the fence, I grow D.A. roses who are shrubby and tall and climbing roses. Separated by a small path, I grow Hybrid Teas, Floribundas etc. In the foreground I grow herbs and vegetables. I don't worry about what other people say because the garden is designed for my family and mine to enjoy. Once everything is in bloom, you will be mesmerized by the colours and bloom than worry about whether it was a good mix or not.

I kinda do a bit of both, though there is no absolute rule in my garden. Where I have limited space in terms of width (a long narrow bed in other words) I plant tall vertical roses like hybrid teas, grandifloras, and even a couple hybrid perpetuals. They seem to get along fine.

I have another spot in my garden that has some tall and wide bushes (hydrangeas, etc.) and there is only a narrow strip left open next to the path--so I planted a long line of highly perfumed vertical hybrid teas there. But on the other side of the path , the garden stretches out into a fairly wide oval section, and the roses range from a modern shrub, a climber, several minis, an Austin shrub, and a couple hybrid teas. I really like the contrasting shapes and heights--some taller, some shorter, some wider and rounder, some more vertical--as well as the contrasting colors--though there are red and some white bushes scattered throughout there (among the other colors) to give some sense of relatedness and continuity to that area also.

I do have a line of larger hybrid musks, a rugosa, a Bourbon, and a multi-flora way out back along the alley fence. They all look fine too--their main requirements are to be heavy bloomers and to become big sprawlers--or at least large enough to fit in.

Elsewhere in the yard, I select mostly floribundas and Austin shrubs and by similar height, but add some small ones at the feet of the medium roses, and occasionally stick a taller one in (sometimes a climber) for some contrasting shapes. I do have my polyanthas over in one general area (with lots of other plants mixed in there), but that had more to do with what space was available about the time I got interested in polyanthas. Kinda like all the shorties over there in their own area, however.

Kate

I agree with some posters regarding color mix. That is probably more important to me than other elements. I also like think that different shapes blend well together.
Nancy

I have mixed singles with old roses or with an old-fashioned look. I think they look as well together as clematis and double roses. I have Jacqueline du Pré in front of Madame Plantier and think the red stamens of JdP look well with the red buds of Madame Plantier.

Warning: long post!

Recall this stipulation, but pulled out a 1993 copy of "David Austin's English Roses - Glorious New Roses for American Gardens" to see if he gave a reason. Under Practical Considerations on page 50, he advises avoiding close competition from neighboring plants (without further detail concerning aggressive or suckering roots of some roses or the rootstocks upon which they may be grafted). He emphasizes that the ability to bloom more than once is not natural to roses but due to hybridizing efforts, and that flowering over a long period with packed double petals "puts considerable strain upon the plant", making it less able to withstand close competition. He extends his conclusion to a majority of other repeat flowering roses. "This problem is not of course unique to English Roses and applies just as much to certain repeat-flowering China, Bourbon and Portland Roses as well as to Hybrid Teas and Floribundas." (My takeaway - pay attention to the habits of any companions both above & below ground, including other roses, when contemplating & planting for compatibility - a standard cautionary principle in most types of gardening.)

Austin further concludes it's unlikely for such roses to also display luxurious dense growth at the same time so much of the plants' effort goes into repeat blooming. Since his stated ideal is a bushy frame for his flowers, the workaround is his famous formula of planting closely in threes of one variety, giving the effect of one full shrub. (He acknowledges this may not be practical in small gardens "where everything is on a reduced scale, planting singly is, of course, completely justified,..") Somehow the competition issue for this 3-as-1 rose scheme among its components is disregarded in favor of fuller appearance & design impact.

On page 52, he states "English Roses can be treated in much the same way as Old Roses, except that their extended flowering means that you may have to think more carefully about the colors of surrounding plants. There is no set of rules to which you must adhere, and the possibilities for pursuing your own ideas in the garden are infinite." Don't find anything in this book that speaks to physical incompatibility between old & old style roses with modern roses. Seems more that such a mix offends Austin's personal standards of Good Taste. In gardens where roses are not given segregated borders to themselves, he feels English Roses far superior to HT's & Floribundas "whose harsh colors and hard lines make them unsuitable companions in mixed borders." As Nancy posted to start this thread, "In one of David Austin's books he said that old and old style roses should not be in a bed with modern roses." Believe here we get to the heart of the matter from Austin's perspective:

"Perhaps the worst mistake that one can make with the English Roses is to treat them as just another Modern Rose. When planted in the same border as Hybrid Teas and Floribundas the particular beauty of the English Roses is all but destroyed: the two just do not mix."

Never mind those "infinite possibilities" - the Master has spoken. Personally, I'm in the whatever-floats-your-boat camp & like to intermix styles & bloom forms with roses as well as companions, but mine is a garden with roses rather than a rose garden. Floribunda Easy Does It centers the front porch bed by the walkway, Golden Celebration rises obelisked behind & HT Fragrant Cloud spreads out to the rear by the porch. Two more arching Austins use the obelisk for partial support & mixed perennials flow within the bed around them. I find they enhance each other & the whole composition pleasing.

"For American Gardens" prompted me to buy this book when it came out, but I puzzled over the heights & widths given for his individual roses & wondered whether any had actually been grown in the various climates here in the USA to verify their likely dimensions. Golden Celebration is listed as 4 x 4', yet here in the Upper South confined within an obelisk reaches 9' & if left unsupported would easily cover 15' wide. Since Golden Celebration was only introduced in '92 & the book published in '93, suspected these were merely guesses based on anticipated English climate growth rates. Of the private gardens photographed, 6 of 12 mentioned in Acknowledgments are American, all Californian. Finding scant information pertinent to the USA besides a few mentions of ARS ratings without the usual specific numbers but instead "good" or "excellent", can't recommend this book for stateside gardeners interested in what Austin had to say about his releases up to 22 years ago. Consider it another promotional piece, rather a hardbound expanded catalog, and still annoyed at myself for falling for the title rather than examining the book closely prior to purchase.

If this was a public garden we are talking about then it should reflect the society at large with its "designer" rules.

Since we are talking about a "personal or family garden", I believe it should reflect the people who tend and grow them. Like a house, it should reflect the individuals who live there. It depends on who you are. I feel that since we revolve most aspect of our lives to society "rules", personal garden should be an exception. I mean we should study or be inspired by others who has designed their sanctuaries but our own garden should reflect our own spirit and creativity.

If formal gardens speak to you, then by all means create one. If cottage gardens style speaks to you, then design one. If you feel a bit free spirited, then mix old and new. No matter what style, all gardens are beautiful in its own way. You don't see mother nature worry about what colours or plant clash or not. Just take a risk and if you don't like it, you can always change it.

I agree with folks here saying it's more a matter of color and growth habit than the roses per se. As in many other issues, the roses can't read and the hybrid musks for instance don't know they're officially too modern to be grown against other older roses like gallicas and ramblers. Many of the Buck roses have a lovely open style with muted colors that play nicely with OGRs. And after all - Austin roses are technically modern - though intended as reproductions of old roses.

In my yard, I interplanted OGRs and moderns long before I knew there was a difference and I'll still plant them wherever they seem most suited regardless of age around my yard. In the bed that has the most OGRs I have a well-established Dream Come True (among the more lurid of modern forms and colors), but it seems to work with this color scheme, as does the relatively modern Dorcas, and an increasing number of lavenders and burgundy moderns that refuse to survive elsewhere. So far I think it looks fine. However, I wouldn't put a truly garish modern like Oranges and Lemons or Voluptuous there, for color as much as anything, though I love them elsewhere. The bed where I do have those garish modern colors also has some older roses (Gruss an Aachen and several yellow Austins come to mind) to tone down the field, and it seems to work.

There are moderns and OGRs in my "mostly OGR" bed below, and I think it looks fine, though nowhere near as tidy as a formal rose garden would be. The moderns I can see off hand are: Dream Come True at left, Savoy Hotel at right, Acropolis (center front), Uncle Joe (back center), Jeanne LaJoie (climbing the shepherd's crook), Rountuit (barely blooming at back R), and (ahem) Dr. Huey (now dug out of course). Among these are various teas, OGRs, and Austins. I think the most "garish" color in this photo is the Madame Isaac Periere at right, and not only is she an OGR I wouldn't trade her for the world. Works for me, and you should definitely suit yourself.

Cynthia

Some of Austin's roses are garden hogs. That said as an old plopper whatever pleases your eye. You can always move a rose and find pleasing combinations. I wish that I was more of a planner, but my garden is just to suit myself. may you find pleasure in what ever you grow and where.
F.L.
IAGL

@Jackie and Cynthia, I just love it. I can sit there and just enjoy your peace of heaven for hours and hours. Although not planned as a "designer" garden, there is still some "unconscious" planning whether you realize it or not.

I like the natural feel to it; Natural but not too wild. I agree that colours and plants should blend but too "blendy" is also boring.

I agree with JJPeace. Thanks Jackie and Cynthia for posting pictures. It is helpful to actually see what is working for others.
Nancy

Thanks for the nice comments - I just found another picture of the same bed as above from a different angle (taken from inside the house - second story window).

The fat buds in the foreground are Sombreuil (modern LF climber). The other roses are Buff Beauty, Iceberg, and the peach/pink single is another modern LF climber called Summer Wine. To illustrate how serendipity had to do with this grouping, I actually ordered the red LF climber Altissimo, but got Summer Wine by mistake. Red would NOT have looked as good, which I realized as soon as SW bloomed.

In the far background (2 houses over) you can see huge old bushes of what I think is Lamarque and Cecil Brunner - I am lucky to live in an old neighborhood where there are lots of surviving old roses.

Oh, the ugly nearby beige colored building is NOT on our lot - it is the reason I planted all of these roses in the first place.

Jackie

Jackie

Looks lovely, Jackie, and only you could make the neighbor's shed look good. It gives the explosion of roses that quaintly rustic look and sets off the wonderful mix of colors. Thanks for posting the second shot.

Glad folks find the photos useful - it does indeed show what's possible. Here's the same mixed old and new effect in a shaded area (assuming folks aren't too tired of my hybrid musk shots).

Cynthia

Jackie and Cynthia, I am so envious of you ladies. Just breath taking gorgeous. I may have to steal errrr borrow some of your ideas. I love the combination of orange and pink/mauve combination in Jackie's garden. I really love your garden natural look Cynthia.

This is what I am talking about; mixing the best of everything to create a stunning garden.

I'll chime in as someone who does not like to mix old and new. I grow a variety of modern shrubs, a handful of OGRs, and many DAs. The thing I look for with neighboring roses, even more than the style or color of bloom, is foliage and growth habit. I don't like upright plants with shiny leaves next to old fashioned looking roses. I find that jarring to my eye, which is funny because in most things I enjoy contrast and variety.

While we're on the subject of old and new, something you don't see discussed much is that not all DAs look old fashioned. Many have shiny modern looking foliage and/or a stiff upright growth habit. I've often learned this by surprise since I usually buy bare roots. I spend a lot of time moving things. These types actually look nice among modern roses.

My take-away from the "don't mix modern with old or English" was that the two are often treated differently, and look better separated. Many people treat HTs and Floribundas as bedding plants -- hard-pruning them every year, planting in groups of the same variety for emphasis. The old and English roses are more often left to grow a bit more wild. In habit, they don't match.

BUT....not everyone treats their HTs and Floribundas as "bedding plants", so it's not so much "don't mix the types" as it is "don't mix the gardening styles in the same bed." In other words, "neat and clipped" roses might look odd right next to "arching and billowing" roses. At least, that's how I took it. But, in the end, it's all about personal preferences.

The other consideration is color clashing between some of the brighter colored moderns and the softer colored old and English roses. But that isn't something inherent -- there are plenty of non-harsh moderns that will blend well with the old and English roses. Ultimately, I realize that Austin's books, while very informative, are also aiming to nudge favor toward his own roses and preferences. He had to carve out a new market for the roses he bred, after all.

:-)

~Christopher

Christopher, I think you have put your finger on it - it is all about gardening styles, not what actual roses you use. My HTs are intermixed with old roses because I like it that way. I let them grow way more wild than someone with them in a formal bed would.

Jackie

ratdogheads makes a good point about some of the Austins having modern-looking foliage. I was very disappointed when I saw the foliage of The Dark Lady. Fortunately this rose was bright red in my garden and I was rather happy to see it deteriorate in the drought so I could take it out.

The point that a few others have made about appearance being more important than origin is one I totally share. Everything should blend together in one area and that matters a lot more than whether it's a noisette next to a hybrid tea. What's most important to me is whether I love that particular rose and just have to have it in my life.

Wonderful pictures, everyone, and they add much to the discussion.

Ingrid