Seedlings do vary. That's a likely way for a nice red named selection to arise. Someone notices it, grafts it and names it.

Since it's part of a planting of the same species, it's most likely a naturally-occuring mutation of some sort.

By and large, the red/black oak group does not lend itself to successful propagation by grafting - peroxidase enzyme incompatibilities usually doom any chance for success - even when attempting to graft a selection onto its own seedlings.
I can virtually assure you that a red oak would not successfully graft onto Q.fusiformis, which is a member of the white oak group.

How do you account for the many named cultivars that are in production?

a little on line research and I found a paper that describes some grafting methods and corresponding success rates. Not very high but worth trying. Ill get some seedlings and try next winter.

Ron,
Name some for me. I'm willing to be corrected.
The white oak group is rife with named selections, some of which have been propagated for generations by grafting/budding.
Beyond one scarlet oak selection that's been fairly well disseminated in the UK, I'm unfamiliar with significant numbers of red/black oak selections that are being propagated other than as seedlings. A couple of pin oak selections that were at one time somewhat common have fallen out of favor due to delayed incompatibility and graft failures.
I'm certain that recent improvemnts in techniques in rooting & tissue culture may be making some inroads in the way of propagating some of these previously difficult-if-not-impossible species, like Q.rubra. But, I don't know how available, on a widespread commercial basis, these own-rooted clones are.

White oak species are very easy to graft - a simple bark graft with dormant-collected scionwood, performed just as the seedling rootstocks are breaking dormancy and unfurling leaves, works great - with success rates comparable to apple/pear grafts.

Q. coccinea 'Splendens' (the one you mentioned, more than one clone known perhaps implying it has been sometimes raised from seed)
Q. palustris 'Crownright'
Q. rubra 'Aurea' (comes partly true from seed)
Q. shumardii 'Royal Flush'

Here is a link that might be useful: Quercus palustris x coccinea 'Crozam'

I've never seen any cultivar of any Red Oak Group Oak for sale at any retail nursery. Also, many of the reported successes in grafting members of the Red Oak group do indeed suffer from high failure rates after several years of apparent successful growth. Like averbisadverbera mentioned, the initial success rates are also extremely low(actually 0% in most cases). I do notice a lot more cultivars of Red Oak Group Oaks are listed in Europe, but I am doubtful as to their successful propagation on any scale. I have read some recent techniques used for grafting Northern Red Oak which seem to show some promise of decent success rates(25%-40% if I recall), but who knows who they'll be after 5 or 10 years. If they too will decline slowly as the graft slowly fails like it has on other supposedly successfully grafted Red Oak member Oaks.

Also, for the OP. It sounds to me that you are noticing 1 Oak in the group that is suffering from chlorosis(a lack of a nutrient, most often iron in Oaks due to soil which is too alkaline). It happens a lot, where you will see several Oaks planted along a street with most all looking healthy and then 1 right in the middle of them all is chlorotic. Often times their leaves will be yellow, but sometimes they'll become orange and late in the season those leaves will be a brown-orange or burned significantly. After a few years of this, they usually die.

Thanks, Ron.
I was vaguely aware of Q.rubra 'Aurea', and couldn't think of C.coccinea 'Splendens' off the top of my head.
'Crownright' is one of the Q.palustris selections that's largely fallen out of favor due to graft failures as a result of delayed incompatibility.

I figured as much. Delayed incompatibility not the same, of course, as grafts almost never taking at all - and producing quantities of marketable plants - which would have to be the case for Lake County nursery and other large growers to be offering them. Delayed incompatibility of a grafted tree might take decades to appear. I have seen others listed as being in wholesale production on this continent but a couple had disappeared by the 1990s if not earlier. A survey of other big production operations would probably turn up additional ones that are in being generated at this time - I believe I have seen them listed and described but do not have them recorded yet myself.

On one hand it would be nice if they developed a way to successfully graft (and have the graft survive the life of the tree!) with Oaks in the Red Oak group, but on the other hand it's nice they have to propagate them by acorn which preserves a much greater genetic diversity, more like a wild population. Of course many nurseries propagate Oaks from one small wild or cultivated population, thus spreading a relatively limited genetically diverse group over a larger range, but I still think it's better than the exact same genetically identical tree being planted all over. Can you image if all of the hundreds of thousands of Pin Oaks planted were mostly all identical clones???

Kman04, I heartily concur with your view on the long-term benefits of seed-propagated stock, be it oak, or any other genera. Excellent point.

+oM

Hi, I'm gonna jump in with a suggestion.

This fella is an Oak grafter and many of you will get a serious bang out of some of his nursery stock.

I'd contact him about grafting your find. This guy is legendary.

Dax

Here is a link that might be useful: McCracken's Nursery

Dax,
All those McCracken offerings are members of the white oak group. As easy to graft and successful, long-term, as are appples/pears.
He may have some insight on grafting red/black oaks, but he's not offering any.

I just noticed. I thought he had 20-25 different Oaks but he's mostly Magnolia.

My bad. Late,

Dax

They apparently don't always have to propagate them by acorn since large-scale growers are offering budded/grafted clones (see link to 'Crozam' cultivar, above, for an example).

Speaking of Red Oak..I've been considering planting a few on my property. I want oak for the strength and color beauty.

Question is.. how wide do they get at the top..I dont want to put them too close!

Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra) can get as wide as 85'(26m) or so, but average might be closer to about 65'(20m) or so.

Average crown spreads for Quercus rubra over 100' reported from Michigan but that state has become home to multiple suspiciously large tree dimensions. Out here in this part of significantly milder USDA 8 multiple crown spreads over 100' have been measured by careful workers. The majority of these records are from Seattle but one red oak in Tacoma averaged 124' across in 1990, another in the same park 117' the same year.

What?? Holy Crap. So is it safe to say that the trees have to be 75 feet apart??? Otherwise they'd be fighting for space up above?

Depends on how long you are planning for and how big they grow under your conditions. If you aren't planting for perpetuity don't worry about it. They will just become a row or grove in time if they merge eventually.

I was posting typical spreads for wild trees and planted trees of about 60 years old or younger(post WWII, since the vast majority of planted trees in many parts of the US were planted post WWII), not record spreads. Spreads of 117' to 124' are rare and not typical for the species. Although any tree in the right spot(soil, climate, sun exposure, etc.) growing for long enough can indeed reach these immense spreads.

What about tissue culture for red oak clones?

Maybe that is already involved in at least part of the production. I don't know.

Oaks in the Red Oak group(Lobatae) have had poor results with tissue culture. Northern Red Oak(Q. rubra) is just about the only one to have any real success with tissue culture that I've read about.