I sometimes post a rose that's older or sold by ARE, but not OGR because I don't know why exactly. I can stop doing it, but some of the older roses aren't technically OGRs, but definitely don't fit within the modern confines. I'm thinking the Lens and even Pemberton/Bentall Hybrid Musks. I also hope that cross-posting might encourage some modern die-hards to give the older ones a try. I'm so glad I didn't make this distinction so cut and dry or I wouldn't have such a wonderful variety in my garden. However, I totally see the point concerning true moderns.....I'm not sure that many of those need "saving".

IMHO, this isn't a rose issue, but a forum one. Most of the old GardenWeb forums have/had a distinct set of posters, and a distinct personality. Too much cross-posting dilutes that personality, until the forums are homogeneous copies of each other.

I'm afraid I'm guilty of posting to both forums unless I'm addressing the subject of a particular old rose. When it's posts about my garden I do post to both because it's such a mixed bag of old roses, Austins and modern roses that to me look more like old roses rather than conventional hybrid teas or floribundas. The lines are rather blurred because nowadays so many of the modern roses, including of course the Austins, but also many others, seek to emulate the look of old roses. My habit is to always go to the antique roses forum first and then to the modern one, but not everyone has as much free time as I do to differentiate what's what on the two. I'm not sure what a good solution would be, but perhaps someone will have suggestions. I wonder if there should be a forum for roses that have the conventional modern hybrid tea look because there must be some here that grow only one type, although I suspect that many more prefer a mix of the modern and the more traditional look.

I just now saw mad gallica's post and she makes a very good point. At the time of the old Garden Web I rarely contributed or even looked at the general Roses forum, but we also have to consider that modern breeders like Austin, Meilland, Paul Barden, Tom Carruth, Tom Clements and Mike Shoup are breeding roses that don't fall into the conventional modern category. The forums are more of a mixed bag because the roses also are. Of the 50+ roses I grow right now 18 of them are modern, but yet none of them to me look conventionally "modern".

I thought the separate topics were working fine and had no problem with it.

This article came to mind when I read this thread:

https://www.finegardening.com/article/what-is-an-old-garden-rose

The article is consistent with what Ingrid posted.

I think many new, and some not so new rose growers are unaware of this information (we can in part, thank big box stores and many local nurseries for the lack of exposure to antique roses). I was not aware of antique roses until I went down a rabbit hole on the internet and found the forum. I think this lack of knowledge is further exacerbated by confusion regarding Tea and Hybrid Tea roses.

New growing seasons and questions emerge, bringing more people to the forum; which I think is a good thing, even if they do not post to the most appropriate forum. I think over time it will work itself out a bit; flare up a little, so it is kind of cyclical.

Aaand this is why people leave and go play on other forums....

" I think over time it will work itself out a bit; flare up a little, so it is kind of cyclical. New growing seasons and questions emerge . . . "

I wish I had some confidence in that -- but I've been growing and studying "Old" Roses for 30 years now, and the confusion between Tea and Hybrid Tea roses hasn't abated one whit -- Nor has the general population lost the belief that an "Old" rose is one that's been growing where it is for 10-12 years.

OTOH, I think I can bear the pain of telling people (for the 35th time) that 'Mister Lincoln' is not an "Old" rose. So maybe we can all shoulder the load and continue to either steer folks in the right direction, or welcome them to the world of REALLY OLD roses.

Heck, in California, in these days of drought and heat and diminishing water supplies, I'm just glad they're growing roses of ANY kind.

What other forms are there dedicated to antique roses? I think someone tried to start one on Reddit but it never really took off unfortunately. I don't mind sticking only two antique roses if that is the consensus but it would be nice if there was an absolute definition of what roses should be included in that. The title says Austin's as well as ogrs? So where do the early hybrid tees and the hybrid masks and the species roses fit in? Excuse my voice recognition but hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

I would prefer to keep the forums separate as I'm not terribly interested in modern roses (including Austins) but I doubt that will happen, especially, as Jeri said, most people don't know the difference. I've been on this forum since the good old days of Vintage Roses and it seems like there used to be a lot more discussions of old roses than there are now. So, I find myself not as interested in many of the posts, unfortunately.

I just worry that the old garden roses are getting buried under the heap of gazillion modern roses. There just aren't many other places to go (that I know of) on the internet where antique roses are focus. This is one of the few places I know of.

Sometimes it seems like modern roses (although beautiful of course) are all about money and sales and marketing and I'm sooo tired of all that.

" I think over time it will work itself out a bit; flare up a little, so it is kind of cyclical. New growing seasons and questions emerge . . . "

I have now re-separated the paragraph.. do not know what happened after I hit send... probably something I did typing on my iPhone... So to clarify:

The above was in reference to people wandering into the less appropriate thread...

Essentially, the new season brings in a new influx of rose gardeners to the web, they learn what forum best fits their needs (it works itself out a bit) and then the cycle repeats with the next growing season.

Comtessedelacouche - thank you. Perfect in every way.

Jackie

Yes, what Comtesse said so well. That is how I've always envisioned this forum and would love to see if somehow we could get it back to mostly talking about old roses, as well-defined by Comtesse.

Comtesse, thank you for your well thought out comments. A renaming of the forum could really help redefine and refocus it. I have never seen the description of this forum you mention, that includes specifically DA roses, so I suspect others only see the forum name as well. This means the forum name is extremely important. The words “Rare” and “Species” really resonate with me. I am contemplating the word “Older”. Yes, a more common English term and this might get the information across more succinctly, but I also like the word “Antique”. So maybe, “Antique, Rare and Species Roses” or “Older, Antique, Rare and Species Roses”.

With fewer and fewer people available to post on obscure forums such as this, a sure way to chase off even more is to make them feel uncomfortable about where they post their comments, applying more than one forum which Houzz often does by default, or narrowing the criteria even further... if you go down this route you will end up with just a few ladies from California discussing their Tea roses...

...This is the Austin forum... one is entitled to discuss even the latest Austins here, more so than say roses like 1920s Bloomfield Abundance or 1950's Sombreuil..

''Antique Roses Forum

This forum is for discussion of antique, Austin and old garden roses. There is also a separate, more general, Rose Forum.''

Marlorena, thanks for finding and restating the description for the “Antique Roses” forum. I use the app so this might be why I can’t seem to find this description. I suspect, going forward, new users will use the app more than the website. I just surmised from what people where already posting what kinds of content to post, which has certainly included DA roses. It seems pretty clear to me from this description, that as stated, DA roses are deemed more appropriate to discuss under Antique Roses than Roses. So unless the stated objective of this forum changes DA roses are fare game. I personally love DA roses being discussed along with old roses of years past, since both are of great interest to me. I only figured out about the older roses because of my first love for DA roses. Comtesse does make a good point though, that going forward DA roses are becoming more and more common and commercialized. Which just makes me wonder, if Houzz is still here in 200 years what will people think of as an Antique Rose? I am guessing anything from the 20th century :-) I personally do see a great difference in character of the two forums. I have been checking out the Roses forum more lately to compare. But from what I gather, they used to be even more different. Perhaps the way Houzz is setup to purposely encourage cross posting and thus cross pollination of ideas, the two will never be as separate as they once were. But maybe that is good, since it encourages people who start out on the Rose forum to perhaps become interested in and thus help preserve the older roses. Because if no one grows them they will eventually become extinct. The fewer grown, the greater risk, that a disease like Rose Rosette will wipe them out. The older roses can be a great resource for unique genetic material for the future so need to be preserved by growing as widely as possible.

David Austins, are NOT OGR"s/Antique ('preaching to the choir on this thread"). Regardless of appearance, though I am quite enamored with more than a couple Austin's, they are not correct for this forum. They do not have the history and longevity that is common among many OGR's/Antiques.

Could it be better to employ proactive actions, like, for example, getting Houzz to remove Austins from the descriptor of this forum?? There will be no harm, as folks in the Rose Forum seem happy to discuss Austins there; myself included.

Understanding or knowing the history of many of the OGR's/Antiques versus that of Austins, I would support change, however, the cross posting does not rise to the level of even being disconcerting for me... (no judgment to those who are more "purists"... possibly, and are bothered even perturbed by cross posts)... long story short... maybe trying to do something about it should be the next course of action...

Edited to add: Oops... I just read the rest of Comtesse's thread... agreed :) and well communicated!

Perhaps keep the name "Antique rose Forum" which is nice and succinct, but change the descriptor to Older, Rare, Species Roses and their near relatives. This would definitely include the older Austins, although without DA giving their breeding details any longer it's no longer possible to determine what old roses may be in their current mix. Personally, I always visit both forums hoping there's a different post here, but if it's about a rose I'm not interested in or may never grow I just don't read it. Sometimes I'll read it later out of intellectual interest or because one never knows how circumstance may contrive so I could grow tea roses instead of focusing on hardy once-bloomers!, which brings up the older Canadians bred in the 30s from some species roses. Where do we place them? Can we include the Buck roses here, although many look modern to my eye.

I always considered myself someone drawn to the "Oldies", but holding more modern varieties. However, doing a head count using this latest descriptor, at least 70% of my roses would fall into this category with most of the others being Austins or newer Kordes. I guess I always thought of this category as dealing more specifically with once-bloomers of which I only have a couple thus far.

vapor, I can understand that in your climate most of the old roses might be once-bloomers, whereas I'm also able to grow teas, noisettes and Chinas very well. However, polyanthas and hybrid musks are also considered to be in the category of old roses, although perhaps not of interest to you or well-known.

I have no clear affinity with any one opinion because you all argue your positions so ably, and I'm afraid I fall in the camp of the wishy-washy. I know that I have an affinity for the old Austins and I thought that Austin's original mission had a touch of genius to it. Now the Austin firm is crossing one seedling with another seedling to achieve yet one more saleable rose, and that dilutes not only the original message but the ancestry of the Austin roses as well. I confess to loving and having Evelyn, but she at least is only a second-generation crossing. Bishop's Castle and other Austins I've had fall into a mid range in terms of ancestry and age, and that shows that I'm no purist. Some roses that purport to have something of an old rose look like the Kordes roses don't appeal to me because of the rather graceless form and thick, leathery leaves. I'm seeing this with my Plum Perfect roses which I would not choose again because of those qualities.

None of this is very helpful in terms of what direction should be taken in the future, even assuming that Houzz would allow any deviation from what we now have. I tend to think that the best way to encourage as many people as possible to grow and cherish the old roses is to keep buying them from nurseries so that they can afford to stay in business, and to take pictures of their flowers and growth habits here and to extol their virtues and beauty here. How this is achieved in terms of formatting of the forums is perhaps of secondary importance, at least for me. My main and primary allegiance is and always will be the Antique Rose Forum because it is my spiritual home. However, I must admit that I'm promiscuous enough to admire and lust after any number of modern roses that satisfy my criteria for old rose charm. In this fraught time of climate change and ever-hotter gardens it may also come down to simply which roses will survive best in our gardens, and it will not matter whether they are old or were created yesterday. Charles Darwin may well have the last, final word with his theory of survival of the fittest, whether of roses or of man.

I think I'm in your category Ingrid, but I think I didn't made myself clear... at least 70% of my roses are in the category that Comtesse describes including only 2 older Austins. At least 30 of those are polys and Hybrid Musks, my first loves since those were some of the original 100 yr. old plantings in my garden. I would have many fewer if I went by the

strict OGR dating, but many more if I included all my Austins. My main interest is the historical associations so that's part of why I'm here, but I just really love roses and even find the hybridizing aspect fascinating, but don't come here to discuss that. I just want to see this forum continue as a viable, well-frequented and exciting place to visit.. So many fascinating forums seem to fall completely to the wayside when the founders move on. I regret that the FAQ page is no longer at the top of the page as it was very useful to a beginner.

I suspect there is no right or wrong answer; so much depends on each individual's experiences and inclinations. What is important is that these forums continue to exist. I regret that quite a few people left when the forum imploded technically although I can't blame them; even now the situation is far from perfect for many who try to post or load pictures. It's a continuing source of frustration.

The biggest thing about the muddling of the two forums together is that there's nothing new to read. You read all the new stuff in one forum, then go to the other forum and.....it's the same stuff. Highly disappointing. Used to be you had the delightful time of reading a whole new set of posts and useful information, just by switching to the other forum. Oh, if you look hard enough you can find new posts in each forum...but personally I enjoyed the forums more when they were distinctly different. FWIW.

That is my biggest pet peave. Sometimes I don't check them all anymore and then discover I missed some great thread! However, it seems noone frequents the rose gallery or propagation forum.