In article , Sally Thompson
writes

Two years ago we bought a Paul's Himalayan Musk to go over our rose
arch. Last year it bloomed well, was fragrant, and looked just like
the pictures of this variety. However, although this year it is
obviously about to flower, it is not climbing at all. In the David
Austin catalogue (not where we bought it) it is listed as vigorous, so
I'm a bit puzzled. Does anyone else know if they are slow to get
going? The other possibiliity, of course, is that we don't have a
climber at all but have been sold a look-alike.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'it is not climbing at all'. Are we
talking about the rose here? Or is there some other PHM? If it is the
rose, do you mean that you don't have any long non-flowering new shoots?
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

Sally Thompson wrote:
: Two years ago we bought a Paul's Himalayan Musk to go over our rose
: arch. Last year it bloomed well, was fragrant, and looked just like
: the pictures of this variety. However, although this year it is
: obviously about to flower, it is not climbing at all. In the David
: Austin catalogue (not where we bought it) it is listed as vigorous, so
: I'm a bit puzzled. Does anyone else know if they are slow to get
: going? The other possibiliity, of course, is that we don't have a
: climber at all but have been sold a look-alike.

do you have an open soil, I just wondered if it the roots were contained in
some way?

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:33:28 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Sally Thompson
writes

Two years ago we bought a Paul's Himalayan Musk to go over our rose
arch. Last year it bloomed well, was fragrant, and looked just like
the pictures of this variety. However, although this year it is
obviously about to flower, it is not climbing at all. In the David
Austin catalogue (not where we bought it) it is listed as vigorous, so
I'm a bit puzzled. Does anyone else know if they are slow to get
going? The other possibiliity, of course, is that we don't have a
climber at all but have been sold a look-alike.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'it is not climbing at all'. Are we
talking about the rose here? Or is there some other PHM? If it is the
rose, do you mean that you don't have any long non-flowering new shoots?

Yes, sorry Kay, I realise that I didn't specify it was a rose. It is
growing happily but not beginning to climb over the arch. Are we
being too impatient do you think?



--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Reply To address is spam trap

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
wrote:

Sally Thompson wrote:
: Two years ago we bought a Paul's Himalayan Musk to go over our rose
: arch. Last year it bloomed well, was fragrant, and looked just like
: the pictures of this variety. However, although this year it is
: obviously about to flower, it is not climbing at all. In the David
: Austin catalogue (not where we bought it) it is listed as vigorous, so
: I'm a bit puzzled. Does anyone else know if they are slow to get
: going? The other possibiliity, of course, is that we don't have a
: climber at all but have been sold a look-alike.

do you have an open soil, I just wondered if it the roots were contained in
some way?

Well, the rose is planted in a home-made planter which is very large
(about 3ft by 18 inches), so I wouldn't have thought that would
contain the roots. We originally saw this rose going mad over a
similar arch, so hoped to achieve the same effect in time - now we are
wondering if the nursery actually sold us a different (non-climbing)
variety, although it looks exactly like the pictures on the David
Austin web site.


--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Reply To address is spam trap

On 20/6/04 8:53 pm, in article , "Sally
Thompson" wrote:

snip Well, the rose is planted in a home-made planter which is very large
(about 3ft by 18 inches), so I wouldn't have thought that would
contain the roots. We originally saw this rose going mad over a
similar arch, so hoped to achieve the same effect in time - now we are
wondering if the nursery actually sold us a different (non-climbing)
variety, although it looks exactly like the pictures on the David
Austin web site.


That's your problem. Container.
Roses are very greedy feeders and a vigorous climber is NOT going to remain
happy in a planter. Just think of the size of the mature plant in
comparison to its 'bed'. How would you contain a giant in a bed that size?
;-)
They like to get their feet down and wide and pick up a LOT of nutrients
from the soil around them. That's why rose growers feed them horse manure
etc. 3' x 18" is barely a baby crib for such a rose.
That's why some roses are known as patio roses - they'll take such small
confines. Vigorous climbers won't. Move it into open ground this autumn,
prune it back, feed it well and you'll have a happy plant next spring.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds after garden to email me)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:35:21 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 20/6/04 8:53 pm, in article , "Sally
Thompson" wrote:

snip Well, the rose is planted in a home-made planter which is very large
(about 3ft by 18 inches), so I wouldn't have thought that would
contain the roots. We originally saw this rose going mad over a
similar arch, so hoped to achieve the same effect in time - now we are
wondering if the nursery actually sold us a different (non-climbing)
variety, although it looks exactly like the pictures on the David
Austin web site.


That's your problem. Container.
Roses are very greedy feeders and a vigorous climber is NOT going to remain
happy in a planter. Just think of the size of the mature plant in
comparison to its 'bed'. How would you contain a giant in a bed that size?
;-)
They like to get their feet down and wide and pick up a LOT of nutrients
from the soil around them. That's why rose growers feed them horse manure
etc. 3' x 18" is barely a baby crib for such a rose.
That's why some roses are known as patio roses - they'll take such small
confines. Vigorous climbers won't. Move it into open ground this autumn,
prune it back, feed it well and you'll have a happy plant next spring.

Ah - we hadn't realised that. It is actually quite a deep container,
waist high I suppose, and full of horse manure - however, we will do
as you suggest. Thanks for the advice.


--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Reply To address is spam trap

"Sally Thompson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:33:28 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Sally Thompson
writes

I'm not sure what you mean by 'it is not climbing at all'. Are we
talking about the rose here? Or is there some other PHM? If it is the
rose, do you mean that you don't have any long non-flowering new shoots?

Yes, sorry Kay, I realise that I didn't specify it was a rose. It is
growing happily but not beginning to climb over the arch. Are we
being too impatient do you think?
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK

I am surprised that it has not tried to grow even in a container (far from
ideal for this giant of a rose. My cuttings are usually about 4" in the
spring in 7cm pots, by May they are 4' and I pray to have sold them all by
now as its impossible to keep control beyond end of June! and that's in a
1.5lt pot. I have them on their own roots and wonder whether that may be
your problem, yours will probably be budded onto a rootstock, a grower like
D Austin would use a R multiflora stock for a big rambler but if has been
put on a R laxa stock (standard for bush roses) that would certainly slow it
up.
In any event I agree with Sacha long term a pot is no place for this rose,
so if you are replanting try putting it in deep and hoping it will form its
own roots.

--
Charlie, gardening in Cornwall.
http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs)