RadlyRootbound said:What traits separate "antique" roses from "modern" roses? I've never grown roses before, but I own some land that was the location of company housing for a lumber mill town over 100 years ago, and there are roses growing wild all over it. I plan to transplant some to my new home, and I also purchased some small roses that were on clearance this spring, so I'll be planting those as well. I'll be reading this forum to familiarize myself with roses, and I guess this question is a good place to start.
Radly
Roses are generally separated into three groups -- Species, Old Garden Roses, and Modern Roses. There is still overlap, since some "Species-Hybrid" groups are put under "Modern Shrubs", and others within "Old Garden Roses". Basically, if the "Species-Hybrid" group existed prior to 1867, it would get lumped with the Old Garden Roses, but those groups which came after would be with the Modern Roses. So Spinosissima Hybrids are Old Garden Roses, while Rugosa Hybrids are Modern Roses. But then, the original parent species would be under Species......
Why 1867? That's the year 'La France' was introduced, which was later christened the first of a new group -- Hybrid Teas. There were hybrids between Teas and Hybrid Perpetuals before, but for whatever reason, 'La France' was deemed "something different" and a new class was created for it, and then came many more. But some other classes which originated after 1867 are embraced by Old Garden Rose lovers more than fans of Modern Roses, even if they are technically Modern Roses. These classes include Polyanthas and Hybrid Musks, as well as the various Ramblers which came later, like the Multifloras, Wichura(ia)nas, etc. But there are also Ramblers from the Old Garden Roses, like the Sempervirens, Ayrshires, Boursaults, etc. So while we think of Ramblers as being "old", some are technically modern.
Classic examples of Modern Roses include Hybrid Teas, Floribundas, and Grandifloras. When many rose people think of "modern roses", these are the types they have in mind. But, as I mentioned, Polyanthas are also "modern", even if they've been largely superseded by the Floribundas, which came after -- and from -- them. Most tend to have an "old look" about them. Hybrid Musks are also "modern" by classification, but typically deemed "old" by comparison, since they were essentially created to recall Noisettes, which are truly Old Garden Roses.
Then there's the term "antique", which to me includes many Old Garden Roses as well as Modern Roses, but technically also excludes some Old Garden Roses. Why? Because, to me, "antique" means something at least 100 years old. So if someone bred a Gallica in the 20th or 21st Century, it would be an Old Garden Rose by definition, because it belongs to an Old Garden Rose class, but not an "antique", because it's a new individual cultivar. And since 1867 was 151 years ago, 'La France' would be considered an "antique", but still classed as a Modern Rose.
Generally, on the GardenWeb forum, I saw the division between the Antique Roses and the general Roses as being based less on the strict ARS delineation between Old Garden Roses and Modern Roses and more about one group which tended to grow roses as "flowering shrubs or climbers", and another which tended to aim for growing roses for perfection of individual blooms. I also noticed that, in general, people new to roses would be on the general Roses forum, while the Antique Roses forum tended to be populated by people who already knew roses, and drifted to the older types after. People from the Antique Roses forum would frequently pop-in on the general Roses forum when a thread about roses in general came up -- such as questions about disease, pests, getting roses to grow, propagation, etc.
Here, I don't really have a preference either way. While it was nice having one area that tended to follow my own rose preferences, I often wondered if new rose people didn't venture into the Antique Roses forum because they thought it was intimidating, or if they simply didn't know what they were. And that would be a shame, because many of the oldies are actually easier to grow than what's found at a contemporary garden retailer. So I'll be interested to see how this format works.
:-)
~Christopher
