rinaldo, I haven't gardened nearly as long as you in one place, less than 7 years, but I've discarded roses left and right almost from the beginning, mostly because I didn't understand the conditions of this location, which were hotter and more punishing to roses than any I've ever encountered. Some roses I took out because I discovered I didn't like them, but those are in the minority.

Our tastes change and evolve in gardening as in everything else, and if certain roses no longer please you or fit the vision of your garden that you have now as compared to 15 years ago, to me it seems completely appropriate to let them go. You have only yourself to please and if the roses don't make you happy for whatever reason then they've outlived their usefulness.

Of the approximately 80 roses I've culled over the years I only regret two, which I feel now were worth keeping and should have been replanted in another spot where they might have done better. Of the rest I have no regrets whatsoever. Many roses that were great for others, such as Our Lady of Guadalupe for instance, were duds for me. Whole classes of roses, like noisettes and hybrid musks, for instance, hated my garden.

For the most part I felt a great sense of relief when roses that didn't work out for one reason or another were taken out. I have a much better idea now of what will do well here, and hopefully very few of the roses I have now will have to go to rose heaven.

Ingrid

I have gardened, well, grown roses, here for over 20 years but I have lots of space and have never culled any. Many have not done well over the years and culled themselves. When they are dead, dry sticks I do remove them. I add roses that I think will do well for me and typically maintain about 200.

I find that I remove the ones that never became great roses here and replant with more of the same that is doing really well. One area that I wish I had planted differently, I dug up everything and potted it in Jan and then replanted it all in Feb. and corrected the mistakes and it was worth all the effort.

Being poor and sentimental, I rarely do culling of any sort (although nature frequently does it for me) but I now find myself in the faintly horrifying position of having to either move or leave my entire rose collection....which has raised some interesting questions for me and certainly has made me look a whole lot harder at what really, truly has value in the garden. The list is split between those I will just leave behind (sorry to say not a single Austin or indeed, any other modern rose makes the cut)....and those I would like to take but are just too big (moyesii, Meg, Leontine Gervaise, Ghislaine and Goldfinch) so will take cuttings.....and those I will be moving heaven and earth to keep (my asian earlies, Lens, Lambert and Pemberton hybrid musks). All-in-all, it looks like the majority of them are inappropriate for a new setting or have fallen from favour enough for me to leave them without too many regrets......and anyway, having always loved the species, I will be growing roses and just about everything else from scratch (seeds) without costing anything other than time (although that, like everything, is in short supply....but I am planting for posterity (and grandaughter) and not just myself now.

My garden is 18 years old. Many of the roses were planted 15 years ago. I rarely cull anything unless it is sickly. Mostly I really dislike digging things up and tossing them or even moving them. I do try to rejuvenate older roses by pruning out old wood. I'm getting older too and I am concerned about being able to care for it all at some point but right now I still go at it like there's no tomorrow.

I've culled every single Austin rose, for their complete lack of resistance to Blackspot. (Although 'A Shropshire Lad' continues to perform moderately well in spite of its repeated cycles of leaflessness)

Since fungicides have been identified as a major contributing factor to colony collapse in Bees, I feel doubly justified in ceasing the use of such chemicals to keep roses healthy. (I stopped applying fungicides two years ago) That means, in fact, that it is unlikely that more than 10% of my collection will survive for long in this climate, where Blackspot tends to strip roses of their foliage for much of the growing season. A shame, but there you have it.

Paul, I guess you should shift your not inconsiderable expertise to species or even another genus altogether - how about the forgotten deutzias? Species gladioli (there's a genus to get the heart going and heaps better than the vulgarly brash garden glads). I know that's the way I would be going cos no aesthetic desires on my part can stand up to guilt and shame at destruction of ecosystems - not when there are so many fabulous alternatives. Didn't I read somewhere that you were expanding into carnivorous plants - surely a great option for wet old NW of US.

My garden is starting to crowd. The early planted roses almost 4 years ago, are beginning to strut their stuff. And so now comes the fun of moving some that are being crowded out and those who are not thriving. Due to such conditions as too much shade, etc.
We have identified eleven roses that will be moved as well as a few hydrangeas. Also will be culling a few dozen gladiolas and dahlias which are taking over. They will be stored for the winter and then dons\ated to our Church garden sale. Haven't decided what to do with 2 mahogany colored day lilies which have turned into 6' by 6' monsters. Probably more Church Garden sale material.
This is a more satisfying time than the first year for sure.

I've been in this garden for 19 years and now grow a little over 200 roses. It would be difficult for me to cull any considerable number of them because they are too important for the overall look of the garden with its walks and inner hedges. I don't know what I should replace them with because with replant disease a problem here it would have to be some other family than Rosaceae. A nut walk is one of few alternatives that appeals to me because I must have tall shrubs.

I have already considered removing all modern roses in my only formal bed, about 40 plants of 12 varieties, because their flowering is too erratic and the effect I want is spoiled. I may plant herbs instead, or make a proper lily bed as I can't grow lilies in my clay.

But I suppose I'll keep as many of my roses as long as possible. I decided to remove Anne of Geierstein the other day because it snagged me through a thick shirt and left an enormous bruise on my arm. It will leave more room for its large near neighbours, Blush Damask and Kempeleen kaunotar (Beauty of Kempele), a majalis x pendulina cross. The height given on HMF for Kempele is ridiculously wrong, mine is 5 ft tall. See it here:

Here is a link that might be useful: Kempeleen kaunotar in Finland

Mariannese,

I too have heavy clay soil and have had difficulties growing a number of lilies; orientals and auratums especially. However, the orienpet hybrids have done very well as have Black Beauty and White Henryi. The asiatics are so so. Only a few of these have survived over the long term. Whereas the orienpets have continued to increase and the few varieties that I have have spanned 6 weeks of bloom time. It would be a pity to miss out on this if they could work for you.

Cath

What an interesting and thoughtful set of responses! I recognize much of my own experience in the things you all have written. The advantages of gardening in one place for a good stretch of time are obvious, but the disadvantage is keen too: while you come to understand your garden and garden design a lot better than you did when you began, the only way to start over and 'get it right' is to undo much of what you've already done. I suspect I'll just continue to tinker with what I have--a few roses out here, a few new things there.
Trospero, I regularly speculate on switching over only to roses that can get by w/o spraying, but then I see my HPs, Bourbons, and earlly HTs and I just can't bring myself to let them go, especially since it looks like their going to be harder than ever to find for a while.

I've been in this house for 58 years but I didn't really take over the roses until Mom got too old in the 90s. It took me a while to get it but now I'm much better at getting rid of the ones that aren't good here or just don't appeal to me anymore for whatever reason. I finally quit trying to save every rose, lol. Some of them just are not meant for my conditions and will never be good. I don't have the energy anymore to baby them that much. Besides, it uses up time I can spend on the good ones that I enjoy pampering. Life is too short (and expensive) to keep watering all the one cane wonders of the world!

"Paul, I guess you should shift your not inconsiderable expertise to species or even another genus altogether"
@campanulata:

Past tense: that decision was made in 2011, yes. I am now growing Nepenthes, whose strange wonders have stolen my heart and imagination:

{{gwi:304284}}

{{gwi:304286}}

This post was edited by trospero on Sat, Aug 17, 13 at 0:31

I am by training a librarian, though most of my professional career was in the online world. I learned early on that a collection of pretty much anything is greatly improved by deleting the weakest 10%. This is true of books (yes, books), roses, DVDs, photographs, clothes in the back of your closet, anything, every thing.

The hard part is deciding which is the 10% to go. If you can give it away rather than trash it, it becomes immensely easier and the guilt goes away.

Rosefolly

I removed several roses this spring, and have been nothing but happy with the choice.

The removal had been a long time coming- I have silently hated these roses for years. This was just the year to act.

:)

Marleah

Paul, The Nepenthe photos are marvelous. I'm wondering if you know Robert Goldman. He ran the nursery, Hortus Botanicus in Fort Bragg, Ca. He once showed us his amazing Nepenthe collection that he started when he was 9 years old.

I do know Robert, yes. I have several plants from Hortus Botanicus in my collection. I was dismayed when Robert ceased doing business. :-(
Glad you like the Nepenthes photos.

outstanding pitcher plants! - my youngest son also has a nascent collection which I confess to finding strangely attractive - must be my inner goth.
'silently hating' - I am better at noisily hating, Marleah, but still, this fails to translate into decisive action (gets blown off as hot air and venting, leaving me deflated and torpid). Yet again, the loathed Phillippa torments me for another year despite public proclamations and shameful photos

I was really dismayed about Robert going out of business. It was a lovely unique nursery.

I used to have a quote as my sig line that went something like this:

"Roses are just plants, they don't have feelings or feel pain like a child or even a puppy. Their only purpose is to bring me joy."

I can't find the original but I used it to remind me of the purpose of my roses. I hung onto roses that weren't bringing me joy far too long. This quote helped me a lot. If I found they weren't bringing me joy or if I found the work they required was more than the pleasure received they were removed.
And no, I don't regret any of the roses I removed. There are far to many roses to choose from to waste garden space and work on ones that are not pleasing to me.

Uniquetoo--THANK YOU for that quote. I find I humanize my roses but no other plant. Is it because of the lovely names?
Susan

I resolutely refuse to countenance calling them 'she' or 'he' and steadfastly stay with 'it'. It doesn't help with removal pangs that much though, cos I am a tightwad with little spare cash........

Campanula, I am with you on this issue. To me, roses do not have gender.

What can I say, if a rose is named after a woman it's a she, and if named for a man it's a he. If it's something like Chuckles it's definitely an "it". Of course logic has nothing to do with it.....

Ingrid

I'm enjoying reading about your culling! I'm new to this in the last few years, but right now I'm trying to view every new purchase as a "possible" rose--even if I think it may take 5-7 years to figure it out. I think I'm only looking for a dozen or so roses that do really, really spectacularly in my gardens and the rest I plan to cull. thinking about that up front I'm not sure I'm as emotionaly attached to individual plants as some of you. I wish there were a bunch of people near me with vast amounts of local knowledge to just TELL me what does well here, but there doesn't seem to be so it's up to me to figure it out.

I suspect some of you more experienced growers are thinking yeah, yeah just you wait. BUT I'm not a "collector" of much of anything. (My husband would say I collect horses, but as long as I technically have fewer horses than stalls he's got nothing!) I don't collect do dads, or books or early 19th century thingamabobs. I'm not interested in "specimen gardens," that's just not my thing.

When I close my eyes and visualize my perfect garden it's a garden that has a hand full of roses placed for a spectacular show when they are "on" then playing a supporting, structural role when they aren't. It's not a rose garden, but a garden with roses. They just have to be the *right* roses.

Most of my roses are fine for this climate and the ones that I dig up are the ones that were just so so in my opinion as compared with the others. When they get potted up with pansies or strawberries and spring flush comes around, I can always find a buyer at my annual yard sale. Some people just want to buy bouquets. A lady asked, why is the plant the same price as the bouquet? I said it had the same amount of roses. So she bought the plant for 5 dollars. I get to enjoy the spring flush and then I can plant something better. I've had people show me a plant I sold them years later and it clearly likes living with them. Either way, it's a good price compared with cut flowers from the store.

On the whole I live my life steeped in romanticism and nostalgia, but I do want a foundation of reality to stand on. The only plants I personally would refer to as he or she would be dioecious plants such as hollies or kiwis, where there really are separate female plants and male plants, and you need both present for reproduction. So while I do understand that for many gardeners roses are he or she, they are not at all so for me.

But this is an old discussion! And I am getting carried away with my thoughts. I'm happy to have roses be grown and loved, even if those of us who love them use a different vocabulary when we talk about them.

Rosefolly

Betty Prior is a she and Don Juan is a he. I don't know what Munstead Woods is. Lou

I never understood the practice of anthropomorphizing roses by imposing gender on them. Roses are monoecious, so its erroneous to suggest they are one gender or the other, when in fact they are both!

This post was edited by trospero on Fri, Aug 23, 13 at 23:55

I had a customer once tell me that buying a rose was like adopting a new family member. I quickly countered this statement by saying that roses are plants, like any other plant in the garden. It is a waste of time to continue to pour time and resources into a plant that does not please you or cannot grow and mature under your conditions and level of care.

For me, I have been gardening on this piece of dirt since 2007 ... still a young garden by many standards. I have reached the point where it is time for me to behave like a curator and to manage my collection. Last week, I did a renovation of my Arcade full of pillar roses ... 10 roses in all. Six of them please me greatly, four didn't make me happy (for various reasons), so those four are out and four new ones from the pot ghetto are in their places.

Photos and the full story on my blog.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Arcade Garden

"I'm happy to have roses be grown and loved, even if those of us who love them use a different vocabulary when we talk about them. Rosefolly"

Exactly!

"The only plants I personally would refer to as he or she would be dioecious plants such as hollies or kiwis, where there really are separate female plants and male plants"

Also from Rosefolly ;-)