'Rosette Delizy'

'Rosette Delizy' is a Tea rose from 1922, arriving on the rose scene just as Hybrid Teas were coming into great popularity, eclipsing the Teas that had been so popular in warm climates. I fell in love with her upon seeing my first photo of her, and now I wish she was still in my garden. She grew beautifully for a couple of seasons and then suffered terribly from Botrytis cinerea and cane dieback. I couldn't find anyone who had the botrytis problem with 'Rosette Delizy', so I think my terrible soil (more like cement) where she was growing may have weakened her. By the time I took her out she was just a mess, but given decent healthy soil I know she can be strong, beautiful, and carefree here.

Her coloration is pretty and rare among Tea roses. The outer petals at times are firey crimson red, sometimes brick red (clearly inherited from her seed parent, 'General Gallieni') with the flower becoming more yellow - even cadmium yellow at the center. These strongly saturated colors are what you see in the cool spring. The red is very pronounced, but as the temps become hotter the red fades to a delicate pink and the yellow softens. At the height of summer heat in my garden she was pretty much completely light yellow. Another part of her loveliness is the variableness of the blooms on the bush in their different stages of opening. She is a delicious rose.

In my garden she was vase-shaped and getting tall - over six feet and just as wide. Her canes were almost free of prickles except at the base. She has a light fruity Tea scent.

I do wish I could make a spot for her again.

Easy Roses

(Originally published on December 29, 2010 and accidentally republished today. So sorry.)
After a few attempts to grow roses, that is, hybrid tea roses, I finally decided to treat them like annuals, good for a season and that's it. My experience with azaleas and a few butterfly-attracting plants did not equip me to grow beautiful roses, and even if I had known about spraying for fungal diseases and cutting back to the 5th (or 3rd or whatever) five-leaf set I would certainly have merely failed more expensively. I knew nothing of rootstocks and whether they were good or bad in Florida sand. I only knew they needed sun, and that's why I decided to plant some at my new (present) home. I had lots and lots of sun. So if I remember right, I bought two from Lowe's in 2006, Golden Showers and Showbiz. They were lovely until black spot got them, especially Showbiz.

Trying to learn more about how to keep them lovely longer, I went online to the internet and found The Roses Forum, The Antique Roses Forum and The Organic Gardening Forum on GardenWeb.com. "In for a penny, in for a pound" is how it has turned out - head first into the deep end of the pool I dove, immersing myself in a realm of knowledge that was way over my head. After not much research I realized I didn't have a whole lot of chance of success with roses the way I was going at it, and the more I learned the more successful I wanted to be. So in February, 2007 I bought my first Old Garden Roses from a nearby nursery. Within a month or two I bought a handful of roses on Fortuniana rootstock, mostly NOT Old Garden Roses, and then four own-root roses from an online nursery in Texas. By that winter I had started excavating my front yard, replacing much of the grass with a rose garden I designed on graph paper, and the rest is history as they say.

I now have 96 roses on a .17 acre lot, but that's probably less than half of the roses that I have bought. The rest are gone, mostly due to a very steep learning curve. You see, this is Florida, and things are different here. Who knew that so many plants don't like the state that I love? I didn't. And even trying my best to choose roses that were said to be healthy, many just were not healthy HERE. It did not feel like trial and error. I would never have admitted to that methodology! I was diligently educating myself and making "good" choices based on all the information I could lay my hands on, almost entirely the experience of others, most of whom did not grow roses in Florida. I didn't know then that much of Texas is hot and DRY, not like Florida. I did not know that when California nurseries say their roses are disease resistant, they are referring to powdery mildew and rust NOT black tspot. I didn't know that some roses do not like alkaline soil which is what I have. As hard as I tried to learn from what is written, it really didn't count as much as what I learned from what my garden was trying to teach me. So there were losses, and there were successes, and alas, there were successes that just didn't please me. Most were removed with sadness, and a few were given the bum's rush.

Four growing seasons later I've achieved some equilibrium and confidence in what I'm doing. And that is the reason for this blog. I think there are Floridians who want to grow roses as they did up north or want to grow roses for the first time - simply because they are beautiful, but personal experience or well-meant advice from others has dissuaded them from fulfilling their dreams of a rose garden in Florida. Such a sad and unnecessary defeat. The truth is that there are roses that thrive in our climate and even in our sandy soil, albeit amended sandy soil, but rarely are they found at the local big-box garden centers. These roses are resistant to fungal diseases and don't need spraying. They're the progenitors of the hybrid teas and floribundas of today. They love Florida because Florida resembles their original climate. They are excellent garden shrubs that laugh at our heat and humidity, blooming from spring through the hottest summer and beyond the first frosts. Basically, only hard freezes and lack of water will stop their bloom. These are the roses I want to introduce to those who have a heart for growing them. So here goes.

Experimental learning

(Originally published on May 12, 2011 and accidentally republished today, July 23, 2011. So sorry.)
You have probably figured out that I love roses and I love taking pictures of roses. Unfortunately, I can't seem to wrap my brain around photography. You know...f-stops and ISO and who knows what else. Once not long ago I picked up a book on digital photography with crushing results. Along about page 5 the correlation between 35mm ASA and digital ISO, apertures and f-stops really seemed to click in my brain, and I got it! (if I just said that techno stuff incorrectly, you'll understand why in a second). On the next page the topic was different but related, naturally, but for the life of me I could not make the connection to what I had just "learned" on the previous page. It was gone - a blank. Somehow I must have formatted my hard drive while turning the page.

So I am a photographer with a definite handicap - my brain. My eyes see, but my brain is incapable of telling a camera what to do to capture that vision. Praise God for 'point and shoot' cameras! Well, after two of my cameras crapped out (defective sensors), DH said, "Don't buy another one. Use mine - carefully." I can't say I demonstrated much gratitude since I believed my dead camera was better than his live one. He's into zoom. I'm into detail. Mine had a larger sensor. His has a better long lens.

All the photos on my blog have been taken with DH's camera, so he deserves the applause. But I was frustrated. My bush shots lacked detail; I couldn't see the leaves. White roses were blobs of white with no petals. I thought fervently that I needed a new camera. I found one I wanted - a Canon S95. Sadly, it comes with a hefty price tag - $399. I won't bore you with the research and trade-offs involved in my choice. Of course, I would definitely love a full-frame DSLR that would give me detail out the wazoo, but they're heavy in the hand and in the pocketbook. They also don't slip into a pocket. The S95 has a 'big' 1.7 CCD sensor, 1:2.0 - 4.9 lens and takes great pictures. I know because I chose the S90 for my boss' company camera that I get to use to photograph her real estate listings.

Well, I brought the company camera home today and went out to the garden armed with dueling cameras. Shot for shot, the shutters clicked away. I just knew the S90 was whipping the butt of DH's Canon S2IS, and my plan was to put the results side by side on my computer monitor and prove to DH that I needed the S95. Guess what. I didn't prove it - even to myself.

Turns out that DH's 10X zoom is pretty handy. I use it instead of macro to achieve that pop of the subject against a blurred background. (That's called 'depth of field' although I'm probably not using the term quite correctly.) The S90 only has 3.8X optical zoom but can achieve 15X digitally. Turns out digital zoom is a cheap imitation, and tomorrow I'll show you how. Zooming to a close-up with the S90 gave me no blurred background and no detail in the subject. It was like those gauzy photos of the faces of aging actresses - no wrinkles, but the S2IS showed each and every vein in a daylily bloom - gloriously.

I've theorized that if I were to stay within the 3.8X zoom of the S95, I could probably beat DH's camera on my precious bush shots, but I'd lose the depth of field on those killer flower close-ups. (This theory will have to be proven on another day, but tomorrow I will show you some of today's results.) Though my theory has dulled my desire for a $400 camera, it hasn't erased it. Those kinds of desires die hard, you know, because really, it sure is a cute camera with a really sharp viewer and it's nice and light and I could slip it into my pocket and it's got a wide-angle lens. Yeah, dreams die hard.

Taken with the S90. Do ya see any leaves?

Baby roses got here today

Heirloom's packing was impressive and ingenious. IMHO the roses were perfectly packed and wonderfully undamaged.

These baby plants are greener and healthier than any I've ever ordered online with no flower buds but maybe that's a good thing. Tomorrow I'll pot them on to 1-gallons. I want to let them catch their breath and get acclimated to Florida's heat in a nice shady spot.

From left to right: 'Hyde Hall', 'St. Swithun', 'Mary Rose' and 'Graham Thomas'

So far so good. I was very pleased they didn't have to sit in the post office over the weekend. Don't know what their future holds, but I'm happy today. It's been a while since I've had such tiny babies in the garden. Doesn't exactly mean baby bottles and diapers, but getting them out of infancy to  toddlerhood and adolescence can be tricky, but surely I'll be less neurotic and more patient about rose motherhood this time around.

Where are the Monarchs?

They're obviously not in my garden or the milkweed plant wouldn't be so lush and leafy.

I wonder what's going on. I only have two or three plants in this one location since I work diligently at pulling the tiny seedlings that would usurp my whole garden if I didn't. Could the Monarchs be offended by this practice? I don't use insecticides of any kind. Is anyone else missing them?

Madame, may I present Mr. Shovel

On Sunday deciding to remove roses was surprisingly easy - possibly from some quirk of mood or attitude. I had sunk the shovel next to 'Madame Scipion Cochet', a Hybrid Perpetual from 1872, in preparation for digging up her nearly leafless body. HP's usually aren't very black spot resistant, and though not horrible she could probably benefit from fungicide spraying - which I don't do.

She had a few leaves but only at the ends of her canes. I could put another more deserving plant in this spot. Perhaps it was time for the grand experiment to end. Perhaps Hybrid Perpetuals really aren't meant for my no-spray Florida garden. She looks decidedly unhappy. Do you see a rose in this photo? Neither did I.

Then I noticed several flower buds - six to be exact, and then I noticed absolutely no evidence of alfalfa around her. I wondered, "Did I pass her by when I was doling out the pellets?" I couldn't remember feeding her, but I can't remember a lot of things the day after I do them. Maybe I didn't feed her a few weeks ago with the other roses, and that's why she looks so pathetic. I was really giving her the benefit of the doubt because all evidence of alfalfa is gone everywhere in the garden.

Hmmm, with six flower buds she's definitely trying hard. OK, decision to shovel-prune rescinded. I gave her a bunch of alfalfa pellets (again, I think), nipped the ends of some of her non-producing canes and gave her a reprieve.

However, I left Mr. Shovel behind to remind her how serious I am and how easy she can be compost.

P.S. See the lemonade I made out of lemons? My birdbath column got broken quite a while back, and I haven't had the heart to throw it away. Well, I took a new look at it on Sunday and decided to stick it in the ground broken end down - in other words, upside down. Not too bad, ya think? Now I need to buy another glass ball for the other pedestal.

Climbing trees

On Sunday I did stuff that I had been putting off. Stuff that involved a ladder, a grabber, loppers and a shovel. Loppers and a shovel in a rose garden can't be good. I have been ambivalent about two roses (probably more than two but we're not going there), and two days ago, having moved a good sized Hydrangea paniculata 'Pinky Winky' and removed Rosa 'Fellemberg' from the garden, my momentum built to a point where I could say, "Let's do it."

The first dreaded chore was dealing with 'Francois Juranville'. Almost two years in the ground, this rose is a rambler (translation: a big honking climber) and a once-bloomer (but possibly a repeater in Florida). He's growing on an 8' tall and 8' wide homemade rebar arbor. Here he is on May 2nd.

When I chose him, I didn't care that he may only bloom once in the spring. I just wanted something that would cover this arbor which is in partial shade. FJ fit the bill. He had grown up 8', then across 8', and was very close to growing all the way down again 8' which really wasn't too attractive. A rose will be what it is genetically supposed to be without regard for a gardener's poor planning - or non-planning. However, my goal with this rose was always to let him grow up into the oak trees, eventually causing them to be in bloom when their branches are covered with Francois Juranville's flowers. How cool!

Well, gravity had something to say about letting him grow up into the trees. Francois needed assistance in becoming upwardly mobile. So on Sunday I got out the ladder and DH's grabber and worked at inserting his lengthy canes up into the trees, trying to persuade them to hook onto something besides me.

So now he's up in the trees. The interesting and mind-blowing thing about this rambler is that each of these dozen or more 20-plus-foot-long canes will bring forth multiple side-shoots of equal length, and that each of them will do the same, and on and on. This is commonly known as a house-eater. Before planting such a rose do ascertain that there is ample real estate that it can call its own. You can be sure of one thing - the fact that you don't have ample real estate will not prevent the rose from taking whatever you do have. I figure he can have all of that tree canopy that he can cover.

Which brings me to the tale of the loppers and 'E. Veyrat Hermanos', a climbing Tea from 1895 that I was growing on a long, high trellis on my property line, eight feet from the house. I grow 'Maman Cochet, Climbing' this way, and she handles it well, having stiff canes that support her tree-like canopy. EVH is different - not as stiff but just as heavy as 'Maman Cochet, Cl' and not as flexible and pliable as 'Reve d'Or'. He flopped instead of holding his canes up in the air. Since I was unable to construct a proper pergola for him to climb up and cover, he simply poured down on both sides of the trellis. The only means left to me for controlling him was to cut his canes, lightening them enough so that they sprang up above head-high. Sad to say, this is not the proper treatment for this rose since it destroyed its natural shape and growth habit. I blew it. This photo shows the 5-ft wide path inundated with rose canes, a path that no one but me was silly enough to tread.

I knew of someone in South Florida growing EVH on a 12'x20' pergola which the rose covered handily. One might think that would be sufficient warning, but a newbie is ignorant  and even sometimes unteachable. So the day of reckoning came on Sunday despite my sincere and numerous plans to build a structure more suitable for this humongous rose - a rose which had not been much more than a spring bloomer much bothered by thrips and balling.

Once again the camera arrived after half of one side was already cut away.

Going, going

Gone

The sheer volume of this rose was more than I could physically handle, demanded more real estate than I had to give, and almost did me in when cutting it down. Those loppers get heavy towards the end of the second hour of use. Have you figured out the moral of this story? Put succinctly, I must not bite off more than I can chew. 

A garden and the gardener can be overwhelmed if attention is not paid to the growth habit and eventual size of a rose bush and/or climber, especially in a warm climate with an extended growing season. If the words 'house eater' or 'monster' ever enter the conversation, gardeners be warned. Unless you have acreage and plan to let the rose grow naturally into a mounding thicket, much time and labor will be expected of you in order to train a plant like this into the civilized thing of beauty of your dreams.

With roses as with battles discretion is the better part of valor, especially for beginners. Of course, it's easy enough to cut down and dig up a rose that turns out badly, but think of all the time and effort wasted on the wrong rose when the right one could still be growing, blooming and looking beautiful.