Sherry, that rose is SO BEAUTIFUL. Thanks everyone! I heard back from the curator, he said that my photo of Baronne Prevost was right, but that while the rose I saw was labeled as Marchesa Boccella, you guys were right that Marchesa was mislabled. He said there used to be a Marchesa there, but that it must have died. He said they check the labels every couple years and just hadn't noticed that one. So the rose I took a photo of that I thought was Marchesa, is actually Marchioness of Lorne. He also said that Baronne, Bourbon Mme. Lauriol de Barny and Marchioness of Lorne both do reasonably well at their garden (and this climate) ... and probably would do ok for me. By the way, he also recommended Reine des Violettes and Souvenir de la Malmaison as being pretty tough (I already have those, so yay!) He also recommended York and Lancaster (damask) and Porland from Glendora (Porland) , if you're curious! :)

Simona, my VID Ardoisee de Lyon was a gift from a hybridizer. I don't know if its in commerce. George, yes, it was Pierre who grows Baronne Prevost in a fruit tree, 3 meters tall he said. I'll bet that shades the canes well. Here, those canes burn in June and July. The old rosarians of the 19th century all pruned their HP's hard after the spring flush. I don't see why you shouldn't give that a try. Take the new wood back down to several buds eyes (stout, self-supporting size), and see if that makes a difference. Do it right away after the spring flush. Let us know if it works.

Geo, even hybrid musks are not created equal. I grow Felicia in full blazing sun and she has been blooming since early April. My Buff Beauty is in a shadier spot but has cleaner foliage than Felicia that does get spotty. Another fantastic Hybrid musk is Prosperity, it is clean and keeps blooming even in this terrible drought in a semi-shady position - in summer it gets more sun than in spring and fall. I wish I could say the same of its neighbor, Baron Giraud de l'Ain; I think that the baron would do better even in less sun in my hot and humid climate. There was a HP expert on this forum, Pete of Belgium; he suggested afternoon shade for HPs and very rich diet. Does anyone know why he stopped posting? I miss him when I dream about HPs doing better here.

Some discussion on recent posts regarding pile moisture control has occured, so addressing this issue with regard to the techniques I use, to try and avoid confusion between my methods and advice, and somebody else's. At this time, not going to discuss pile insulation properties, drainage, or forces that move internal-to-external gas (vapor). Serious composters agree that moisture retention in compost pile material is critical. To the degree that composting material is not sufficiently moist (to promote high microbial activity), decomposition is restricted. After watering a pile, most composters think of pile moisture retention as mostly relative to external air flow (that airflow is needed)...And that well-aerated pile material can get 'too wet'. I disagree, and those two distictions separate my methodology from the 'accepted' perception. The proof I offer to validate my distinctions, is the high quality of my harvested product, and the high speed by which the decomposition process is completed. Air flow is relative to moisture loss only to the degree that drier air can penetrate into the pile from the outside, and studies have shown that such air flow pressure is minimal - to only a few inches, even with coarse pile material and strong winds. My piles suffer external drying effects from wind only 1/4" to 1/2". An exposed pile (no support structure) or 'open' structure (such as wire-sided cage) are subject to much greater moisture loss, depending on the coarseness and natural compaction of materials used, and also relative to square footage of non-insulated ground contact. A pile built on sand will lose moisture more rapidly than one built on clay, and very little loss if on a solid surface. Similarly, covering a pile with a non-permeable membrane (such as a tarp or plastic sheeting) is only effective to the degree that it reduces flow from the inside of the pile, exhausting TO the perimeter. Would have to be very tight, to hold moisture in. An enclosed pile (hat/straw bales, wood, cinderblock, etc.) is more protected from external air flow, but perimeter drying of material against the enclosure structure still occurs, causing an ever-widening gap that will permit even greater moisture loss. Since there's very little airflow in a 4-sided enclosure - how do you account for that phenomenon? Think about it. It's not caused by external air flow, but rather shrinkage from decomposition. All that being said, I think that composters have been thinking "backward" about this issue for centuries. Yeah, I know - but hear me out. I have found that external air flow (into a pile by wind force, i.e., pressure), is the smaller part (osmosis or the 'wicking effect) related to the total effect of internal pile moisture loss. I take a 'deeper' view, based on my extensive moisture testing, to demonstrate that the technique of 'tamping' pile edges significantly reduces moisture loss - by creating a "barrier" as PART of the pile. My piles do not need additional watering between turns, even in drought (arid) conditions (which my location has suffered for more than 6 months to date). You can see in my photo on this thread, how the vertical-sided piles stand without any support - because of this same compaction technique. The benefit of internal pile moisture control is actually a by-product of the 'layer-tamping' technique, as is heat 'insulation'. I consider the major issue of moisture loss to be caused by movement of gasses FROM inside the pile TO the outside external edges, mostly by internally-produced (pressure) heat by produced microbe population expansion. Not by wind or osmosis from wind effect. Heat causes gas to expand and rise. Insulation of the pile to attain higher heat for a longer period is another benefit of 'tamping'. The management technique I employ to restrict moisture loss is nature's way. As a pile material decomposes, it 'settles'. Natural compaction due to gravity and reduction of matter by decomposition, is already a part of the composting process. I simply take it a step farther (than other researchers before me - that I know of) by ignoring the generally-accepted admonition not to compact ANY compost material. However, I do take steps to ensure that previously compacted (edge) material is sufficiently aerated and moved to pile bottom center on the next turn, identified in my earlier discussion about 'scalping' a pile. Moisture loss in my piles is minimal, due mostly (in my opinion) by 'snugly' compacting the outer 3" perimeter of a pile - to restrict moisture from moving from the inside to the outside of a pile. I NEVER compact internal material. Only perimeter. Also experimenting with placing a layer of 'tight' material (such as aged manure or pre-soaked grass clippings) on the TOP of a flat pile called 'capping'. Compacting external sides, develops a more highly-controlled internal composting environment to effectively retain moisture and air in pile materials, and produces high-quality (higher humus percentage) product, faster than anybody else I know of. Am gathering evidence and working with a couple of measuring device manufacturers to utilize current gas measurement/movement technology, and develop a scientific method for using it, to prove my hypothesis. The Frame Technique of 'tamping' sides works very well in wire and solid-side bins, too. Consider experimenting with it. Fact is, sides of a bin don't support the sides of pile material after just a few days of 'settling' anyway. But I'll tell you up front - if a pile is not LAYERED when built/rebuilt - compacting pile sides will NOT work as effectively as it could. As soon as the composting section of my website is built, then all the details of the Frame Technique will be available in one place, with photos, which will be much easier to understand. Robert