Well, I'm in a warm climate (southeast Virginia) and many roses grow 4 to 6 feet wide here. I don't have any roses planted in threes.

And I won't try it, either. Many DA's get blackspot in our heat and humidity and if they were planted the way DA suggests I think I would have disease problems. Not to mention how hard it would be to deadhead and weed.

I work in a public garden which has a round bed in the middle of the rose garden. They put six roses in a circle which made it very hard to prune. Finally we took out 3 of them and it is now a half-circle!

No doubt it would look absolutely spectacular. Or maybe roses are so much smaller in cold wet England that this if a necessity...

I have a few in threes because they are small or narrow growers. Or spindly. 'Easy Does It' which blooms like crazy, is quite narrow so I have it in trios. 'Young Lycidas' was an awful looking plant but as a trio looks dandy. So, it depends on the cultivar.

I don't grow in threes. One bush is usually enough.

yeah, besides, that thing about planting them in threes is most likely just a cynical ploy on the part of the DA company to induce people to buy more of their roses. They are a very, very commercial organization.

Well, it's how they survived. How many rose growers have vanished over the last few years?

9 years ago when I moved to this home (having gardened for 30 years in 6 different states), I decided to focus on roses with the idea of no 2 alike. I love variety, and everything about my home is like one big crazy quilt.

Somewhere along the way I embraced the idea of planting in 3s. Now I grow ~250 roses mostly DAs, mostly in 3s, a few in larger groups. I have the odd single, a few favorite OGRs and lots of minis. I have done 3x planting with other shrubs, floribundas, even a few HTs. I've also grown DA hedges and I've had good results planting climbing roses in twos. Some roses, even DAs, have a shape or size that isn't suited to the approach; you have to know your plant. Keep in mind that my harsh winters keep the shrub sizes in check.

Here's what I think is the most useful aspect of planting roses in 3s. Most repeaters bloom in cycles and roses of the same variety tend to repeat at the same rate. Three roses together, each with a handful of blooms looks like one big shrub covered in blooms. Also it seems that the rose is in bloom longer, the cycle is extended, Maybe one of them has begun the cycle late and has just a bloom or 2, it's neighbor makes up for the lack...you get the idea. So-called continuous blooming roses really do appear to bloom non-stop when planted en masse.

Now take 3 different roses, you could crowd them into that tight triangle used for 3x planting, but it would be terribly out of balance, so you're going to need more space. Those 3, aside differing in bush size and shape, will bloom out of sync...the effect is a scattering of blooms here and there.

I still have a good deal of variety because I have plenty of space, but I'm enjoying a more impressive display with group planting. Less crazy and more quilt.

Ratdog I like your description of how you garden ! It sounds lovely . Love to see photos sometime !

I plant in singles . I love roses and would be in trouble space wise if I planted in 3. I do have 3 duchess de Brabant but they are all in different areas . Also here in the south roses get pretty big so I don't feel I need another of anything really. Except lavender veranda , I hope I can get multiple of those as I think they'll tie my roses together very nicely

In the past I've planted Austin's Queen of Sweden and Molineux in 3s--they are both quite narrow/vertical growers and I loved the width and stronger statement they made as 3s. However, Queen got too full/wide for the space available and I had to divide the plants and plant them separately in different places around the garden. Now they make very little impact from a distance, although they are still lovely when you stand 3 ft from them and admire them.

Kate

I have limited space and want every rose I see. If I planted in threes I'd never be able to try everything, lol. I only have a few doubles and those I rooted the cuttings as a protection against losing an old and cherished rose that I'd never be able to replace.

Kate,

THE DISADVANTAGES OF GROWING ROSES IN TRIOS, ala David Austin's recommendation:

1. Root competition

2. Light competition

3. Disease encouraging

4. Insect encouraging

5. Weeding nightmare

6. Smaller flowers

7. Weaker necked flowers

8. Poorer winter survivability

9. "Disappointing Rose Syndrome". Typically heard, "I put in a trio of the new rose, Absent Compensation, thinking I would like the flower. It is downright ugly in bloom, a poor grower, and disease prone. Now I have three bushes to shovel prune!"

10. Etc., etc., etc.........

REASON(S) FOR PLANTING ROSES IN TRIOS, ala David Austin's recommendation:

1. Let's see, approx. $30.00 a rose, $20.00/shipping =$110.00 for three roses.

********************************************

David Austin is selling you $60.00 worth of roses you don't need. He'll gladly take your money, honey! Knowing D. Austin's notoriety for, "lovin' the brass," I cannot help but think his trio promotion is just another money making scheme of his.

If a rose is vigorous, it can fill in the space you provide for it in your garden very nicely as a solo performer. If it is a weak grower it needs help....going by the saying, "There's strength in numbers."

Moses

Kate,

The trio rose method, Ratdogheads practices in her garden may have the opposite result.

In my garden, multiples are placed throughout the bed, not in groups. The same varieties cycle their blooms essentially at the same time for me wherever they are in my rose bed. If I planted them as trios there would be a big green gap in the bed when they were not in blooming cycle.

Moses

I don't care too much about Austin's perceived marketing ploys, you can do that with any breeder, grow their roses in 3's, as we do with perennials, 3 5 or 7 even, so I think it's quite an innovative approach, if expensive, but perhaps there are cultural differences going on here too, we tend to prune our roses more than those in warmer climates I think, so I manage to have 6 Austin's in groups of 3 in my small garden.. also I think too, if you live in cooler wetter areas like Scotland and Wales, - all part of the UK - planting in 3's gives a better show with such lower light levels...

What I usually try and do is grow one first, then if I like it, get 2 more, as below in 'The Herbalist', the rose in front is older than the two behind which are playing catch up, but now they are beginning to mingle together, and I like that.... it's a very good idea for me in this region... I don't know about anyone else...and I'm prepared for the expenditure and delighted I have discovered this way of growing roses that are suitable for this purpose.... I'm not biased as to who bred them... 'Julia Child' would look equally good in 3's in my garden...

'The Herbalist'...[taken today, no blooms yet]

Thank you for all this advice. I'm still a total novice so when I bought my first roses, I ordered one of whatever I like, then went back and have bought two more. So though I've only been doing this a month or so, I now have about 70 roses. Love them all, but they're all bare root roses and since I'm new, I have no idea how they're going to look when the garden is in bloom. My fingers are crossed it is okay.

I have a few singles but I planted them in what we call the 'upper garden', a place not quite as near the house. I sometimes look at the whole thing, all my pots planted with bare sticks (10 now), all the bare sticks in the ground (around 60), and I pray I have not created an absolute disaster.

Edited to add, these are my roses:

Anne Boleyn

Abe Darby

Eglantyne

Lady Salisbury

Olivia Rose Austin

Alnwick Rorse

Spirit of Freedom

Compassion

Félicité-Perpétue

LD Braithwaite

Christopher Marlowe

The Lady Gardner

Wisley 2008-

Geoff Hamilton

A Shropshire Lad

James Galway

Royal Jubilee

Desdemona

Lady Emma Hamilton

Bailando

Young Lycidas

Boscobel

Princess Alexandra of Kent

Close informal groupings of the same kind of plant are called drifts. You get a better (flowing) drift if you use 4 specimens instead of 3, as 3 makes a triangle. Which is a rigid, geometric shape. So the often recommended planting of decorative plants in groups of 3 is bad advice, except where it might be for a formal layout where everything in the design is geometric. And even then most of the time there would probably be more than 3 roses in a grouping.

^I don't agree with that above, being bad advice, it's all in the eyes of the beholder and should not be considered as being right or wrong....

...as far as roses are concerned, although I do agree with perennials that 4 can work better than 3, but I wouldn't want a group of 4 roses the same close together, although saying that I do have a small hedge of 4 but with gaps and interspersed with perennials, otherwise it's 3 and no more... sort of triangular shaped, I like that... others may not...

I agree that it completely depends on the cultivar. Some NEED it but it also depends on what you WANT. I think large groupings of fewer varieties creates a more dramatic display. Yes, fewer varieties but the ones I love and more flowers from them :) I have most of mine in groups of 2-5. My climbers and standards are my only singles. I like Marlorena's idea of starting with one and adding to it. There are some I wouldn't grow in groups because they are large and bushy alone such as Golden Celebration and Abraham Darby - I do have them in groupings but this may change. One exception is Teasing Georgia - it's my favorite grouping being a large, rounded shrub. I agree that less disease resistant varieties don't fair as well in groups.

But this just what I like and tailored for my current location. You'll learn what works for you and what you enjoy as you try different varieties out in your climate, learn about their growth habits, etc. Don't worry about making a mistake. That's the fun in this!

Here a pic today of Teasing Georgia. She's still put out growth and setting buds. I garden on a slope and have a weeping China Doll photobombing her from above.

Kate... given that you're new to roses and you bought 70 in the past month in groups of 3... I would venture to say you can now get just one at a time if you want to continue buying new roses. ;-)

Without a doubt some of the ones you have will become favorites, some will not. You can always remove the non favorites and get more of the favorites later.

I like mass plantings. I like groups of three. I can understand why it's recommended. It is impactful. I also like symmetrical plantings of two... with one on either side of a structure or something else. I think there are no rules in your garden. Just your own rules. I like to give my roses space so I can get around them, even when I have groups of 3 or more.

After a few years you will have developed your own set of rules. I think you're super smart to keep the bare roots in pots like you are and move them around to see how you like them in different areas... and how they like to be in different areas too. You may realize you like groups of 6. Or just one.

I would say though that if you bought 70 in the past month or so... you may want to take a break from buying and just enjoy the spring show of everything you bought. You will have a better idea of what you really want after spring and summer. ;-)

I like the idea of mass plantings but I have yet to do this in my small garden. I usually like to buy one plant to see how it does in my garden. It is so easy to be seduced by pictures of roses but you will never know how it does in your garden unless you grow it.

I see the value in planting groups of threes as advised by David Austin. He only suggested that if you plant it in a triangle of 3 roses, the roses will eventually grow and "merge" together to give the illusion of a big shrub. As some has already suggested it depends on the cultivar. Since Austins are shrubby roses, this effect will work better than hybrid teas for example. For someone like me who live in a colder zone, this idea is more appealing than someone who live in a very warm growing climate. Most roses will not get very big for me as opposed to someone who grow monster roses in warm zones.

With regard to the topic of threes or fours, it all depends on what you want to achieve. Groups of threes can be only be perceived as formal only if you plant it in a formal design or layout. If you plant group of threes but randomly in your garden, it will have a more informal effect.

However as someone has already pointed out, what rules apply in your garden is entirely up to you. Unless you are one of those folks who want to impress the whole neighborhood such as public gardens designs, private garden should be "private and unique" to your personality.

Plant a rose bed of 100 same variety bushes if you want, spaced properly...nothing wrong with that.

What I judge as wrong, is crowding rose bushes to get an "opulent effect," which is what Austin prescribes. This is BAD horticultural/agriculture practice in any of the branches, from vegetable gardening, fruit tree farming, to egg production on poultry farms. Crowd any living thing and pay the price. They suffer in a myriad of ways.

Moses

Yet agriculture sprays more chemicals on its vegetables, fruits and injects its chickens, than I ever put on any of my roses.... nature is crowded, it doesn't space things out neatly.... personally I prefer it that way... as I'm not terribly fond of the purist method of gardening... but each to their own there...

I buy/plant roses individually because I want to see how they perform in my climate and because I have a small yard. Later if I have favorites I might by another one.

I think it has a lot to do with the type of rose, and mostly the climate. No idea where the original poster is located, or in what kind of climate. Even DA roses, which may do well in "threes" in cool cloudy England or in cold zones, might not be good in threes in a warm zone. I only have one DA - Graham Thomas. In my warm climate, it gets 8 feet wide. If I planted three of them they would not fit in the flower bed they are in, and would block the driveway!

So, the answer to your question is "no", it is NOT "necessary" to plant roses in threes, and many times it would be a vary bad idea. Good question, however. The more experience you get growing roses, the more you will understand that the true answer to most rose growing questions is actually "It depends". One thing for sure, books or articles which tell you it is "necessary" to do this, or that, or never do this, or that, are WRONG most of the time. They are usually written with a specific set of circumstances in mind, which they do not bother to explain.

Jackie

Ratdogheads, I just had to pop in here to say that I love that thatch of pink " I-don't-know-what", with Red Cascades lighter foliage in front. The way both of them are creeping over your stone wall? It's just gorgeous, my favorite kind of look. Love it!!!! Lisa

Me too!

I do not have the space in my yard to plant in groups of 3. I think it looks great in a large setting (public gardens, sprawling estate, etc.) If I planted in 3; I would be stuck with maybe 6 kinds of roses & my yard would look like a commercial/retail parking lot display. I'm in a cold zone which keeps things pruned back in the spring but I get da roses that grow 6 foot canes in a season. I think if you group or have complimentary colours or have some kind of repeating design theme you can pretty much get away with whatever you like. I also want to try out any rose or plant that catches my eye. I love roses, but I also like hydrangeas, day lillies, hostas, trees, etc. Which means they all have to share the space and coexist happily.