And what does the group think of Diarmuid Gavin's lollipop garden ...
ghastly?
--

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

"RichardS" wrote in message :

hmmm, on that note, would you class Hampton Court as a show that would
be
genuine interest to 'real' gardeners?

snip

Although I'm enjoying watching the coverage of Chelsea I can't really
say
that I'd be tempted to go. Altogether seems like a lot of hard work and
a
long day out...

Hampton Court is, just like Chelsea, of interest to real gardeners. Don't
let anyone tell you different.
They differ in the space available, that HC is not in London, the fact
that
you can drive to HC (if you have the time!) and park, that you can
actually
buy what you see at HC, but Chelsea has the better displays and plants.
There are more "normal" gardeners at HC (the dirty broken fingernail type)
but then Chelsea is on the social calendar like Ascot.

If your Father can't walk far you will need to take some form of seating
for
him, a shooting stick perhaps, the extra space at HC means more walking
than
Chelsea and that is bad enough. Both very tiring, wear very comfortable
shoes.

p.s. driving from the West, Teddington/Hampton/Sunbury etc it's
worthwhile
driving through Bushy Park rather than that solid jam on the road from
Kempton Park by the river, can save ages.

Don't let anyone else know. :-)

Thanks Bob, Sacha, I think that we'll definitely be going to HC, I'll work
on persuading my parents (may well invest in one of those x-framed "picnic"
stools for my father, though he may well like the idea of a shooting
stick... )

I was kind of cautious about including the 'real' gardeners thing - I
realise that there are many, many very keen & able recreational gardeners
and professionals alike that go to Chelsea and find it a thoroughly
worthwhile visit, so not having been I'd certainly not have the cheek to
knock it. I think that what I was enquiring about is the sentiment that
appears to have been implied that "Chelsea may be the premier show, but the
cognescenti reckon HC has the edge"... I'll stop here in case I'm digging a
hole for myself that I really didn't intend to dig!

Incidentally, thanks, Bob - we're just up the road in Twickenham, so we did
learn from early experience to avoid the road from Kempton Park (the A320??
can't remember offhand)

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"Joe" wrote in message
. ..
And what does the group think of Diarmuid Gavin's lollipop garden ...
ghastly?
--


OK - even good, but not worth the enormous cost !!

The 'pod' was somewhat overrated IMO. The balls on sticks were fine.

I don't think we saw enough of the planting for me to have much opinion about
it. In fact the series about the realisation were interesting, but I missed a
final tour of the finished article. maybe there will be a follow up?

Does anyone know if it was sold, and if so where it will go ..........?

Jenny

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
wrote:

Sue wrote:
: I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty
: Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have
: particularly jarred every time I've watched:
:
: a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and
: b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/

I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real
gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners?

delurks

can someone tell me what a real gardener is?

Someone whose garden contains stainless steel only in their tools.

I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the
distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars.

Few modern gardening programs contain much information about plants.
Presumably these programs appeal to somebody: the unreal gardeners.
--
Joe

In message , Sacha
writes

Anyhow, I'm writing to the Beeb to have a general whinge about all this and
I hope others who feel the same will do so, too. Gardens in Manchester and
Spitalfields are NOT Chelsea Flower Show. A whole other programme or two
could have been made out of the totally irrelevant stuff shown during
supposed coverage of CHELSEA!

This happens year after year, too consistently to be accidental. Also,
much of the material that is shown is usually repeated. We see the same
few gardens over and over again, and many gardens and much of the
pavilion are never shown. Does anyone know if this is just down to ease
of camera positioning, or if the coverage is limited in some way in the
contract with the BBC?
--
Joe

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
wrote:

Sue wrote:
: I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had
Monty
: Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have
: particularly jarred every time I've watched:
:
: a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera
and
: b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/

I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a
real
gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners?

delurks

can someone tell me what a real gardener is?

I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand
the
distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars.

Gardeners are the folk whose primary interest is in propagating and
cultivating the plants, including vegetables.
"Beeb gardeners" are those whose main interest is in the nonsense
other than the plants in the surroundings of their houses, such as the
decking, the gaily coloured fences, the bright 5 ft lollipops and the
tinny pieces of pseudo-sculpture like the rubbish which desecrated
the garden of Trelissick last time I was there, and those who think
there is any gardening interest in swapping inanities with would-be
celebs and their hangers-on. Much of Chelsea was, regrettably,
according to the Beeb reporting, overtaken by Beeb gardening this
year.

Franz

On 29/5/04 5:28 pm, in article , "JennyC"
wrote:


"Joe" wrote in message
. ..
And what does the group think of Diarmuid Gavin's lollipop garden ...
ghastly?
--


OK - even good, but not worth the enormous cost !!

The 'pod' was somewhat overrated IMO. The balls on sticks were fine.

I don't think we saw enough of the planting for me to have much opinion about
it. In fact the series about the realisation were interesting, but I missed a
final tour of the finished article. maybe there will be a follow up?

Does anyone know if it was sold, and if so where it will go ..........?

There was a summing up of Chelsea on TV tonight. It's just finished. AT
and DG went to the 'balls' garden and I saw no planting that made me want to
rush out and emulate any of it. But I did think DG was sincere in his
beliefs and perhaps a little chastened by his experience.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

On 29/5/04 6:23 pm, in article , "Joe"
wrote:

In message , Sacha
writes

Anyhow, I'm writing to the Beeb to have a general whinge about all this and
I hope others who feel the same will do so, too. Gardens in Manchester and
Spitalfields are NOT Chelsea Flower Show. A whole other programme or two
could have been made out of the totally irrelevant stuff shown during
supposed coverage of CHELSEA!

This happens year after year, too consistently to be accidental. Also,
much of the material that is shown is usually repeated. We see the same
few gardens over and over again, and many gardens and much of the
pavilion are never shown. Does anyone know if this is just down to ease
of camera positioning, or if the coverage is limited in some way in the
contract with the BBC?

I think sheer space will determine some of it but given those shoulder cams
or whatever they're called - they must be able to get to most places.
We were waiting to see the exhibit Brian Hiley did for Trevena Cross - they
got a gold but we saw damn all and he and his wife work their little socks
off for every damned show the RHS produces. That's an outrageous neglect,
IMO. Those are the people that keep the RHS shows going, all the little
shows, not just great big important Chelsea.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
wrote:

Sue wrote:
: I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty
: Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have
: particularly jarred every time I've watched:
:
: a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and
: b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/

I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real
gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners?

delurks

can someone tell me what a real gardener is?

You for a start!

Well now, had you asked for *who* is a real gardener, then contrary to the
awful "Mr Smugmarsh" reference I would say Alan Titchmarsh is a very real
gardener.
Perhaps it's his common sense touch and the earthy logical plainness of how
he seems to be expressing a deliberate simplicity of unmysterious
presentations that might irk some eonough to seeth.
If he seems a tad too smug...folly though that may be... well he has dam
well earned the right to lean out of his trolly so we can also plainly see,
someone who has done much, so very very much for this garden industry.


I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the
distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars.

Standing by Diarmuids National Lottery Garden a couple were chatting next to
me. She said something like ; oh look how the grass (lawn) sweeps under the
concrete. That is soooo new. Must be a new idea and it looks wonderful.
Everyone else would just bring it up to the edge.. How interesting! How new!

Now, suffice to say, there are a few here who might suggest she is not a
"real gardener". The term "Real gardener" probably refers to at least a
basic measure of knowledge that would enable an show observer to realise the
difference between reality and fantasy. Perhaps another title might be a
"reality" gardener
Many "garden designers" lack just such realism yet get tend to be vastly
more appreciated and recognised then "real gardeners" and so I tend to dream
up various different titles for them, none of which are really repeatable on
a newsgroup.

That said, much as they are such *******, credit where credit is due, this
years chelsea show gardens were the best yet and futhermore the judging
seems more accurate, though very tight. Too tight for argue over.

The really interesting thing about that garden would have being it's
agelessness.
Real gardener or not, we are all susceptible to first impressions.
That ahhhh factor that so many find relevant in other people's gardens (but
not their own) was created through the suberb planting design and the reason
for it's agelessness was in how that design would evoke just such a response
years down the road when the colour of the hardsurfaces has being lost to
uniform grey and maybe slippery with it. When the highly selected, amazing
uniformity of the as yet slightly underdeveloped and overpopulated plants
give way to the ravages of competition and animal tracks throughout and when
the grass running under the concrete has long sice muddied over levaing
strangly whisps of untidness.. it will still hold it's visitor's illusion.
It is when someone can see through such illusions that they might quite
mistakenly delude themselves to thinking that unlike those who have yet to
notice, s/he is a Real gardener

--
Paul C

On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:26:54 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

There was a summing up of Chelsea on TV tonight. It's just finished. AT
and DG went to the 'balls' garden and I saw no planting that made me want to
rush out and emulate any of it. But I did think DG was sincere in his
beliefs and perhaps a little chastened by his experience.

yes, Sacha, I agree.
Did any of you watch the programme 9 - 10 last night, about Capability
Brown, presented by Diarmud? I thought he did quite well.


Pam in Bristol

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
wrote:

Sue wrote:
: I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had
Monty
: Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have
: particularly jarred every time I've watched:
:
: a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera
and
: b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/

I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a
real
gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners?

delurks

can someone tell me what a real gardener is?

I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand
the
distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars.

Gardeners are the folk whose primary interest is in propagating and
cultivating the plants, including vegetables.
snip

I seem to recall that on a topic as to *what is a garden*, there was some
consensus that a gardener might be one who tends a garden from it the point
of creation &/or beyond that point.
There was no distinction offered on grounds (no pun intended) of plant type,
(veg,flower shrub,tree) or materials incorporated.

Patrick

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Janet
Baraclough.. wrote:

The message
from "Nick Wagg" contains these words:

"Robert" wrote in message
...
Sue wrote:

...but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners?

Chelsea is to gardeners as fashion shows are to those who
wear clothes.

Sorry, don't agree. The show itself is packed with fascinating plants,
ideas, exhibits and information .It's only the TV coverage, which fails
to address the needs and interests of gardeners.

That would be because the BBC audience for its Chelsea programmes
comprises a majority who are not keen gardeners. The BBC has decided to
build its audience rather than serve the needs of keen gardeners. Hence
the daytime presenter was Jenny Bond for whom this may have been her
first ever visit to Chelsea. I thought she was excellent: very
coherent, very engaging, very professional - the very kind of
professional presenting that the show has lacked in the past. Last
year's Chelsea programmes were a technical disaster. Much better this
year and it seemed to me that even Charlie Dimmock has finally had some
TV tuition. It will be better still when the Beeb finally figures out
that the incomprehensible bumbling, mumbling Diarmuid Gavin isn't cut
out for any kind of TV work.

Yes, in spiite of being Irish myself I found a few occassions when I wished
more sub titles were used to identify plants.
All it takes is a sudden sweep of a helicopter, or growing drone of a plane
at just the wrong time to botch things up.
For the most part I had no problem with Diarmuid's elecution, but then, at
other times, especially with outside interference, when, as if it was "take
23", he did seem sufficiently self consious as to induce mumbling.... just
like last year and the year before.

patrick
Simon

"Pam Moore" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:26:54 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

There was a summing up of Chelsea on TV tonight. It's just finished. AT
and DG went to the 'balls' garden and I saw no planting that made me want
to
rush out and emulate any of it. But I did think DG was sincere in his
beliefs and perhaps a little chastened by his experience.

yes, Sacha, I agree.
Did any of you watch the programme 9 - 10 last night, about Capability
Brown, presented by Diarmud? I thought he did quite well.


Pam in Bristol

I di and agree.
I think it was called Art of the Garden. My reason for mentioning its name
is that on returning from Chelsea Fl Sh last Tues evening, I made my way
back to Charring Cross via a stroll from Chelsea Bridge.
As I did so, I noticed a forthcomming exhibition at the Tate and it has a
very similar name.
Slight;y ot, I also notice a work in progress by English Landscapes and it
looks promising. I also noticed the planting outside eagle house. half of it
dieing .. well, ok,, maybe not half. It reminded me of the garden design
used around the admin section of a Las vegas hotel... but no dead plants.
An just when I assumed that by getting on the tube, I'd see no more
gardening for a while, the train just happened to stop at one station at a
point where I was looking straight at Diarmuids forthcomming new
(gardening?) book... the name of which I've already forgotton (-:

Patrick

On Sat, 29 May 2004 22:18:12 +0100, "tuin man"
wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
news
can someone tell me what a real gardener is?

You for a start!

you haven't seen the dreadful lawn and overgrown borders that I am
slowly trying to tackle.

Well now, had you asked for *who* is a real gardener, then contrary to the
awful "Mr Smugmarsh" reference I would say Alan Titchmarsh is a very real
gardener.

Well I'm glad you said that because it is really Alan Titchmarsh's books
and telly programmes that have got me interested. I know his jokey
comments are corny but for someone like me who is a bit clueless about
plants then his common touch and evident knowledge and enthusiasm are
reassuring.

I get the very real sense that people on this group - who I assume are
real gardeners by their own definition - hate programmes like Ground
Force or Garden Rivals or Small Town Gardens etc. From my viewpoint I
think they help people like me understand what is possible and also help
me work out what I like and don't like about certain design aspects.
I've also learnt lots about plants too. Still can't decide quite what
I'm going to do to my garden when it's a bit tidier though!

I also noted the evident dislike of Rachel de Thames vs Sarah Raven and
Chris Beardshaw seems to be on the group hitlist. Why? Aren't they
gardeners too?

I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the
distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars.

Standing by Diarmuids National Lottery Garden a couple were chatting next to
me. She said something like ; oh look how the grass (lawn) sweeps under the
concrete. That is soooo new. Must be a new idea and it looks wonderful.
Everyone else would just bring it up to the edge.. How interesting! How new!

Now, suffice to say, there are a few here who might suggest she is not a
"real gardener". The term "Real gardener" probably refers to at least a
basic measure of knowledge that would enable an show observer to realise the
difference between reality and fantasy. Perhaps another title might be a
"reality" gardener

Well OK I understand the issue about the grass not growing under the
concrete lip. While I don't like everything Diarmuid designs he
evidently understands plants - at least from where I sit. Does the fact
that he designs outlandish structures really make him not a gardener?

Many "garden designers" lack just such realism yet get tend to be vastly
more appreciated and recognised then "real gardeners" and so I tend to dream
up various different titles for them, none of which are really repeatable on
a newsgroup.

So you are really saying that people who design gardens on these telly
programmes don't understand plants and create designs that are
unsustainable as living gardens after the film crew leaves? I've
watched a fair few of these programmes and I haven't seen many hopeless
designs - maybe some I don't like but that doesn't mean they won't work
as gardens.

One series I liked was A Garden for all Seasons because that showed
gardens belonging to "real" people. While the presenting was a bit
wooden (ms dimmock and anne marie powell] I enjoyed seeing the gardens
that people had created and watching how they developed over the year.
There was evidently both design knowledge and horticultural knowledge
being displayed by those real people - are you (the group) saying the
design bit is not important?

I'm just trying to understand why opinions divide so sharply over things
that, to me, are not *that* important.
--
Paul C

The message
from Joe contains these words:


This happens year after year, too consistently to be accidental. Also,
much of the material that is shown is usually repeated. We see the same
few gardens over and over again, and many gardens and much of the
pavilion are never shown. Does anyone know if this is just down to ease
of camera positioning, or if the coverage is limited in some way in the
contract with the BBC?

Modern outside-broadcast (OB)crews consists of one or at most two
people on foot with a small camera on the shoulder. In other words,
there's nowhere at Chelsea which the BBC camera could not have physical
access to.So the reason each presenter keeps harping on the same garden,
is not production limitations.

I was gobsmacked that the BBC permitted Alan Titchmarsh and Diarmuid
Decongestant, to blatantly advertise their respective tailors. That kind
of prime-time, fame-associated TV exposure is worth a fortune to
brandnames. It's a far cry from the days when the BBC blanked out the
brand-name on the detergent bottle or yoghurt pot the Blue Peter
presenters were making into a birdfeeder or space rocket.

It does make one wonder about who influences production and editing
decisions at BBC Chelsea, and what motivates them.


Janet. (Married to ex-BBC broadcast engineer)