Jackie -- Even in Inland CA, roses may not grow as tall as they do near the coast where we don't get any chill.

And I expect that people who said it was 1-2 ft. had not grown it as long as Kim had, when they rated it at 2-ft. I automatically assume all height descriptions are dreck.

Heck, I just got back from my new neighbor's house, where she is pruning the roses she inherited with the house.

Her happiest 'Iceberg' is at LEAST 10 ft. tall and a good 5 ft. across. Probably be even bigger were it not for mow and blow gardeners who have clearly used a chainsaw on the roses.

So, what's the description of 'Iceberg'???

"Height of 30" to 5' (75 to 150 cm). Width of 2' (60 cm)."

That's a yolk. :-) But I am sure that, for some folks, in some places, it is accurate.

Yes, Jeri - dreck is right. I guess I will just have to stop being hopeful that statements of the size of any rose might be correct for here. Most of my roses are giants or planning on being giants, but I was hoping to have an area with smaller ones. My DH suggested yesterday that I buy creeping plants for the rest of this bed like bacopa, which I know will not get 5 feet high. Going right now to plant them.

Jackie

You don't have to live in California to experience the dreck of size descriptions. When I first acquired Ascot a few years ago, the size estimate on HMF was 2-3 feet tall, and I think Palatine said something similar. Now the description says Ascot is short, compact, and dense with a height of 3-6 feet, and a width of UP TO 18 inches. Haha. Both my Ascot roses are eight feet tall and 6 feet wide. They are large grandifloras, so how could they only reach 18 inches wide? This is just one example of poor size estimation. Julia Child is vastly underestimated in size, too, among many others. Diane

It happens here too, Jackie. I planned so carefully so that the taller ones wouldn't end up in the front row hiding the shorter ones. Ha! That didn't work. I've given up trying to estimate sizes. I just plant them now and wait and see what they do. Then I go back in and do a chinese fire drill and move them all around so they're in better order for size. Sometimes that doesn't work either but it's the best I can come up with.

seil, yes - I have decided that to find out how big a rose will get in my garden, I have to grow it in my garden for 4-5 years, at which point I know the answer to the question. Doesn't help with planning at all, but at least I know. That is why I have more than one of several roses - after I found out what it was going to do, I planted another one.

I should not complain - they get big here because they love it here. I have noticed that the "height" info is never too tall!

Jackie

I'd imagine Lauren was making good use of your 3'+ rainfall, Jackie. It took her a while to begin throwing those stiff, thick, long canes here, which makes sense. It was after I started shredding all the vegetative material for mulch, which permitted the soil to maintain more water and actually started providing nutrients as it broke down. Kippy can vouch for the incredible root system Lauren produced. She saw it yesterday when we dug up the original seedling for her to plant in her garden. Roses won't produce strong, large top growth until they produce the "feet" to support it. Lauren is one which definitely does.

I would think you could get bloom from it by keeping it pruned shorter. Probably not nearly as much as you will from a larger plant, but it should provide enough to please you, I would imagine. I'd not really pruned Lauren other than to supply cuttings until recently when I cut everything down to enable them to be moved. Kim

As only a recently joined member of HMF (after using it for much longer) am I right in thinking their information is based entirely on what members (and other contributors?) tell them?
If that is the case, then it might be an idea for all of us with experiences differing from what we find stated there, to drop them a quick note, eg of the dimensions in our area/zone. Otherwise, obviously, it's never going to be accurate.
It would be wonderful if, in the future, they could gather enough of such info to be able to organise size indications into zones, or perhaps more relevantly, max temperature.
What do you all think?

I am beat after a busy garden day, but yes Lauren can build some thick canes and a root system. I was checking sizes on HMF as I planted and got to Lauren and thought...no way those are thick canes!

But then again lots of roses are listed as they probably were when they were only a few years old.

When pruning Bishops Castles with almost 2" canes, there is no way that plant is going to be 4 feet tall, try 8 feet tall and 12 feet across. And yes it is in the front of the bed because it is short right..... :)

There is one rose I can definitely say is going to stay [what I would consider] short.

'International Herald Tribune'. (aka HARquantum, Margaret Isobel Hayes, Violetta, Viorita)

HMF lists the height as "15-in to 4.5-ft" -- and I would say that's accurate. My oldest plant (after about 10 years) is maybe 3.5-ft. tall.

In fact, it took us quite a while to learn that IHT dislikes much in the way of pruning. It is not over-blessed with bud eyes, and so you can easily end up forced to cut it to about 6 inches. Instead of doing that, we now just cut off the blooms, right under the inflorescence, and let the rose decide where it wants to grow from.

This is TRULY a rose that can be used in front of taller roses.

In addition to all that, it makes shapely sprays that can be made up of as many as 20 blooms; it is fragrant; and in my conditions, it is wholly free of any disease.

Jeri
Coastal Ventura Co., SoCal

Comtesse, it's not simple to predict sizes by zones or really almost anything else, unless you're living two blocks from the same rose in someone else's garden. A mile away, but about 250 feet further down, the quality of the soil is better than mine and roses will grow larger. Some of the giants in Jackie's garden are not even half that size in mine. Different soil and a huge difference in rainfall would probably explain that. Even Kippy, who I think lives in conditions closer to mine, mentions her Bishop's Castle being eight feet tall. Mine is less than four feet! Mrs. B.R. Cant, a giant in most gardens, is not much over four feet here, although wider in spread. She's grown not much at all over the years. I was hoping for a growth spurt this spring after the El Nino winter, but so far there's been much less rain than I expected, and today it's in the high seventies. That would sound like a dream in the midwest right now, but here is a cause for discouragement.

I also believe that the only way you'll really ever know what a rose will do is to plant it and then, if necessary, replant the darn thing. Roses don't know about size rules and just do exactly what they want to do.

Ingrid

HMF gets what information it can from the breeders, growers, etc. and uses a compilation of that in their descriptions. There's no way of knowing where those groups grew the rose and under what conditions. If they don't have info from those groups to use they have a default system based on what that class of rose's general habit is like. Members, hopefully, will post some info in comments or photos on how a rose grows for them and that often is a better indication if there is someone in your area or zone. It's still no guarantee. As others have said here, the best way is to grow it in your own garden. It's still the only way to know for sure how it will do for you.