I seem to be drawn to a combination of old roses that are 3" to 4" with smaller blooms of 1" to 2" in front of them. I also love Sweet Surrender hybrid teas, which are about 5", so I have a few in the front porch garden, with some very small Fantin Latours. I'm hoping maybe they'll have some blooms this year.

I think the variety of bloom sizes is important, since so many of my roses are the same few colors LOL. I seem to be in the pink, pink/lavender, crimson/purple, and creamy white phase :)

Personally, the bigger, the better. I kind of like how disproportional some blooms look in reference to the entire rose itself. It tends to accentuate the bloom as it's own entity from the remainder of the rose. With that said, I tend to favor more cupped and globular blooms, so what they may or may not lack in width in blooms, they tend to have taller blooms that are more rounded so they have a large physical appearance. I grow Bishop's Castle which has medium sized blooms(smallish for me), however I hold nothing against it. It's still perfectly fine. I have nothing against small blooms either as they make up for their size in terms of the sheer numbers of blooms they put out to compensate for their size. I think since I put such an emphasis on single bloom beauty and elegance, that size tends to give the bloom more pop when I am focused only on the bloom, but even the smallest blooms can bring a whole rose shrub to life when you step back and appreciate the quantity of blooms.

For me I think it is not that much a size of blooms, but more a form. For some weird reason my most favorite rose is Raubritter, which blooms are average size at the best.

I think I prefer globular shape over the other ones, size does not really matter.

Here is a link that might be useful: Isn't she a beauty :)

oh yes, elemire, i too love globular blooms - Mme Pierre Oger and Reine Victoria, Coupe de Hebe and among Austins, Jude the Obscure and Compte de Champagne. I also really love singles and semi-doubles and a lot of small polyantha type flowers rather than individual specimens. Like Juliet, 4 inches is a lovely size and would probably be the maximum size for me although I grow Mme Gregoire Staechelin which does have large elegant blossoms of about 5 inches.

I love 'em all. Mr. Lincoln spread seven inches across this year - simply wow.

I had about a dozen varieties, including a six-inch Just Joey on my shelf above the kitchen sink, and my maids (a team of three comes in) were admiring them. Nobody mentioned JJ, and when I asked, they chorused "too big"! So there may indeed be a maximum size.

We had tiny minutifolia bloom in the cemetery this year, a native California species, and chorused OOOH and AAAH over its petite charm.
Anita

Is that Lady Emma H in the picture? Pretty.

I have all sizes, from 'White Pet' to 'Medallion'. They're all good.

hoovb, that is Juliet's Pat Austin blooming...although LEH looks similar in color in a lot of ways.

I was touring my garden this morning (looking for places for new beds) and noticed all the different blossoms that are now popping all over. Each one is different, each perfect and lovely in its own way. The tiny little buttons of the Burgundian rose and Petite Pink Scotch, the floppy silk hankies of Mutabilis, the voluptuous pompoms of Reine des Violets, the simple elegance of St John's Rose, the purple grape clusters of Excellenz von Schubert, the crushed velvet of Tuscanny, Marie Pavies basketsful full of modest little blooms...How can one have a favorite?

Earlier this year before blooms were open I purchased Austin's Golden Celebration. Now that they're open, the blooms are too big to my taste in comparison with my antiques and other Austins. Oh well.

Don't like the color either.

Diane

Diane, I hope it grows on you. It can be really beautiful. I know what you mean that the blooms can be too huge, but later in the season, it's blooms are less big. I have GC where half the plant is in full sun and half the plant in partial shade and the partial shade side has smaller blooms of about 4 inches and I prefer those blooms. It's fragrance is so nice and strong and it's so trouble free. I think it's a keeper. Good luck, Diane!

Look at how GC's gorgeous blooms cascade. How can you not love that? :)

{{gwi:263829}}

Thanks for your comments Le Jardin.

I will be patient especially as it's in part shade. However I think I was mistaken when i put it in a large container. May get too big?

Diane

Diane, I've had mine in a very large container for 3 years and it's doing fab. It is the easiest DA rose to grow and is versatile. On the DA website, it was recommended as a possible container choice too. It just needs some room to arch around it. Don't get me wrong, it's big, but it's manageable. Maybe, in-ground would be best though.

Juliet

Juliet, I've been thinking about this question. My initial answer was yes, I prefer roses that are 3 to 4 inches across. As i walked around my garden, I realized I have those with larger blooms, Mystic Beauty and Belinda's Dream have huge blooms in the spring and fall. I also have smaller blooms that I think are wonderful. I love the little blooms on Heinrich Karsch. I usually go for the cupped packed-full-of-petals look but HK is very appealling to me. Perle d'Or has small blooms that look like ribbons to me.

So, I'm thinking my answer is, I just love them all. Even though I may be initially attracted to a certain type of bloom, I think my garden would be boring if all the blooms were the same. Maybe roses are like my students--they are each unique but there is something to love about all of them.

I love all of them in their fabulous variety, but I do get really excited about full gigantic blooms. Henry Nevard comes to mind. Valencia had amazing huge blooms last spring. Miriam (aka Amazing Grace) wowed me.

No preference, though I wouldn't want a garden full of roses all with tiny flowers (or huge ones, if it comes to that). What matters is how the flower relates to the plant, plus I want lots of variety. The large, single, creamy pale yellow blooms of 'Wildenfels Gelb' have been a knockout this spring, but so has the sight of a double yellow Lady Banks climbing way up in a tree in town.
Melissa

I love big, little, and in between.

The only rose I am not happy with the bloom size is James Galway. A large plant, he has beautiful blooms, but they are so much smaller than what I feel they should be. Or maybe he's just a little stingy with them. Lady Bank's little blooms are so numerous, they're enchanting. JG, IMHO, needs to get 'more' or get 'bigger'. :P

Big blooms, big fragrance, hundreds of petals in a beautiful COLOR (not fond of white), I am typical of the American public's love of roses.

But I love the OGR's with those characteristics because I love the bush shape not the ugliness of the hybrids bush.

Mrs. B R Cant my idea of a great rose
{{gwi:263830}}

My love for wild roses probably influences how much I often (not always) dislike huge rose blossoms that appear artificial to my eyes, as indeed they are, by breeding.
I do love all Tea roses, even the ones that are closer to 4 inches, than smaller, because their bloom style appears more natural (to me, again, just my opinion) than many H.T.s, especially many of the H.T.s that were bred after "Peace".
I prefer wild roses, dainty roses, such as "Mlle. Cecille Brunner", Noisette class roses, Alba, Scotch Burnet, Tea, China and a few H.P.s.
It isn't just the size of the blossom, it is whether a rose blossom has been bred to meet a highly artificial standard, in size, substance, character, and color, or not, that matters to me.

Good question.
Luxrosa

What I find most enchanting in a garden is to have roses of varying sizes and appearance so that nothing ever looks regimented. A single rose with small, delicate blossoms looks great near a rose which is sumptuous and large and filled with petals. I have Cottage Rose very close to Grandmother's Hat and the effect is not good. They just look too similar in size and color. Even with roses variety in my garden at least IS the spice of life.

Ingrid