HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalCuttingsMember
Garden
Breeder
Listing
 
goncmg
most recent 14 days ago SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 17 JAN 12 by goncmg
If I were to be in charge of buying a few roses for someone who does not have a green thumb and/or has never grown roses, EARTH SONG would be at the top of the list. Just like everyone has posted here, the plant just grows with enthusiasm and blooms like mad. The color is pretty common but up against Electron or Miss All American Beauty or Peter Frankenfeld or Cynthia or Tribute or so many others, for the novice this is just tops. Took winter 88-89 and 92-93 in Columbus (temps reached nearly -20 with not much snow cover) with only 1/2 way die-back. To boot, the plant was standing alone in an underplanted border and subject to hideous winds. Finally moved it to the "real rose garden" when it became clear that (1) it earned its spot and (2) originally marketed as a shrub it is really a GR........close to 40 years old and just chugging along, still rated I think 8.0, nobody ever talks about it and you don't see it offered that many places.....totally under-appreciated/under-marketed............
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted 14 days ago by Michael Garhart
That's what I did, except I sent them Barn Dance. They have it a decade later.
REPLY
most recent 7 AUG SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 24 MAY 13 by goncmg
This is close, but just doesn't look like Fashion. Something about it is"too modern"...................the color is just not right, the petals look to have too much substance, the leaves look more 1980...............I may be wrong, but I think this one is not correct....................
REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 25 MAY 13 by Patricia Routley
I think you are right. Both the photo from John Sheldon and the cover of the 1950 'American Rose Annual' show 'Fashion' to have a petal edge that rolls back to give an almost square cut look.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted 7 AUG by Michael Garhart
I thought maybe English Miss, but that doesn't seem quite right. Anything with the name Fashion in it doesn't match, either.
REPLY
most recent 21 JUN SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 11 FEB 14 by goncmg
In the old ARS annual "Proof of Pudding" back from when this one was new, it is mentioned in passing that at release in 1961 or 1962 this one cost $20 or $25, had to be special ordered or something to that effect (that would be like a rose costing close to $200 today!)....the general sentiment was that the variety did not live up to its marketing, was not very special....does anyone out there have any details on this? How did a $20 rose via special order (?) come to be on the market 50 years ago? Seems it was marketed at exhibitors??
REPLY
Reply #1 of 6 posted 12 FEB 14 by Patricia Routley
Cheek probably. The 1965 references says "Loves mildew, is fragrant and not worth $10.00"
And those orange photos from India don't seem very phlox pink to me.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 6 posted 13 FEB 14 by goncmg
Patricia! Hope all is well with you and you are enjoying a lovely summer down under. Here in Ohio, USA we have had one of the meanest, cruelest, hardest winters in decades. Got to -15 with no snow and high winds, etc. This is why mine sleep in the garage and even then the larger ones seemed to freeze solid (which makes me nervous but I know is not usually lethal)......now THAT being said, lol, have you noticed that rather often on here it is the old "Eastern Block" and India that posts these pics that just look really "off?" Probably innocently, too, suspect it may just have to do with easy marketing like our waxed body bag discounts here in the US...???
REPLY
Reply #3 of 6 posted 17 FEB 14 by Dianne's Southwest Idaho Rose Garden
Chris, I wondered if the color variance in the photos from India were perhaps a camera or lighting error, since even the foliage doesn't look like a natural green. The form of the bloom looks quite similar, don't you think?

My rose was new last year and didn't bloom, but perhaps this spring I'll have an opinion on whether this rose has any qualities making it unique or especially worth growing.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 6 posted 18 JUN by Just-one-more-rose
And, what did you decide, if I may ask? I'm especially interested to hear about the fragrance. Thank you
REPLY
Reply #5 of 6 posted 20 JUN by Dianne's Southwest Idaho Rose Garden
My rose died over a winter, so I can't answer that.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 6 posted 21 JUN by Just-one-more-rose
Ah, pity. Thanks for taking the trouble to respond.
REPLY
most recent 5 MAY SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 14 OCT 12 by goncmg
If someone who has never EVER grown roses was to come to me and ask what should they try my answer would be TIFFANY. It, unlike Queen Elizabeth which is also so easy to grow, it LOOKS like what people WANT a rose to look like: big bloom generally on a single stem, fragrant, warm pink lit gold....indestructable....hardy.............for the more saged growers I think it doesn't really "stand out"....it is one of those reliable "work horses" definately worth a place in the line-up but almost BECAUSE it lacks any sort of notable faults or ticks and is basically PINK it sort of gets a little forgotten about but really should be more lauded by us old rose souls..........60 years old and it is available own root, budded, mail order, upscale garden center, grocery store, probably in a fast food drive thru as well (!).........and always has been...............and always should be.........it IS what people THINK of when they think ROSE..........surprisingly it has been a parent to more notable varieties than one would think, too....some pass on the good more than others and Tiffany is one of those....I am a grower who slightly favors the abstreuse and forgets to pay attention to/love the more obvious who perform so well, are so strong, and who were introduced mid-century (my specialty/interest) and are just so SOLID.........this is a GREAT rose...........

For those who are "saged": compare Tiffany to Helen Traubel!!!! Both were AARS early 50's but 60 years ahead there is just no comparison. There wasn't 10 years later in my opinion. Traubel was still highly rated into the 70's but weak necks, no scent, can ball, color is a little mutable, and the plant just sprawls and sprawls messily.............when I think Tiffany seems "bland" I remind myself to look beyond the color and look at the plant, smell the bloom, and so on.............
REPLY
Reply #1 of 7 posted 14 JAN 13 by Dianne's Southwest Idaho Rose Garden
I truly appreciate your comment, and completely agree. You led me to realize that I haven't paid due attention to my Tiffany, for just the reasons you gave. Now I can hardly wait for May/June so I can see what I've been missing!
REPLY
Reply #2 of 7 posted 2 FEB 14 by Blue Zinnia
Bravo! (or brava, as the case may be.) This is a great case in point for those of us, mostly older folks, who believe that no rose is ever "superseded" or "replaced" by something more modern. This is a great rose, regardless of anything that came before or after; it's simply itself, and very beautiful (ladies, try one of the vase-shaped buds on the lapel of a pale yellow or green summer jacket!!) The fragrance is also something special, and it carries like crazy. Add easy cultivation to that, and you've got a winner, in this or any other decade.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 7 posted 6 APR 14 by Matt's Northwest Florida Garden
Belinda's Dream, one of the most Blackspot resistant "Large Flowered" roses I grow, came from Tiffany. In the super humid climate of Northwest Florida, this one receives no fungicide spray except one of Lime-Sulfur during the dormant season. Believe me, this is the mecca for Blackspot.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 7 posted 8 APR by drossb1986
You give a spot-on review. For me, I almost ignore it as much as I ignore it's child, Belinda's Dream. There's just nothing that really bowls you over about it...except maybe for the scent. I think my biggest issue is that it the blooms are just so floppy and don't last long. 3 days and the blooms go from buds to all the petals blown off. I agree, it's an easy grower, but it's just...blah. It's like meeting the perfect significant other and them having the most bland personality. Great on paper, forgettable in reality.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 7 posted 8 APR by goncmg
LOVE your comment! And I do agree that somehow Tiffany may even be the "perfect" rose on paper...alas, not how it plays out for a lot of us......
REPLY
Reply #6 of 7 posted 5 MAY by Yankee Doodle Stevie
It sounds like we have rather similar tastes in some regards. I too consider the middle of the 20th century to be the golden age of roses. The vast majority of varieties we have grown have been released from that general era (cheating a bit on either side occasionally.)

Tiffany is indeed an all-time and modern classic. As you say, it is everything one could want in a rose. Where we are, weather can sometimes vary from the 40's one night to 90 degree highs just a day or two later. But ole gal Tiffany just keeps chugging along, looking and smelling great. There is something quite charming about it's silvery pink with gold heart flower. No disease to speak of. Cuts well. My Mom's all-time favorite, I would never be without her.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 7 posted 5 MAY by Jay-Jay
One ought to try to obtain the climbing version. You could cut long-stemmed roses for the vase too from her.
REPLY
© 2018 HelpMeFind.com