COLOR CHARTS FOR GARDENERS 
FLETCHER STEELE, F. A. S. L. A. 
Member-at-Large, Garden Club of America 
Editor's Note: — Color description of flowers is one of the greatest uncertainties, not to say annoyances of gardening. It has 
intrigued the fancy of many writers and the possibility of settlement still seems quite remote. One seriously disturbing factor is that 
different people actually see color differently ; in other words the sensation we call color varies with each individual. At the same time 
any near approach to a universal standard color nomenclature would unquestionably be welcomed by all. 
VVAtHAT color is Aubrietia Leichtlinii?” asked Cousin Fanny. 
Then the fuss began. “ Look in the ‘ English Flower 
Garden.’ That has everything.” This from Mother. 
Uk'/oS Quiet for a few minutes. 
“William Robinson must know a lot, but he left out some 
important information about Aubrietia deltoidea Leichtlinii,” 
finally came from my gardening cousin. 
Father went for the “Century Book of Gardening” which 
is his final authority because he bought it himself in London. 
“It’s here,” he said condescendingly, “but 1 guess the color 
is unimportant. It just says rose.” 
The “Cyclopedia of Horticulture” said “pink flowers.” A 
nursery catalogue said “ pretty shade of deep pink.” Reginald 
Farrer in his rock garden book called it crimson. Finally 
Fanny bull-dozed little Dick to run across the street for “The 
Garden Month by Month.” 
“‘Pink 31, deeper and redder.’ What does that mean? 
Oh yes, the colors are in the front. Where’s 31? — Well of all 
ghastly horrors! Bright magenta! Why it can’t be. There 
must be some mistake. If only I had a sample of the true 
color right here in my hand!” 
C OUSIN Fanny’s difficulty was foreseen by many a deep 
student and the end of color classification and the making 
of color charts is not yet. Even when many of the schemes, 
French, German, English, and American have been studied by 
the gardener, but little of practical use is found. We can get 
charts, however, and if we insist that the nurseries describe 
their plants by a recognized color chart as a standard for the 
common use of all, we may soon solve the problem. 
Classification of Colors 
T HE most useful and simple scheme of color classification is 
that of Dr. Denman W. Ross, of Harvard University. 
He is primarily interested in the color combinations and tone 
relations of the painter. In order to elucidate his theories it was 
first necessary to create a standard of nomenclature by which 
any hue, value and intensity of color could be expressed ac- 
curately in terms abbreviated so as to become shorthand 
symbols. He has succeeded so well that it is now possible, with 
a photograph and a dozen hieroglyphics, for a student to re- 
produce with surprising fidelity the colors of a painting which 
he has never seen. 
His elementary scheme divides the values from white to 
black nine times: White (Wt), High Light (H Lt), Light (Lt), 
Low Light (L Lt), Middle (M), High Dark (H D), Dark (D), 
Low Dark (L D), and Black (Blk). It is based on a completed 
circuit of the spectrum of colors: Red (R), Orange (O), Yellow 
(Y), Green (G), Blue (B), and Violet (V), with their inter- 
mediates Red Orange (R O), Violet Red (V R), etc. It divides 
color intensity into four parts (e. g. brightest possible red, red 
one half or three quarters less bright, etc., always of the same 
value). There are other divisions of color-neutralization 
which we do not need to consider here. 
To define any tone one must name its value, its color and the 
degree of color intensity (neutralization). Doctor Ross gives 
the following example. 
ROTN 
VR 
“This means that a spot of Violet Red (Dark, full intensity) 
is put on a ground-tone of Middle Red-Orange, half neutralized.” 
It would be impossible to describe better the petals of certain 
Oriental Poppies. 
Once understood, it is easy to subdivide the terms in any 
direction. A color between Orange- Yellow and Yellow, a little 
nearer orange would be Orange Orange Yellow, and so on. 
Obviously such a scheme used to describe flowers which also 
included the exact green of their foliage, would be of immense 
use to flower lovers. Moreover, it would do away with any 
necessity of carrying about a color chart. A gardener visiting 
a show or another garden would be able to describe accurately 
any flower color with four or five letters and figures, no matter 
how complicated. But there is one real disadvantage in this 
scheme for the average man. It requires considerable study 
to master the details in the first place. 
Colored charts are not published with any of Doctor Ross’ 
books. He made a careful study of color printing and con- 
cluded that printed color was likely to change with time and 
exposure to light, even if accurate reproductions of color tones 
could be made. This conclusion of an expert should be re- 
membered by the owners of color charts, who should use all 
possible care not to leave them unnecessarily exposed to the 
light. Moreover, it would be well to compare them, say at 
five-year intervals, with some standard by which any fading or 
changing color could be noted. 
Chart Made for Florists 
T HE simplest chart made for use in matching flower colors 
was arranged by F. Schuyler Mathews for the use of 
florists. It is called, “A Chart of Correct Colors for Flowers,” 
and was published as a supplement to the American Florist, 
August 17th, 1895. On one white sheet are printed thirty-six 
small squares of named and numbered colors. By removing the 
printing it can be mounted on linen, folded over once, and 
fitted easily into a pocket. 
The colors are harsh, but at least they are definite. Of the 
light tones only the yellows are good. But the darker reds, 
violets, and purple are helpful for charting certain plants. 
It was used by my fellow landscape architect, Harold Hill 
Blossom, in making his invaluable “List of Hybrid Lilacs” 
( Landscape Architecture, Vol. V., No. 3,) at the Arnold Arbore- 
tum. He does not recommend its use with Rhododendrons. 
He finds it of doubtful value for Asters and Gladiolus, as it lacks 
discrimination in mauve tints and in distinctions between scarlet 
and pink. He finds it passable for Phlox except for scarlet 
and crimson shades. Otherwise the chart is too limited to be 
worth much trouble. The main point in its favor is con- 
venience. 
T HE “Chart Showing the Colors of Garden Flowers” 
(bound in with “The Garden Month by Month”) by Mabel 
Cabot Sedgwick is next better for ordinary use. Here we 
find sixty-three blocks of printed color, rather well graded, on a 
white background. The pale yellows and one or two pale pinks 
and pale lilacs are fairly good. The blues are better repre- 
sented than in the Mathews chart. The reds, magentas, and 
violets are rather useful. But on the whole only the most 
superficial observers will be satisfied with the results obtained 
185 
