1. If you don't live in David Austin's conditions, you might not want to use his techniques.
   
2. In large areas of North America, Austin's roses grow very differently than they do where he is located. Planting them that way, in a warm climate, could be a nightmare.

3. If I were Austin, I would rather sell three plants than one plant.

Yes, good point about the three instead of one! I don't live in his conditions, it's much warmer here so yes it could be a disaster. I'm just interested to know if anyone does this with any old or Austin roses.

I could imagine my spindly Comte de Chambord might look better clustered with a friend or two. Or maybe it just needs to be removed...

Most often, when the suggestion to plant multiples together is made, they are meaning to plant multiples of the same rose together. If your Comte de Chambord is spindly, planting it with two other roses which would likely have more vigorous growth than Chambord, would probably appear like the two others and no Chambord. If you want it to appear as Austin suggests, plant two more Chambords with the one you have. Be aware, though, whatever disease or pest issues you have will probably be worse with three, crowded plants.

Yes I meant with another Comte de Chambord, not something different. Agree that disease issues would likely be worse. Doesn't sound like anyone recommends this then, except Monsieur Austin.

Being more of a "collector" than a "designer", I only have two of roses which are very rare and endangered. In that case, I plant them in different areas, so if something happens to one of them I will still have the other one.

Otherwise I cram in all different rose into the available space/sun. I agree that in warm climates it is not good to follow advice for cool climates, ever. I have only one Austin, Graham Thomas, and I like it a lot, despite the fact that it is easily 3 times larger, and twice as tall, as Austin says it is.

Jackie

I don't even live in California--but we do have a hot growing season here--and I would never plant three Austin roses together. They grow far too large, with only two exceptions that I can think of: Tamora, and The Prince. Diane

...I won't be doing this with any of his larger shrubs, but I can see the benefit with his smaller ones, like 'Munstead Wood' for instance...and any number of others of small stature...I'm finding a few are not that effective planted singly... and obviously it's more suitable for those in wetter climates...

..this winter I intend to make a group of 3 with 'The Herbalist' because I like this rose a lot and I can see the benefit of triple planting where I have it... I shall try and plant them so each rose is centred 2 foot apart...

I first tried this a few years ago with Lady of Shalott and Munstead Wood. I did NOT like the approach with Munstead Wood. MW is a sprawler (for me anyhow) and those quickly became a tangled mess and generally didn't seem happy. LoS grows fairly upright and the three grew into what looks like one glorious lush shrub.

I liked the results so much with LoS that I tired it again with a few more: Charlotte, Crocus, Boscobel, and liked those so well that this year I overhauled three large beds and planted a couple dozen varieties in groups of three. I planted in triangles spaced about 18" - 24" apart, depending on the size of the rose. It's a grand experiment and don't dare make any recommendations, but it looks promising.

My advice would be that this works well for varieties that DA recommends as "good for Hedging". There is such a list near the back of the catalog. Or look for claims of even, upright, slightly arching growth. I find that when DA says light and airy it means a sparsely foliated ankle grabber. Those don't play nicely in groups.

Of course the greatest caveat is that YMMV. I have a a lot of room, a short growing season, our climate is fairly wet, and winter naturally "prunes" my roses for me.

jacqueline, I just curious what those two special roses are?

Great to hear about other peoples' experiences, thank you! One he particularly recommended the triple planting approach for was Hermosa. I have Alnwick Rose and it's not brilliant-looking as a single plant, so far anyway. I think it is a recommended hedging one, although 'sparsely foliated ankle-grabber' is a much better description :)

Countrygirl, to answer your question, I actually have several rare roses (or clones of very old cultivars of roses which may have "declined in commerce").

One is "Schmidt's Smooth Yellow", which is a mystery rose I found which experts think might actually be the truly "lost" rose 'Eugenie Lamesch' (Lambert, 1898).

Another is what has been identified as 'Anna Olivier', (tea, Ducher, 1872), which was identified by the Australian tea rose ladies. Gregg Lowery told me it was not in commerce in North America when it was identified as growing in my garden (the original plant is still alive, and is we think 100+ years old). It is now back in commerce in North Am, from cuttings from my plant.

The others are clones of old old cultivars which were growing in my garden. They are available in commerce, but I am told some of them may have "declined", so I am happy to have bushes which I know have only been cloned (by me) once from the really old ones. They are: Peace (old one was 65 years old), Duchesse de Brabant (old one was 100+ years old), Le Vesuve (old one was 100+ years old), and Niles Cochet (old one was 100+ years old).

Jackie

I've been growing Austin's Molineux as a 3-in-1 bush for several years. By itself in the garden towards the rear of the backyard, Molineux is too skinny and relatively short to make much impact, but when I planted 3 of them in a triangle (each side of the triangle being about 20 inches long), Molineux became a real eye-catcher. I love it in its triple form.

Three Molineux in One Bush--what looks like one large golden-yellow bush behind the bright pink one (Earth Song):

[Oops--my pictures won't upload! What's the problem here?]

Well, to continue, one of the bushes died off, so I only have two there now--still looking good and making a good impact in it double-form, but I do miss my triple Molineux. However, now that I'm retired and the garden is getting to be a bit much at times, I promised myself I wouldn't replace any rose that died off. Sigh!

But you should pick a smaller more vertical rose and plant 3 in a triangle--it's a great idea!

Kate

We could plant three (in fact, I think my mom would like to do that) but I'm afraid it just puts a bigger sign over them to the deer saying....look, the buffet is open!

If you live in a cooler climate or shorter summer (that's us) then I think this would work. A lot of the shorter David Austins have a nice fragrance. Planting them in groups of three would make for a stronger fragrance, too :)

Uh-oh. At the dawn of my roseloving days, I treated every utterance of DA as eternal gospel. Fortunately, when I planted three of his roses together, they were Tamoras. Even here in zone 10b/20, in suburban Los Angeles, they have stayed four feet or under.

I planted a third Queen of Sweden this year -- but that is a hedge rose.

I also have three Alnwicks -- they have been asleep this year, after blooming freely last year (their first). I guess they'll be another hedge, huh?

I thought that DA was just echoing established garden practice with his three-together comment. Shows how much I know.

I order roses from two vendors in Texas. They often put two or three little cuttings together in hopes that at least one will take. (I called once, thinking they made a mistake, and that is what I was told. As the roses mature, the plants together as one never seemed to hurt the plant. These are not Austins.

In my garden I love planted 3 or more plants of the same variety together. To me it makes the bed more dramatic. I have done this with Perle 'd Or, Caldwell Pink, and Thomas Affleck.

The problem is that once you see a rose long enough to consider doing this, there is not a place to do it.

Sammy