Excellent ! Thanks guys. I started looking last night to find more, now with a name to start. Your right formandfoliage, all the first ones I found are very small in comparison. Sorbaria arborea seems to be the right direction. Then I ran into the name change, since these species were formally included in the genus Spiraea. Went down that path and read parts of a paper about which plants froze and to what extent at Harvard the winters of 1942 and 1943 ...still Spiraea then. Anyway, I've been digging out old books and going various directions on the web comparing the various descriptions. It's been interesting that I keep running into such a mix of languages on the web. This is a well traveled plant. Right now I've decided this is most likely Sorbaria kirilowii . Height of the plant being the main factor, but knowing the same plant can vary by region and this would not be the first time our PNW weather gave a plant an advantage in size. The photo I posted shows the top of the 6 foot fence and that run away branch is about 6 or 7 years old ? I know one friend has been telling me he will help get it trimmed for three years now but we get distracted. You know how that can happen. Looking out back this morning and guessing the height of the current tallest group of trunks I think they are about 18 feet conservatively. They're probably at about 15 years since I whacked them down. Thus the 20 to 26 feet height noted for Sorbaria kirilowii , at 25 to 30 years of age makes the most sense. And the leaves seem to match what photos and descriptions I can find. Best part ? I find I'm more relieved than expected to know for sure this is not a weed because I would have kept it anyway. It serves it's purpose beautify where it's at. Still seem odd to not see others growing in the neighborhood. Here is a link that might be useful: Sorbaria kirilowii This post was edited by plaidbird on Sat, Jun 22, 13 at 13:34

Kate, I have a 65 year old Cecile Brunner that's, dare I say it, even bigger than Jeri's (gulb). And unlike Jeri's, which has been artfully pruned by Mr Jennings to give it an arched fan shape, mine hasn't seen a pruner in a decade, and is thus a full from top to bottom in a square-shouldered 20 by 20 wall. I've also set a "layed" offspring of the mother plant next to her and am working on having a 20 x40 wall of Cecile Brunner (and it is happening fast). For me this is a "privacy screen" between myself and my neighbors (and they love the rose too). I'll admit the flowers in full pom-pom are less spectacular than some roses, but the "sweet-heart" buds couldn't be cuter. And in full flush this bush is quite a sight. But for me the best thing about Cecile Brunner is she has such wonderfully healthy foliage. I enjoy her as a "plant". No rose (I know of) is more carefree or healthy. I have seen examples of Cecile Brunner pruned VERY HARD. And in each instance the rose was thriving. OTOH, I have enough climbers to train and deal with that I like having a giant beauty that requires NO CARE. And personally speaking I'd rather not deal with having to cut down a rose that want to get big. So is that confusing? Bill

It sounds like you are actually hotter than we are for a change. I'm sorry to hear the heat is causing you a fibromyalgia flareup. There's a lot of love on this thread of yours. I'm not usually a yellow fan, but that clump of Siloam Amazing Grace is my favorite today. I'm enchanted by the blooms' lighter edges, green throats, and outstanding clump performance. Mal is putting on a jolly good show, and Banana Creme Beauty with Concert Tour is a pleasant combo. While Women Seeking Men and Ashwood Dark both appear to have good branching and bud counts, Webster's Pink Wonder and Isleworth both have lovely color and form. Finally, your shot of Desperado Love is a beauty. I rarely get the purple color on mine that you and Kay do. The eye and edge of mine is burgundy or maroon 99 percent of the time. It does have nice branching and bud count here. Debra

Hi, me again, with info on the name confusion. I just started reading my new *Restoring American Gardens: An Encyclopedia of Heirloom Ornamental Plants, 1640-1940* by Denise Wiles Adams. (So far, so good.) As I mentioned before, I figured my rose was probably not correctly 'Seven Sisters' since it doesn't have the seven shades of pink. This bothered me a bit. Well, the book has straightened it out for me. On page 24 Adams tells of having been given a 'Seven Sisters' rose by a dear friend of hers, whose grandmother had been one of seven sisters as well. But here's the clincher: it turns out that even though the rose was not a true 'Seven Sisters', but actually "Excelsa', a.k.a. 'Red Dorothy Perkins', it was nevertheless called 'Seven Sisters' in the Midwest. From looking at the description on pages 279-81, I believe I've got the same thing. So now, not only do I know why my grandmother called it that, but I've got the real names. Very satisfying. Egyptianonion