Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular
short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1
pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses
with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good
border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?

Broadback wrote:
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular
short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1
pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses
with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good
border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?

Beauty, as ever, is in the eye of the beholder, and what "looks best"
is a very subjective decision. If you have a severely modern house and
straight paths, then a rectangular bed may be more appropriate, or you
may feel that something curved would relax the visual tension better.

For many years we have been advised to avoid straight edges to beds,
serpentine curves and the like being much admired.

That said, an ellipse is a very classical form, and easily laid out by
putting two sticks in at the "foci" and using a fixed length of rope
round the two pins and the moving marker. Your two standards could go
at the two focus points The classical ratio for length to width would
be the golden section, 1:1.618 .

If you want to get /very/ serious about proportion, you need to
consider from where the elliptical form would be viewed - from standing
close or far off, or from an upstairs window, and re-calculate on the
basis of foreshortening and inclination. But I wouldn't bother.

Peg some sheets of newspaper out in the shape you envisage, to see how
well it fits in with what you already have, and to get an idea for how
much room you will have at the ends for access etc.

Get some graph paper (it's printed with squares like a grid)...consider each
square to be a foot squared or 6 inches depending on the size of your
garden, then measure your garden (length width and any
features...sheds....trees...ponds...odd shapes...etc) and draw out the
measurements onto the graph paper, I would do a couple of these, therefore
you can look at different positions and shapes for your design, it's not
hard to do and when youv'e got the templates done you can have hours of fun
re-designing your garden without any costly mistakes. a surveyors measuring
tape will come in handy (click below)

http://www.toolfinder.co.uk/catalog/...37037260e4eb5f

Some canes and string is also essential for making curved edges and
eliptical shapes.


--

Regards
p.mc


wrote in message
ups.com...
Broadback wrote:
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular
short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1
pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses
with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good
border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?

Beauty, as ever, is in the eye of the beholder, and what "looks best"
is a very subjective decision. If you have a severely modern house and
straight paths, then a rectangular bed may be more appropriate, or you
may feel that something curved would relax the visual tension better.

For many years we have been advised to avoid straight edges to beds,
serpentine curves and the like being much admired.

That said, an ellipse is a very classical form, and easily laid out by
putting two sticks in at the "foci" and using a fixed length of rope
round the two pins and the moving marker. Your two standards could go
at the two focus points The classical ratio for length to width would
be the golden section, 1:1.618 .

If you want to get /very/ serious about proportion, you need to
consider from where the elliptical form would be viewed - from standing
close or far off, or from an upstairs window, and re-calculate on the
basis of foreshortening and inclination. But I wouldn't bother.

Peg some sheets of newspaper out in the shape you envisage, to see how
well it fits in with what you already have, and to get an idea for how
much room you will have at the ends for access etc.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens but
lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed, what
would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses with Hybrid teas
around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good border, or would a
miniature box hedge look better?

Depends on the size of your garden, the aspect, the elevation, view from the
kitchen window etc etc :~))

Stake out the shape and fill lightly with sand to see how it looks. You can
brush it into the lawn when you have the shape sorted.

Think about underplanting with something evergreen to give winter interest.
Rose beds are very bare in winter.
Jenny

Broadback writes
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular
short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1
pleasing to the eye?

Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
if I remember rightly.

As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses with Hybrid teas
around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good border, or would
a miniature box hedge look better?

Dwarf lavender hedge?
--
Kay

"K" wrote in message
...
Broadback writes
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens but
lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed, what
would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
eye?

Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
if I remember rightly.

The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at vast
expense).

--
Kay

"K" wrote in message
...
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes

"K" wrote in message
...
Broadback writes
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but
lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed,
what
would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
eye?

Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
if I remember rightly.

The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at vast
expense).

Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the rhs
and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no use to
man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.

And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
--
Kay

0.618 is the solution which is also part of the Golden rule thing. I only
got that from Googling Fibonacci:-)

e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
substitute j for i (if you are younger than me)
Also a bit of useless information but could explain the existence of a
God:-)

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
Euler's Idenity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

Extraordinary, linking five of the most fundamental numbers in maths,
but a proof of God? Can't see it myself. It might just be a proof
that mathematics is an unbounded, closed, non-involute manifold.
(except it isn't)

The astonishing thing is that two of the numbers are transcendental,
and two are integers.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
Euler's Idenity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

Extraordinary, linking five of the most fundamental numbers in maths,
but a proof of God? Can't see it myself. It might just be a proof
that mathematics is an unbounded, closed, non-involute manifold.
(except it isn't)

The astonishing thing is that two of the numbers are transcendental,
and two are integers.

Agreed. It was the religious mathematicians that claimed "A God" thingy, or
was it the Theoretical chemists:-)

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
Euler's Idenity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

Extraordinary, linking five of the most fundamental numbers in maths,
but a proof of God? Can't see it myself. It might just be a proof
that mathematics is an unbounded, closed, non-involute manifold.
(except it isn't)

The astonishing thing is that two of the numbers are transcendental,
and two are integers.

Agreed. It was the religious mathematicians that claimed "A God" thingy, or
was it the Theoretical chemists:-)

I just love it when people do this: makes me feel I'm mixing with the
intellectual aristocracy. Some of the Americans in alt.usage.english
are awe-inspiring with number theory and such-like: why wasn't I taught
real maths as a kid?

--
Mike.

Mike Lyle writes

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
Euler's Idenity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

Extraordinary, linking five of the most fundamental numbers in maths,
but a proof of God? Can't see it myself. It might just be a proof
that mathematics is an unbounded, closed, non-involute manifold.
(except it isn't)

The astonishing thing is that two of the numbers are transcendental,
and two are integers.

Agreed. It was the religious mathematicians that claimed "A God" thingy, or
was it the Theoretical chemists:-)

I just love it when people do this: makes me feel I'm mixing with the
intellectual aristocracy. Some of the Americans in alt.usage.english
are awe-inspiring with number theory and such-like: why wasn't I taught
real maths as a kid?

It's sad. Unfortunately 'sums' and arithmetic are of more immediate use
in counting your change and reading bus timetables, so that is what is
taught. GCSE does have more interesting topics than O-level (now we no
longer have to be adept in multi-base arithmetic (counting in 4s, 12s
and 20s in the same sum for example) and can use logarithms sensibly
instead of as an aid to multiplication). But it's A-level where things
start to become interesting (and easier, being application of concepts
rather than rote learning) and degree level even more so. Then when you
reach my age, you've forgotten the lot and just have a memory of
something beautiful that you once knew ;-)
--
Kay

"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes

"K" wrote in message
...
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes

"K" wrote in message
...
Broadback writes
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but
lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed,
what
would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
eye?

Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
if I remember rightly.

The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at vast
expense).

Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the rhs
and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no use to
man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.

And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
--
Kay

0.618 is the solution which is also part of the Golden rule thing.

Golden rule thing is that if you take a rectangle whose sides are 1 and
1+a, then chop off a 1 x 1 square from one end, the remaining piece is a
rectangle whose sides are in the same ration as the rectangle you
started with. That's where the equation comes from. You're right, the
solution is a=.618, which means the long side of the original rectangle
is 1.618.

I only
got that from Googling Fibonacci:-)

So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
successive terms tends to .618?

For those who think we are drifting OT - the Fibonacci series turns up
all over nature. Each term is the sum of the two previous, starting 0 1,
so:
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 35 56 91 ....

and whenever you see a set of spirals - sunflower, that spirally
cauliflower, cacti, fircones - counting the spirals in one direction
then counting the spirals in the direction crossing the first, gives you
two successive terms of the Fibonacci series.

e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
substitute j for i (if you are younger than me)
Also a bit of useless information but could explain the existence of a
God:-)



--
Kay

"K" wrote in message
...
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes

"K" wrote in message
...
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes

"K" wrote in message
.. .
Broadback writes
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but
lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed,
what
would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short
ends
best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to
the
eye?

Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by
2
if I remember rightly.

The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at
vast
expense).

Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the
rhs
and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no use to
man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.

And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
--
Kay

snip

So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
successive terms tends to .618?


That's good enough for me and is explained here
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal...at.html#golden

For those who think we are drifting OT - the Fibonacci series turns up

all over nature. Each term is the sum of the two previous, starting 0 1,
so:
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 35 56 91 ....

and whenever you see a set of spirals - sunflower, that spirally
cauliflower, cacti, fircones - counting the spirals in one direction then
counting the spirals in the direction crossing the first, gives you two
successive terms of the Fibonacci series.



Kay

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
"K" wrote in message
...
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes
"K" wrote in message
...
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes
"K" wrote in message
...
Broadback writes
Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but
lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed,
what
would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short
ends
best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to
the
eye?
Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by
2
if I remember rightly.
The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at
vast
expense).

Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the
rhs
and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no use to
man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.

And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
--
Kay
snip

So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
successive terms tends to .618?


That's good enough for me and is explained here
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal...at.html#golden

For those who think we are drifting OT - the Fibonacci series turns up

all over nature. Each term is the sum of the two previous, starting 0 1,
so:
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 35 56 91 ....

and whenever you see a set of spirals - sunflower, that spirally
cauliflower, cacti, fircones - counting the spirals in one direction then
counting the spirals in the direction crossing the first, gives you two
successive terms of the Fibonacci series.



Kay


Thank you all for your help and useful suggestions.

In article . com,
writes

That said, an ellipse is a very classical form, and easily laid out

My first thought is "will I be able to mow the lawn easily with this
shape?"

Some shapes look good but for practical purposes the grass cutting
becomes a nightmare of twists and turns, so whatever you end up with
make sure especially if you enjoy stripy lawn, that you can mow and
balance up the stripes properly.

Janet

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk