206 
[ September 2, 1886. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
on the contrary they are feeble, their main point being that they are 
not durable, and that they are liable to burst through the expansion of 
the pipes. This can be overcome by placing on the mains where the 
greatest expansion takes place, or should do, an expansion valve or 
joint. .Again, the rope with which they are first caulked will only 
last so long, and when this is gone the water, when the pipes are not 
worked, starts the metal to re-rust and expand, thus the sockets have 
to give way. This certaiuly proves that joints made of rope and the 
patent putty in the market is practically useless. Joints packed with 
this material will last six or seven years and no longer, therefore 
they must be condemned. Rope joints will do above ground, and 
with red lead will last a long time whsre there is not a great strain 
upon the pipes. Indiarubber rings will do well above ground, but 
they cannot be trusted underground on the mains or in close 
proximity to the boiler. The question arises, What are we to pack 
the joints with ? Portland cement is used largely by some firms, and 
I should not object to use this above ground. What about expansion 
when used on the mains ? for these expand more than the pipes above 
ground on account of the greater heat at -which they are frequently 
kept. Under these circumstances, then, we must go back to the rust 
joints for underground work. My opinion is that they are the best 
and most durable joints of all when properly made. Oiher systems 
are quicker, and I can understand their being employed in contract 
work. This has something to do with rust joints getting into bad 
repute, combined with the careless manner in which the joints are 
made. The metal used for packing is frequently destroyed by the 
use of too much sal ammoniac. It not only destroys the properties 
of the metal used for caulking, but that of the pipes, and with any 
extra strain the sockets burst and the joints in consequence are con¬ 
demned.. The old method cannot be too strongly recommended, for 
it is the safest and most durable. Joints have been taken out that 
were made over fifty years ago, the pipes had corroded away, but the 
joints were perfectly sound. Some idea of the durability of rust 
joints can be gained from the fact that at Norris Green some were 
made fifty years ago, as well as many others of a more recent date, 
and during the past eleven years not one of them has failed, and 
there is no sign that such has been the case since they were first 
made.— Wm. Bardney. 
(To be continued.) 
LATE GRAPES AT SUMMER SHOWS. 
Last autumn a very animated and interesting discussion took place 
in these pages respecting late Grapes being awarded prizes at August 
and September shows in preference to early or seasonable sorts. My 
contention then was, that perfectly finished Alicante, Gros Colman, 
Alnwick Seedling, and others should be placed before badly finished 
Black Hamburgh, Madresfield Court, Buckland Sweetwater, Muscat 
Hamburgh, and others. From this many dissented then, and I dare¬ 
say they will do so now ; but another year’s experience and observation 
lead me to believe that my contention and that of others who were of 
the same opinion was quite right. Of late I have been making many 
notes bearing on this subject, and I have abundance of proof that 
late Grapes have again taken the lead in the prize list. So far, no show 
of this year has equalled, far less surpassed, the one recently held at 
Shrewsbury in its display of Grapes. When we find a £10 prize offered for 
six bunches, and many other prizes in proportion, there is sure to be a 
grand exhibition of all sorts, and there were no less than 290 bunches 
staged. Here, then, was a rare opportunity of observing the exhibition 
merits of the different varieties, and the result was a system of judging 
corresponding in almost every particular with that carried out the last 
few years, followed at many other shows, and condemned by some who, I 
rather think, would have done the same had they been judging. The 
Judges at Shrewsbury were men who are thoroughly acquainted with the 
qualities of fruit. One or two of them are well known as being especially 
fond of recognising quality apart from quantity, and on the eve of the 
Shrewsbury Show one of these was heard to observe, “ I was told in 
London last autumn that the Grapes were badly judged at the Shrewsbury 
Show of 1885, as the late varieties were placed before the early and 
seasonable ones.” Being slightly interested in that matter, hut not 
wishing to make any unfair defence or partisan suggestion, 1 only replied, 
“ All right; we will see how you get on to-morrow ”—and I did. In 
the first or leading stand Alicante and Mrs. Pince were conspicuous ; 
second to these, Alicante was a heavy dish ; in the third, Alnwick 
Seedling was the best of all ; in the fourth prize lot, Lady Downe’s 
was excellent. In the three-bunch class, where eighteen lots were 
shown, including several of brown Muscat Hamburgh and partially 
green Madresfield Court, as well as various shades of Hamburgh?, Madres¬ 
field Court was first, and Alnwick Seedling second. In the first prize 
collection of fruit, Gros Maroc was deservedly a weighty dish; in the 
second prize collection, Alicante was grandly shown, and in several 
other instances late varieties were included as prizewinners, and all this 
proves conclusively in my opinion that all those who are most anxious to 
recognise what they choose to term quality are, when they come to deal 
with such cases, conscientiously obliged to put their ideal impres-ions on 
one side, and be guided solely by the merits of the individual varieties. 
I do not for a moment find fault with the judging at Shrewsbury— 
quite the reverse, as it only bears out what I have striven for, 
and what many Judges were censured for last year. It may not 
read well to be told that the Alicante was before Black Hamburgh, 
or Alnwick Seedling before Muscat Hamburgh in August, but so long 
as fine bunches, large berries, perfect colour, and a magnificent bloom, 
combined with a good flavour in each variety, are placed before judges, 
badly developed and poorly finished Hamburgh?, Muscats, and such like, 
will occupy a subordinate position in the prize list. No one would, I 
think, however, place perfect Alicantes or Lady Downe’s before perfect 
Hamburghs, or other early Grapes, and I have rarely known this to be 
done ; but in such cases as those cited above, those who sit in judgment 
would do well to reserve their opinions until they saw the fruit; or, better 
still, until they had an opportunity of adjudicating on them, which is the 
best of all ways of dispelling illusions, causing one to be guided entirely 
by the merits of the individual cases.—A Kitchen Gardener. 
SMALL ROSE GROWERS’ GRIEVANCES. 
If I venture to enter into the controversy which has been originated 
in the columns of this Journal on this subject, I do so simply as an 
observer, and not in any way in my capacity of Hon. Sec. of the National 
Rose Society, although that position gives me an opportunity of seeing 
more of these matters than most people. Much that I would say has 
been already said, but the observations 1 have to make will tend to con¬ 
firm what has been said in vindication of Rose Societies, and also to show 
that small growers have really very little to complain of. 
What is a small grower ? “ Oh,” says one Rose lover, “ I only grow 
200 or 300 plants. I have to attend to them mysell and how can I 
expect to win against people who employ a gardener or gardeners, and 
grow their thousand plants?” Let me, in reply to this, give but one 
instance that occurs to me of many. Some years ago Mr. Geo. Mount 
of Harbledon, near Canterbury, grew, as I know from personal observa¬ 
tion, 400 plants, and yet with that number, attending to them himself, 
he managed in one season to secure twenty-eight prizes—nineteen firsts, 
seven seconds, and one third. In commenting on this in the “ Rosarian’s 
Year Book for 1883,” I used the following words, which are just as appli¬ 
cable now :—“ It is always pleasant to have to record such successes, if only 
because persons have an idea that unless you grow thousands of Roses it is 
impossible to compete with any degree of success, and although in a general 
way we may say victory is on the side of big batallions, it is not always 
so.” We must think that as a Leonidas with his 300 withstood the whole 
shock of the Persian army at Thermopylae, so “ A Lady Rosarian ” may take 
courage, and with her few Roses stand the shock of many a more nume¬ 
rous host ; but then she must n it venture to enter in forty-eights or big 
classes. This is a mistake many fall into. A neighbour of mine lamented 
his want of success in showing. I knew the extent of his rosery, and ven¬ 
tured to expos ulate with him as to the classes in which he exhibited ; 
told him that he was too ambitious, and that if he would moderate his 
desires be would be more successful. He took the advice, and the result 
has this year been as I anticipated. 
But perhaps “ A Lady Rosarian ” may say, “ Four hundred Roses 1 
I have not half that number.” Well, let me give another instance. A 
gallant officer, a friend of mine, is settled in North Wales, where, like 
Cincinnatus, he has turned his sword, I will not say into a ploughshare, 
but into a pruning knife. His brother, who is an active member of our 
National Rose Society, persuaded him to try Roses. His garden is a small 
one, and he grows 168 plants, 121 H.P.’s and 47 Teas. Well, two years ago 
he began, and this year he carried off a first prize for twelve Roses at the 
National Meeting at Birmingham, beating two amateurs who bad five 
Roses to his one, and who have been Rose growers for twenty years. He 
also took a third prize for Teas. Besides the two prizes at Birmingham 
he also won at Christleton first for six Teas and third for twelve H.P’s, 
and at New Brighton first for six H.P.’s and first for six Teas ; these are 
both good shows, where there is sharp competition. Indeed, I have very 
often found that when a grower has gone on increasing his stock until it 
becomes beyond his own immediate supervision he does not meet with 
the success that he did in a more restricted area, when he was always 
peddling about amongst his plants. 
Not only does the National Rose Society, but many of its affiliated 
Societies who work on its lines adopt, as my friend, “ F. H. G.,” has 
shown, its principle of trying to give everyone a chance; but I do most 
sincerely hope it will never fall into the error of distinguishing between 
those who employ a regular gardener and those who do not. It lays the 
door open to much dishonesty, which, unhappily, many are too ready to 
practise, and, indeed, I may say that the district classes— i.e., classes 
where prizes are given for Roses grown within a certain distance of where 
the show is held—have caused the Society more trouble than any other classes 
in the schedule. Why were the classes for suburban Roses given up ? 
Because of the want of competition in the Hybrid Perpetual class, and of 
the utter rubbish shown in Teas, Mr. Oliver’s prize for these never having 
been awarded. 
Nor has our experience in district-grown Roses at our provincial exhi¬ 
bitions been without its drawbacks. In one case where a handsome 
silver cup was given, the fact of the winner living withiD the prescribed 
distance was disputed, and the Ordnance Survey Office had to bo appealed 
to to decide it. Iu another instance the most barefaced fraud was 
attempted. An exhibitor actually had the audacity to challenge the 
Committee to send out a deputation to his garden to show that he really 
did grow the Roses he exhibited, which, it was stated, had been supplied 
from a grower in a well-known Rose district, and though when be got 
them there, coolly remarked, “No; I did not grow them 1 ” and the 
