I can totally relate, Sara-Ann. It's all part of the process of becoming a true connoisseur... I know this forum has greatly expanded my own appreciation of roses. I never spared a thought for the single bloom form until I saw some wonderful photos here, for example. Or the globular bloom form. Or pinks. Or, or, or... It's wonderful, isn't it? Diversity is the spice of life!

When I first got bitten by roses, it was by David Austin's English roses. Those flower forms and growth habits seemed more "natural" to mix into a garden, whereas the "classic HT form" was, to me, more for bouquets -- and the growth habits more for bedding. As I read a few of Austin's books, I learned about the antiques he wished to evoke -- and I became fascinated by them. With both groups, I at first preferred only the petal-stuffed very double blooms. Then I smelled 'Jude the Obscure', and had to have it. OK, so the "lightly-double", semi-double, and cup-shapes were easing into my mind.

Before I bought my first rose years ago, I set out to make sure that none were like the disappointments I remembered as a child from gardens of family members -- pretty, but scentless. So first and foremost I sought those rated as highly fragrant. And this is what led me to explore singles, because 'R. moschata' was something I HAD to smell, even if it didn't "look like a garden rose" to me right away. And then I became open to seeing roses for the versatility of the genus -- different growth habits, sizes, bloom times, scents, colors, flower forms, etc. I saw them for how they would function as pieces of a garden's whole, rather than being simply flower factories. If you like pictures of a wall draped in roses, you'll never reproduce that look using HTs -- so you can't help but become open to "other roses".

Now, while pictures of beautiful blooms still give me thrills, I don't get the cravings for a rose without envisioning the whole plant. For example, I am still kinda bummed that my 'Jaune Desprez' died after last Winter. The bloom wasn't necessarily heart-stopping in and of itself. I pictured the whole plant scrambling up an old (and dying) Japanese maple in my front yard, with its blooms hanging down from the top branches about 10' up from the ground, and being able to smell it from the front porch. But I think I was zone pushing a bit too far, so 'Baltimore Belle' is growing there instead. When it bloomed this year, I got a taste of what I was seeking from 'Jaune Desprez', and I look forward to it continuing to grow higher into the tree.

:-)

~Christopher

P.S. I do have some HTs, but they're all in big pots. This way, I can take advantage of their stiff vertical growth, and dress their bare legs with annuals. Even when not dotted with rose blooms, the whole becomes an attractive garden accessory.

My progression was similar to Christopher's. I first had HTs because to me that was what a rose was. Then I became interested in Austins. Once I had them, I became interested in the 'real' Antiques and started getting OGRs. Then I became obsessed with singles. Last year I added some minis. And, to come full circle, I am now getting back into HTs. I am going to try them on different rootstocks, Multiflora, Fortuniana. I do like exhibiting and the HTs (and GF and FL) are the Queens of the shows and look great in arrangements.

My rose history is rather different. I grew up in the far north of Sweden were roses were scarce, and mostly rugosa hedges. I first became aware of roses when I was 9 or 10 and saw a very double pink rose covering a wall of my mother's friend's little house. I believe now that it must have been an alba, perhaps Maiden's Blush.

When I started growing roses many years later and in a more benign climate all I wanted were oldfashioned roses, albas, centifolias, damasks, etc, one of every old class that is at all hardy in this part of Sweden. I then discovered other kinds of roses, wild roses, ramblers, climbers and bedding roses like floribundas and hybrid teas. When I was a child I'd only seen HT's in florist shops and bouquets.

For the past 20 years I've grown every kind of rose but I treat them differently, of course. I have put my few HT's among perennials to form a small part of some colour scheme, not to stand out in themselves. But just to be contrary I also have a floribunda and polyantha planting of the most outmoded kind, at least according to the fashion over here. Visitors who see it don't quite know what to say. Some kind ones say that it reminds them of their mother's garden. It is the opposite to the present natural style with visible earth between the plants and no underplanting except bulbs in spring. I like it a lot myself because it stands out as a distinct feature among the tall roses growing along winding paths. And I can do whatever I want in my own garden.

Mine did too, and nothing wrong with that. Our taste in clothes, music, books, etc etc changes over time also. If I had had it to do over, I would have been slower on adding roses to the garden, knowing now that taste changes over time as knowledge accumulates.

Wow, Mariannese, so beautiful!

I think most of us start out with the HTs because those are the ones we all have the most exposure to in the beginning at florists and nurseries. They got us interested in roses. Once we get into roses and learn more about them we start seeing all the different kinds and find there are so many other beauties that we have to have so our likes change. It's sort of a learning curve.

I never cared for the hybrid teas in my mother's rose garden, so stiff and lined up like soldiers in rows. I didn't grow roses at all until after I visited the UC Berkeley Botanical Garden and was dumb-struck by a vision of an 8 x 8 foot Mutabilis covered in single, multi-colored flowers from top to bottom. It was instant, passionate love. I also saw other roses that were beautiful and different from anything I'd ever seen before. I began to real books on old roses voraciously and began to dream of acquiring some for my garden. It was the beginning of a passion that never waned, although later I began to acquire Austins and even more modern roses like Iceberg and Burgundy Iceberg. I branched off into early hybrid teas like La France, Lady Alice Stanley and others, although these are challenging to grow own-root. I adore some modern, more stiff roses like Yves Piaget because of their huge, peony-like blooms and a few of these with companion plants don't detract from the garden picture I envisioned. I was well on my way to a garden that made me very happy when the drought struck and my garden was severely compromised. My main focus now is roses that can stand the heat and lack of rainwater while still striving to maintain a natural look that can blend in with the wild hills around me. What is thought of as the classic hybrid tea rose look will never really appeal to me, especially when coupled with the more strident colors such as red and orange. The same is true of floribundas, although some look charmingly natural in color and form, such as Bolero or Bonica, and if they're healthy I'll gladly take a few.

Ingrid

Mariannese, what a lovely vignette you've created in your garden! Who cares about the current fashion; your garden should touch your heart.

jannike

Guess I am really in the dark, as never knew rose gardens could be out of style. If the garden is beautiful, as is yours'( wow!!!) mariannese, would there actually be someone who would find it dated? I find that difficult to believe. Educate me please : can a garden be dated?? I only wish I had an area large enough to hold all the wonderful varieties.!

The first rose I planted was 'Home Run.' Since planting that bright red single I've probably favored just about every form and color at one point or another in rapid succession as I discovered more roses in books and encountered them in gardens/nurseries/et cet.

I was accustomed to the HT look before growing roses. Long before I was born, my dad started bringing home a rose for my mom every Friday on his way back from work. As far as I could tell, they were always what I now think of as florist type HTs with no scent, but long vase life. I was less picky as an observer, but growing roses made me crave fragrance, variety of form, color, and habit.

I probably prefer the quartered, flat form the most I would say, but I grow and enjoy singles, semi-doubles, doubles, hi-centered doubles, ruffled doubles, and some of the 120+ petal types. The more you grow a particular plant genus, the more you long for variety in even the smallest way that would be insignificant to non-plant-enthusiasts. Roses are no exception and have exceptional variety from which to pick. I think a large number of posters here would say they have expanded upon what they initially sought in a rose.

Jay

This post was edited by ArbutusOmnedo on Tue, Dec 2, 14 at 15:38

At first, I was HT person and a mini snob. Then later when I was helping clean up at a rose show, Janis said here Hattie, take these home (lots of minis). I fell in love with them. Now thanks to all the terrific pictures people on the garden web post, I am falling in love with OGR with their romantic, nostalgic look. And especially a big thanks to Judy and her sister-in-law , I am contemplating dahlias!

Marianne, I can't even imagine anyone not admiring your garden. It has a wonderful atmosphere and the more formal element and surrounding looser plantings look perfectly compatible and lovely. It's a stunning garden, and don't let anyone's reaction make you think otherwise.

Ingrid

I too started with the usual HT's and slowly started to learn about antique roses from the Internet and books,and I was in love! I particularly love tea roses but, really, I love them all. I got some of the rare polyanthas Vintage sold before closing and they are single pedaled, sort of, and I am totally in love with them. But, also I have come full circle, I guess you could say as I planted a couple hybrid teas and modern floribundas last year: Moonstone, which is an unbelievably beautiful HT, Moondance, a beautiful floribundas, I think, and Pope John Paul II, which is an exquisite HT. I do love white roses!

Bascially, I love them all.

Ingrid, I think Swedish gardeners follow fashion more than most, probably from insecurity and lack of gardening tradition. Swedes are early adopters but they change very soon, too. 15 years ago every garden had a couple of blue ceramic balls for a couple of years, then they vanished out of sight with the matching blue pots. I read recently that somebody was thinking of displaying them again. Very original as pots should be angular now and either concrete (homemade if possible) or zinc. Then everybody had rusty iron artefacts, preferably large crowns or iron frogs with golden crowns. On sale now are the huge lounge sets in imitation rattan better suited to the California climate that has been the rage for a couple of years. People have probably realized that they need the garage for the car in winter rather than for these enormous sofas and sun beds. New houses have very little storage space so foldable furniture is more practical. Very large wooden decks and paved parking spaces are also very popular and look very strange with an older house. But they do take away a lot of garden space for those who don't want to garden. The latest trend, however, is to grow your own veg in pallet collars so you need at least some open ground to stand them on.

I don't look down on any of these features if only they were not in every garden.

Love your picture, Marianne.

I gardened with perennials for years but often included a couple HTs. They never did well in my garden--BS magnets from my local garden center which did not carry any other type of rose, much less BS resistant roses. Years later when I decided I was going to grow lots and lots of roses, I can't even tell you where that idea came from--but not long after that I discovered old roses and Austin roses in one of the nursery catalogs and ordered a couple. Then I started receiving David Austin catalogs and of course went absolutely nuts over his roses.

As my gardens transitioned from mostly perennials to about 2/3s roses, it was Austins and modern shrubs and floribundas that prevailed. Then I started adding a few minis and hybrid musks--but one day woke up and discovered that I missed those big big show blooms of the HTs. So I picked two spots in the gardens for HTs, but picked more wisely this time around (some BS resistance required!). So I circled around also.

At this point in time, some 30+ years of gardening later, I have roughly 1/3 HTs and floribundas, 1/3 Austins and modern shrubs, and 1/3 older type roses (hybrid musks, Bourbons, polyanthas, etc.--it's a bit too cold here for some of the really wonderful Old Roses I wish I could grow). Oh yes, a number of minis also, so I guess my "thirds" doesn't quite work out, does it. LOL

My point is that I have a fairly balanced number of roses from several different groups of roses. I like having a bit of each.

Kate

I can relate to changing taste in roses. However, instead of changing taste, I would say that I am "expanding my rosey horizon". I will always love the perfect and formal flower of the HT. However over the years, I am warming up to a lot of old garden roses especially D.A. roses as I like their informality. Lately, due to this forum and the influence of fellow posters, I am beginning to warm up to single flower roses.

I think the changes in my taste in roses reflect the changes in my life as I get older. I realized I prefer simple and non-fussy, perhaps less formality in my life. I used to love very formal gardens but I love the informal, cottage type of gardens now. I now prefer the "natural" look instead of the formal enforced garden style.

I have enjoyed reading everyone's comments, thank you. Mariannese, your picture is lovely, looks like a peaceful retreat.