JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. [ September a, isse. 
ess than from 4 to 44 inches in diameter, and 2^ to 2J inches deep. 
This variety produces some of the deepest flowers we have in pro¬ 
portion to the diameter of each. A smaller type is represented by 
Princess Teck, which possesses much solidity of petal; when in 
good condition 4 inches in diameter is a good size for this and 
2.4 deep. Solidity is an essential point of merit. An experienced 
judge knows at once when he sees flowers which are not solid, as 
the florets do not lay evenly over each other. Solid blooms.should 
bear squeezing between the finger and thumb without being injured 
or indented. Blooms of any particular variety which are not very 
broad in the petals are often more solid than those which have 
florets of greater breadth, these through their extra size not 
embedding so closely as do the narrower ones. Breadth of petal, 
without coarseness, is an acquisition, the breadth being due more to 
the nature of the soil used in growing the plants, and also to a low 
and damp atmosphere at the time of expansion, than to skill in 
culture. Good growers try then’ utmost to produce blooms with 
broad florets, but owing perhaps to the absence of the conditions 
named fail to achieve their object. Form is depth consistent with 
the diameter in proportion to the sizes named. Finish is the manner 
in which the flowers are dressed, whether smooth in outline or 
rough in appearance. Freshness is a point which carries more 
weight than perhaps almost any other with judges. Blooms devoid 
of freshness lose points at all times in competition, for adjudicators 
only have regard to the present condition of the blooms, taking no 
account of their state a week previously. A want of freshness can 
be detected at once, showing as it does around the bottom petals 
by discoloration and softness of the texture. Colour should be 
good in all cases, particularly the lilacs, pinks, maroons, and bronzes ; 
the yellows should be clear, as for instance orange shades of yellow 
are easily seen if they are not up to the standard ; primrose, too, is 
sometimes pale, being nearer dirty white ; the lilacs show more 
than any other want of colour, and lose their colour quickly.— 
E. Molyneux. 
(To be continued.) 
PRESTON SEEDLING AND FILBERT PINE STRAWBERRIES. 
As this is the time when most gardeners are making new plantations 
of Strawberries, and are anxious to procure the most prolific and 
remunerative sortq I wish to introduce to your numerous readers what 
appears to me, if not a new Strawberry, yet it is but little known. I have 
it by the name of Preston Seedling. It was sent here by Mr. Lovel, of the 
Strawberry Gardens, Driffield, two years ago, and it has proved to be the 
most prolific Strawberry I have met with for many years. The fruit is 
very large, though not what may be termed handsome in the strictest 
sense of the term ; the flavour is tolerably good, perhaps a little acid. 
When the fruit is quite ripe it becomes much sweeter than when gathered 
in an unripe condition. We had a good supply of fruit until the middle 
of August, when it was a useful addition to our dessert. Its chief recom¬ 
mendations are—it is an enormous cropper, and continues bearing for a 
long time. Another good useful late Strawberry is Filbert Pine. The 
fruit is medium size, cone-shaped, fine flavour, possesses a beautiful 
aroma, and continues in bearing quite as long as Preston Seedling. It is 
unquestionably one of the best late Strawberries known, and deserves a 
place in every garden.—Q. R. 
THOUGHTS ON CURRENT TOPICS. 
A very prominent topic of discussion of late has been introduced by 
“ Saxoring,” under the heading of “ Flower and Fruit Show.'.” In his 
communication on page 75 your correspondent formulated two complaints, 
the first, the alleged practice of persons buying and borrowing garden 
produce and winning prizes with it at exhibitions ; the second, the sug¬ 
gested unfairness of “ real amateurs ” having to compete at Rose shows 
with growers who have “ acres of Rose farms,” and ‘‘professional Rose 
gardeners who do all the budding and grafting.” To my mind the 
former allegation is of far the more public importance, yet it has passed 
unnoticed, while the latter seems to have caused quite a flutter of excite¬ 
ment in the Rose world, and “ Large and Small Rose Growers ” has become 
a familiar theme in the Journa'. 
I All not sure that I should not have kept my thoughts to myself on 
this subject had not Mr. W. H. Raillem pointedly alluded to me on page 
157. I do not in the least object to the association, but fail to remember 
saying or implying a “ wish not to hear anything more about Rotes till 
next midsummer.” I assure your correspondent I am such a thorough 
aim Ter of ihe Rose, and have loved it so long, that I should be very far 
from content with any such deprivation. It is quite true I am not a 
“ specialist,” and in one sense I can advance a claim that may, perhaps, 
entitle me to the honour of, say, a brief literary connection with the large 
and small growers who have so pleasanlly taken part in the discussion. 
The “ spn c e ” is that humorously indicated by “ F. H. G.,” who (page 
112) does not like to call himself a large Rose grower, because he is not 
quite (5 feet high. According to that standard I have been both a small 
and a large grower, as I could bud Roses just as well at ten years of age, 
weight perhaps 6 atones, as I could when nearly thrice that weight, and 
five times that age. Therefore I am not without a little experience. I 
have also exhibited a little, judged a little, and have had the P\ aas ” e 0 ^ 
awarding the first prize to several small and great growers, including 
Messrs. Cant, Cranston, and Canon Hole. 
I do not remember seeing the blooms of Mr. Raillem, who as ^ 3 IT j e 
what I should think of such a proceeding as the suppression of the owner s 
name from a prize card, the gardener’s alone remaining, as Mr. Dla , 
Swaggerfield Court.” I should think that if any gardener did that to 
magnify his own importance, his action would be regarded with contempt 
by all sensible men. But I have seen the owner s name erased for a 
different reason, and I daresay Mr. Raillem can conceive occasions when 
the master of a gardener would prefer not to see even the mentio 
name “ in the papers.” Every case must be decided on its ow o merits. 
I heartily wish the race of swaggering vainglorious gardeners y er ’ 
and pompous gardeners’ t >rmenters ditto, and I am glad to feel t a 
•‘dying out.” And now having answered the question propounded, 1 w 
X__ of ovliiViitimT 
I heartily sympathise, as many a “great” Rose grower will, wi 
their smaller, but not less earnest, brother who has to be absent trom l 
garden from 8.20 A.M. till 6.40 P.M., and with a salary too small to allow 
him to engage help in growing his Roses, and who, when he exbitn s 
the Crystal Palace, bas to compete against a gardener to a gentleman wno 
has a large estate, and others similarly situated. The 1 small Ros 
grower” is severely handicapped under those circumstances no aourn, 
just an the small tradesman is handicapped by the big merchant, ana l 
the former cannot, successfully compete with the latter on his own groun 
he mutt take his goods to another market. Let our friend search tor ana 
find a local show where the giants do not appear, and after he succeeas 
there take a step upwards. If he cannot win prizes at the smaller s ows 
it is hopeless his attempting to do so at great gatherings of a national 
character. The directors of the Crystal Palace will make no special 
classes for “ amateurs who do not have assistance more than two ays a 
week.” Such restrictions only work well at very local shows, it then, 
where “ everybody knows everybody else,” and are quite mappUcab e 
large exhibitions open to competitors from all parts of the country. 
Ip I am not under a misapprehension some of the mist famous ex i- 
bitors of Roses in the amateur classes do not employ a gardener two days 
a week, nor even one day. Many have time “ of their own, no dou , 
to attend to their plants, but that fact would not, nor could not, excim e 
them from the classes proposed ; and as for the “ bar-gardener classes, 
that would be of no practical advantage to the present complainants in 
the face of so many real amateurs who can well hold their own against 
the best of the blue aprons. The only practical suggestion, as it appears 
to me, that has yet appeared for giving small growers better opportuni¬ 
ties for distinguishing themselves, is that of “F. H.G., ’ on page o , 
of increasing as far as possible the limitation classes—that is, Raving 
certain classes which are not open to competitors in others that are 
stipulated. That is an established system at many shows, but it mignt 
perhaps be extended without weakening the displays, and at the same 
time bring in a few more exhibitors. 
I AM inclined to think that more classes for twelve blooms might be 
provided with advantage, only allowing the same exhibitors to enter in 
two or three of them. In most or all large shows Bix classes ot twelve 
blooms would be filled well—-namely, twelve Roses distinct, any varie les , 
twelve Hybrid Perpetuals, distinct; twelve Teas and Noisettes, distinct ; 
then the same number of blooms in three other classes in not less than 
nine varieties; the prizes in the three latter trio to be of somewhat 
lesser value, and closed against exhibitors in the former. There are 
dozens of persons able to cut twelve good blooms in nine varieties that 
could not stage twelve distinct. The higher prizes for the latter wou 
induce competitors to enter them who were able to do so, while t e 
“ nines ” would invite new and smaller growers. This plan answers well 
at Chrysanthemum shows ; and in some of these there are classes for sti 
smaller growers—namely, for six distinct blooms, and six blooms in three 
varieties in the different sections. By some such plan as that room wou 1 
be found for the smallest of small Rose growers, and the more that can be 
induced to enter the lists the better, for the more earnest would not long 
remain content in the minimums, but would aim higher, and make room 
for other beginners in turn. I should like to see “small Rose growers 
encouraged in every possible and practicable way ; but “ D Deai, who 
is at least as earnestly desirous as I can be to bring the greatest number 
into the fold, shows conclusively, on page 206, that the object cannot be 
attained by provisions and conditions which are essentially indefiuit“, 
expansive, and open to misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and abuse. 
The mention of “D., Deal," reminds me of an observation over that 
signature in a report of a flower show which carried my thoughts back to 
a circumstance which showed that your correspondent’s taste, in respe t 
to flowers, differs very widely from that of a Royal Trincess. Cockscombs 
are described on page 162 as “hateful things.” The miserable abortions 
that are often seen I admit are the reverse of fascinating ; but when per¬ 
fection of culture is developed in a select strain, the result is not 
“ hateful ” to everybody. At the show to which I allude, and which was 
under Royal patronage, half a dozen Cockscombs commanded general 
attention, and Her Royal Highness was so delighted with them as to 
express a desire lo have such plants. It is scarcely necessary to say that 
a choice of them was placed at the Royal lady’s disposal, and plants were 
graciously accepted and much prized. Cockscombs grown as these were 
