|
| I would never have bought Elina & Diana Princess of Wales
as Standards had I known how long the stem growth would be. 3, 4, 5 feet above their 4 foot trunks makes them look very top heavy and flop all over the place. Of course I have now seen them grown as bushes and particularly Elina, in my opinion grow just too big to be Standards. I guess that's what you get for being a newbie and drooling over and ordering from the Rose Catalogues. |
Follow-Up Postings:
|
| I bought a Graham Thomas as a standard from the bunnings sad plants section - and they can grow to be terribly big - my grandmother is 6 feet tall and hows no sign of slowing! I suspect that if I keep a sharp eye and a pair of secateurs on him, he'll be alright. |
|
| It does seem to defy reasoning, when you see some of the H.T's and others offered as standards. Here in Australia, we tend to grow them as a feature type item, underplanted with low growing things like annuals etc or as an ornamental planter feature. This is quite suited to the growth patterns of most of the floribunda varieties, or if they have the 6' trunks the long canes of the rambler type growth. I know of a garden over here, in Donnybrook, that has superb specimems of Renae, Crepuscule, Felicia, Buff Beauty, Safrano (I know, not a rambler) plus a couple of others whose names elude me at present all looking totally at home in their particular pozzies in this garden. Then I look at some of the standard roses that my sister in law bought for her mum. Gold Bunny, Bonica and Iceberg are okay, Apricot Nectar and Just Joey, hmmm, Apricot Nectar can throw out some long watershoots, but then I saw the Lady X and Mr Lincoln. Both of these have very tall upright growth as bush roses. They have caused their share of grief when a long shoot snaps out and spoils the shape of the bush for the season. Like you ,I shook my head and wondered what was in the minds of the growers. I think I may have found the answer, (or part of it anyway). Here in Australia, we speak mainly about rose bushes, so I was quite intrigued by constant references in Northern Hemisphere books to rose trees. What is a rose tree? I asked my self, must be something we are missing out on. Eventually I found an English book, sort of a beginners manual, and in the glossary of terms it listed rose trees/tree roses. It described them as ordinary bush roses grafted onto trunks, 4 foot or more. Bingo, here are our standards. They are not designed for feature plantings as we tend to do in Oz, rather they are meant to be intergrated into the herbaceous border or shrubbery. The long trunk means that the flowers are lifted to a height where they can be seen, and the shrubs and perennials hide the trunk. I can only assume that requests from migrant gardeners, has led the growers to produce some of what we would consider to be a strange choice for a standard rose. Cheers.....Rosalie. |
|
| Probably the other way around. Roses seen as popular shrubs are thrown onto standards to cash in on their popularity and the "standard" status thing. And more, the 4' height gives a further bonus. These growers are not interested in what eventually happens to the planrs. The more these are grown, thge more the general public are gulled. Everyone wants a "bargain". There are still a few of us who genuine growers who supply standards with the right balance of hybrid and understock height, and who otherwise inform truthfully about the suitability of your choices. Seek us out perhaps, and get the facts, otherwise why not take a punt. |
|
| I don't really understand the attraction of standards - I only got mine because it was 12 bucks and at that price I would take a punt on anything. I was driving through a new suburb of Melbourne on the weekend, and it seemed like every second house had poorly kept, falling over standards in the front yard with nothing else planted. It was like an Iceberg monoculture - and while they can be quite pretty, it was like everyone had watched better homes and gardens 10 years ago and that was their sole exposure to gardening. |
|
| Yes what is it about standards? Perhaps it depends on how much garden space one has and if space is tight, still being able to grow different annuals underneath the standards, to experiment with different looks /colours etc. And of course this brings to light the whole rose lovers/growers versus ‘other gardeners’ thing. Could it be that ‘rose lover/growers’ are solely focused on roses, hence bushes which take up a lot of room as opposed to ‘other gardeners’ who love roses but see them as an inclusion to the scheme of their garden as a whole eg. standards in herbaceous borders. Just a thought. Also…interesting about the rows of Icebergs. In the older suburbs of Melbourne eg. Brighton or Malvern where well kept rows of same standards were planted 10 years ago, we can observe and decide if we like this look or not, and it seems to be a personal preference at play here. Some people do like the formal design slightly sterile look that comes with the Icebergs underplanted with mondo grass, just as some people also like the cottage garden look. Viva la difference! |
|
| I'm not a huge fan of standards, but I like to see some nice suitable varieties to be grafted on shorter understock (3-4 ft). Wildly popular hybrid musk Iceberg doesn't look bad as standard, but I prefer weeping standards; they're probably best looking of them all. Seafoam grafted on even slighty taller understock looks absolutely delicious! - Tom |
|
| yes, when will this fetish with Iceberg standards finish? I live in Belgrave and there is a new (colonial style) house near me that's just been built and they have planted a row of these along the edge of the property...I was surprised as I thought this fashion surely must be beginning to wane, but no, walk around Fitzroy in inner Melbourne and you will see them everywhere in the little front garden beds of all the terrace houses. |
|
| Perhaps it won't ever be over Janine. Maybe people realise that they are growing the best rose in the world. Perhaps that's because it is so floriferous, hardy, healthy, and forgiving of harsh treatment. In my opinion 'Seduction' is the only rose grown on a standard understock that comes anywhere near 'Iceberg' for display. And only for display. Who was it said "When you're on a good thing, stick to it."? |
|
| Oh gosh, the wild woman from the west has surfaced from under the welter of a pre-primary, a militant self toilet training toddler, and the most beautiful little boy who has mastered the art of crawling and re-arrainging Mum's kitchen;... to agree with Lozza... Shock... What really is wrong with Iceberg ? Whether grown as a standard or not? It is the most forgiving rose, and you can cut armloads of it for the house, and it has quite a pretty scent. The worst that can be said about the afore mentioned rose, is that it has suffered from saturation type plantings, because of it's robust and ( dare I say it again, forgiving nature). Shire Councils and housing developers just love it. " Rose growers" today tend to look down their collective noses at it, because of the company it is seen to keep... Seduction...the name says it all... the first bush that I grew in... my beloved farm garden... the name says it all... I voted it the most romantic rose of the "90's", haven't actually seen it grown as a standard yet ( well not properly anyway) and I just adore it; the frilly flowers just look like those older style costumes that ballet dancers wore before tutu's... Don't be mean to Iceberg... after all, if the landscapers weren't planting that, they might just plant vincas and gazanias...Rosalie |
|
- Posted by frannyfrip qld (My Page) on Sat, Apr 1, 06 at 17:30
| Has anyone read Barbara Wenzel's book, "Painting the Roses White" ? I ended up buying 3 copies and gave them as gifts to two of my gardening friends - it was such an enjoyable read. She mentions that overseas visitors might easily believe that Iceberg was 'Victoria's' floral emblem ! She was rather fond of it though she said because 'there was nothing to equal its performance.' For myself - it doesn't speak to the heart and I would rather plant something that did. Perhaps that is why people are buying Just Joey or Mr Lincoln on a stick. |
|
| I agree that there is nothing wrong with Iceberg. It is a lovely white rose, blooms prolifically, and has a pretty flower, despite the fact that I by far prefer the fuller blooms of the D.A.'s and the lovely simple blooms of the 5 petalled roses such as Wild Wings. What is wrong is that people behave like a lot of sheep and plant nothing else, and their little (or in many cases huge) boxes all in a row with bits of lawn and rows of standard icebergs look like something out of Edward Scissorhand. There are plenty more lovely robust roses that bloom their backsides off out there, and little originality and variety would make the burbs look a lot more inviting. I think that most people here object not to the rose but to what it represents - middle class lack of imagination. |
|
- Posted by nadianadia QLD (My Page) on Sat, Apr 1, 06 at 23:47
| Well I think the iceberg is a great starter rose. For what it is - a good screening rose that will give colour to your garden all year round and hedge a little- it's great. Success with them led me to plant other roses. I'm less taken with the icebergs now, there are lovelier roses but while I await their blooms I'm happy with the icebergs on the back fence as putting some colour into the garden. I don't think its a matter of lacking imagination but the consideration of time, expertise, space and resources when it comes to planting choices. I'm happy to see icebergs everywhere; rose breeders sit up and take notice...I think improvements will be on the way with those elements that make many people choose them carried on and added to. The creaters of difficult roses - succeed in creating extinct roses. |
|
- Posted by koeksoetie NSW Mid Coast (My Page) on Sat, Apr 15, 06 at 7:50
| Have just come across this Iceberg thread and had to smile. I planted the white Princess of Wales Floribunda roses together with Tamora and Ambridge Rose at the front of the house. People would constantly refer to my iceberg roses and I always corrected them saying the very reason I did not plant Iceberg was because everyone else did and because everyone assumed that being white it had to be Iceberg. Last year Treloar Roses sent me Iceberg as a free rose and I must admit I now understand why so many people grow them. During this horrendous summer with its scorching days, Iceberg was the one rose whose flowers did not curl up in disgust and it never even had a hiccough, flowering constantly. Boring it might be but hardy it sure is |
|
| Iceberg is a great rose, and for a good reason. But being more immune to our scorching summers has nothing to do with some special charm or a spell casted upon the name Iceberg. Like any other iceberg, this rose will also be damaged in the warm sun, but to the far less extent than some fully double, crimson rose. It's simple physics -- white petals reflect more light, thus remaining much cooler. And semidouble, loose flower type allows for more air circulation between the petals, thus producing even better cooling effect. Iceberg's leaves are tiny, and also allow for more air circulation. Plus, flower size is not big, just small enough not to accumulate too much heat. That's why this is an ideal rose for planting in public places, where there's no or very little protection and care. Observe this with any other single and semidouble rose of paler hues -- they whitstand heat much, much better. You'll notice only slight shift in hue in coloured roses as they open, as days become warmer and the sun hotter. But because it's already white, Iceberg will look unaffected, although, in reality, it suffers too, but to the much less extent. Double and fully double roses don't like hot weather of Australia and if we're smart, we'll plant them in shade, in the back, under some protection, and water them well to preserve their shape and their perfume longer. And if we carefully observe how sun moves and casts the shadow around our home during the summer, the better we will be in designing gardens and planting roses. There's nothing worse than plant delicate pinks, yellows and crimsons in the front of our gardens, where their only protection is a lonely cloud, that comes once in a while. |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Roses in Oz Forum
Instructions
- You must be a registered member and logged in to post messages on our forums.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review the contents and make changes.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent.
- HTML codes are allowed in the message field only.
- No advertising is allowed in any of the forums.
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.