Poll about a new rose (hypothetical case)

I'm not going to give too much information on this at the moment... instead I'll reveal the thinking behind this poll when it's done. Just think about the question, vote, and if you feel like it, add a reply with your point of view. I'm not going to vote on this until there are a number of votes so I don't sway the vote.

Simon, I have enough of those once flowering roses already.

For me it would depend on a few things.
Colour and petal count
Possible fragrance
Growth habit
And last but not least, as we do not care for the roses we have and do not get the problems others get. But this has to be concidered, disease and pest problems.
Simon, how long is the quizz going for ?

Just playing the Devil's Advocate here... What about if it was something like a new Moss rose, or a new Damask, or Gallica (assuming it grew well in your location... climate is not the issue here... just remontancy), that don't often repeat anyway...

Dave, I'm only referring to remontancy at the moment. If the plant was superior in all other regards, would you purchase a once-flowering new rose?

Running for a month (unless it looks like it has run its course).

The answer is "yes", colour would be a factor in final decission. So you can change my "maybe".
Simon, not sure about some of your answer, you talk about once flowering and also about "remotancy", is this not more than once flowering.

Remontancy is its ability to reflower... like a name given to the process. A repeat flowering rose is remontant. A non-repeat flowering rose is non-remontant.

I voted yes becuse If I like a flower and its desease resistance was good then lack of repeat flowering would not stop me.

I mean where would he world be if nobody had purchased roses such as Alberine. My Blanche Fluer leaves any Iceburg for dead when it flowers but that is only once a year (actually it is more like once a coupleof years for a good display so it lives happily(or should I say it did until I shifted it lst year and it is taking a little bit to re-establish itself) amoungst the Teas and ither plants.

Personally Gary, I totally agree... There is a motive behind my poll but I don't want to give anything away just yet... it will be followed by another poll maybe.

Simon I have cast my vote and I have read the above posts.
Your question was once flowering and that is how I cast my vote. We have a fantastic constance Spry, a pink rambler and a few other old roses that are only once flowering. These we like others I may not like.
What has got me confused is how you got round to romotancy as this means repeat flowering and was not mentioned in Davids post, unless I am reading wrongly.

roseman wrote:you talk about once flowering and also about "remotancy", is this not more than once flowering.

\

This is what Dave wrote that I was responding to.

Remontancy is the ability to reflower. A rose that can reflower is remontant. A rose that flowers only once is non-remontant.

If it was a good one for my climate, absolutely. Once-blooming Albertine, for example, is one of the most popular roses in the world. Tulips only bloom once a year, but what a show.

Simon, I must be misssing something here. Your question is,
If a new rose variety came onto the market and it was only once flowering would you buy it?
Your post on Wed mentions "remotancy". Then your post on Thur explains once flowering and repeat flowering(remotant), I understand the difference between the two. I am only confused about the remotancy if this is one of the things that this flower is to do, so how can it be once flowering .
I had to write this in it's form as I can not remember how to do the "quote" thing.

If a rose flowers once, I would describe its remontancy as non-remontant.

I would buy some of Paul Barden's old-style roses, eg Marianne, if they were imported. But in general no, because there are more once-flowering heritage roses and foundlings than I have room for.

Simon how did "remotancy" get into your answer when we are talking once flowering, can you explain please or is this part of telling us later bit

Just went to HMF to check out the Marianne that Margaret instanced. Mmmmm...I'd buy that one. I voted no at the outset because there is quite a long list of once-flowerers that I would plant if only I had the room so there seemed no point adding to the list. But as Marianne has demonstrated, I could be persuaded.

David,

The use of the word 'remontancy' is a case of semantics.... Remontancy has a wide range of different forms. It can range from being once-flowering, which is called non-remontant, right through to continuous flowering, which might be called fully remontant. Note the words remontancy and remontant do not mean the same thing and the word remontancy does not mean repeat flowering. The word remontant does mean repeat flowering.

To use an example of what I mean consider a rubber band. One of the properties of an rubber band is elasticity. I can measure its elasticity by measuring HOW elastic it is. If I have three rubber bands and compare their elasticity I might find one to be poorly elastic, another to be moderately elastic and the last one to be very elastic. All three are ways to describe their elasticity.

It's the same for roses. Remontancy is a term used to describe HOW remontant a rose is. If I have three roses and one flowers only once in spring, another flowers in spring and then with scattered blooms until winter, and the last flowers its head off all year then I can describe their remontancy as non-remontant, partially remontant, and fully remontant respectively. So when I say I am only referring to remontancy I am not referring to repeat flowering. I am, instead, referring to its flowering habit which in this case is once flowering.

Simon

Your school eacher is showing!!!!

Thanks for the the lesson, I still think your hiding something with words

Nope.... not at all... scouts honor

Simon, has this come to a halt and if so what is the outcome

So far there has only been 12 votes... 3 for yes, 4 for maybe, and 5 for no. I have not voted yet because I did not want to sway the vote. My vote, however, will be for yes. Remontancy is not an issue for me if the plants are great.

Here is the reason behind the poll.

As someone who wants to make rose breeding a major part of his life my underlying values are that the plant MUST be healthy and be able to grow strongly on its own roots and the flower is secondary to all of this... that will come in time. A wise person once advised me that in breeding anything you need to build your house first and THEN paint it. If a rose flowers only once, but is superior in all other respects then it should be grown and should be able to compete in trials on an even playing field. I do not believe non-remontant plants should be judged against fully remontant plants because they are different types of roses with different purposes. Seasonal gardens where roses are but part of the scheme are an example of how they are used. I won't go into why I think this. Suffice to say that I don't value a once flowering rose any less than a continuously flowering rose.

The national trial garden is trying to promote itself as a place where new roses should be sent for trialling where suitability to Australian conditions is assessed. That's great. The whole concept of roses suited to Australian conditions is one I embrace myself. However, I don't believe this is what they are assessing. One of their criteria is remonatncy. A fully remontant rose gains more points than a non-remontant rose. I want to know why? I have asked them and had no reply. If I bred a terrific non-remontant rose it will never score as highly as a non-remontant rose because someone deemed once flowering to be a negative feature. So I wanted to know what others thought.

Interesting and well said, Simon. Couldn't agree more.

Mottisfont and Sissinghurst are two of the most popular (most-visited) gardens in the world. The majority of their roses are once blooming.

Here's the Royal National Rose Gardens at St Albans, UK and a bed of once-blooming Gallicas looking fabulous:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes I would as I have plenty of room to grow roses, I am a collector of all roses and I can't wait to see what the once blooming roses are going to look like each year as they get more established.
I surpose the Rose Trials are based on roses the main market of people would be interested in buying, but I reckon there are a lot of properties all over Australia that could all be landscaping around their homes with roses of all levels of remontancy.
Lovely photo, Dave.

Once flowering roses are overlooked because people don't know enough about gardening and don't care much. They want fireworks happening every month in a garden and can't appreciate green colour and healthy foliage, which are most important in the garden.

People don't know enough about roses too. They just plonk one here, another there, and after a while you see those poor shrubs standing alone, in mulch and nothing else's around. A horrible sight.

Instead, use once flowering roses with perennials and repeat flowering roses to achieve a beautiful scene that is dynamic and won't exhaust the soil. I couldn't imagine my garden without Gallica Officinalis, Tuscany Superb or Chianti, example, or climbing Spanish Beauty. They grow and mingles with salvia, violets, English roses, etc. Once Gallica Officinalis is in bloom, there no remontant rose on this planet that can match number of blooms produced or match the sheer daintiness of flowers. You can't have both.

The lifespan of remontant roses is ways shorter, they are prone to more diseases, etc. Once-flowering roses are God-send for any serious, beautiful garden.

Yes, give me Marianne and I'll pull out any remontant rose, anytime.