320 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ April 28, 1802. 
variety, white, rtreakel with crimson ; Duchess of Portland, white, with 
broad flakes of deep carmine-crimson, large flowers ; Fascination, white 
streaked with crimson; Princess Dagmar, crimson, white flakes ; 
Ariadne, white, streaked rosy crimson, fine bold flower; Lothair, stout 
scape bearing four blooms, rich scarlet; Model, rich crimson, fine 
shape ; Dazzle, crimson, white throat; and a seedling of the Empress of 
India type, as yet unnamed, of fine vigorous habit, with a strong scape 
bearing four flowers of fine form, rich crimson in colour, were the best. 
If space permitted detailed mention might be made of Crotons, 
Dracjenas, Palms, Ferns, Caladiums, Pitcher Plants, and many other 
features of the Victoria Nurseries, but it must suffice to say that all are 
extensively and well grown, a pleasure to those who inspect them, and 
a credit to the firm. That a visit would be well repaid no one need 
doubt, and it is bard to think that anything would be gained by 
delaying it.—P. 
Mb. W. J. Grant. 
I AM sure very many readers of the Journal, especially the rosarians, 
will rejoice to hear that I this morning had a letter written by Mr. 
Grant himself, saying that he was regaining strength, and hoped to get to 
work some time next month, and that he looked forward to meeting 
his friends at the Tea and Noisette Exhibition on June 21st. When we 
consider the terrible nature of the injuries he received and the 
almost hopeless condition in which he laid for many weeks, we cannot 
but look upon his recovery as marvellous, and I am sure very many 
will welcome the news and look forward to meeting him again.—D., Deal. 
Judging Roses. 
While making no claim to be included among “our leading rosa¬ 
rians,” I yet venture to write a line upon the question raised by Mr. 
Biron in your last issue, because, with a new Rose campaign just before 
us, it is one of importance to both judges and exhibitors. 
Three points are generally taken as the highest number to be 
awarded to any one bloom, and when officiating as a judge these points 
have always been allotted, in my mind—one for form, one for colour, 
one for size. If a bloom possesses all three of these qualities it should 
take the three points; if one quality is missing it would have two 
points, while if two were absent only one point would be given. If, 
therefore, the bloom were full-sized and of good form, but faded in 
colour, I would still give it two points, while if the colour were gone 
and size also under the standard I would give it one only. 
I think that in competing stands “good” and “ bad” should be 
taken as comparative, not as absolute terms. For a bloom to attain to 
the former rank it should possess all good qualities, while for it to be 
relegated to the latter category it should be devoid of them all, not 
merely have lost one of them in a greater or lesser degree. I remember 
hearing of a horse dealer who, upon being told by a rival to take home 
his animal as of no use, ‘ He’s one of the ‘ has been’s,’ ” retorted, “ Well, 
even at that he’s better than yours, for he belongs to the ‘ never wases,’” 
and in the matter of competing Roses I agree with him. A “ has been ” 
is certainly better than a “ never was,” for it is frequently only the 
half hour which the judges are late in commencing their work which 
causes the slight fading or other deterioration of an otherwise perfect 
bloom. 
I have not Dean Hole’s famous book at hand to refer to, but I have a 
distinct impression that he urges beginners in Rose showing not to hesitate 
to st<ge a fine bloom because there is just a possibility of its being too 
far gone by judging time, and I believe he guarantees to his pupils the 
indulg- nce of all good judges for such flowers. I trust that we shall be 
favoured with the opinions of other judges and exhibitors upon these 
points, and that the discussion may result in a greater uniformity in the 
judging at future shows.—J. B. 
Before answering my friend Mr. Biron’s question I should very 
much like to know what is his definition of a “ fad“.d Rose.” I think 
all growers of H.P.’s have to mourn over the fact that their Roses (many 
of them at least) which are put on the exhibition table were not cut the 
night before, and if after a person has got his flowers wired and ready to 
start he goes out into his garden and cuts the same variety in the same 
age of blooming, he will probably feel disgusted at the difference. If, 
then, any fading of colour, any “ flying,” as it is sometimes called, be 
considered to stamp a flower as a faded flower, I fear that a great 
many of the Roses at our shows would fall under that stigma. Will 
Mr. Biron, then, kindly define a faded flower ?—D., Deal. 
I HAD an interesting correspondence last year with my friend, Mr. 
Biron, on the subject on which he now writes to the Journal; but 
owing no doubt to denseness on my part we did not, I believe, under¬ 
stand each other. I think there is really very little difference of opinion 
between us, but somehow or other we could not seem to see it. Now, for 
instance, I do not see any real difference between the two opinions he 
cites and wherein he finds a difficulty. 1, “ That a faded flower of good 
form is entitled to one or two points ; ” and 2, “ That such a flower is a 
bad one, and should have one or two points taken from it.” Taking 
three points as the standard according to the rules, these apparently 
opposite opinions actually coincide ; the one takes one or two points 
(from three), and the other gives one or two points (but not, of course, 
to three), and the result is absolutely the same—one or two points. 
The only phrase I should object to is, “a bad one.” The instructions of 
the N.R.S. to judges naturally show what constitutes a “good’’Rose 
and what a “ bad ” one, but it is plain that there must be degrees of 
goodness and badness ; otherwise every Rose would get three points or 
none at all. Thus a faded Rose of good form would perhaps have some 
goodness to prevent your giving it no points, and perhaps some badness 
to prevent your giving it three. 
My second, perhaps, would imply that a faded Rose might have the 
full three points which I hope to show is not uncommonly done. Suppose 
we divide faded Roses into three classes. The worst, I should say, 
would be the “ burnt ” dark Roses. A Reynolds Hole or Dr. Sewell 
with any of that brown stain across its velvet sheen would be seriously 
disfigured, it would not take much of it to have the blooms pointless. 
In the second class would be the ordinary forms of fading. Alfred Colomb 
or Marie Baumann paler and duller than the type would generally 
entail the loss of at least one point according to degree ; while Duke of 
Edinburgh a few hours too old, with less of the scarlet and more of 
the crimson, would be a more venial offender. In the third class would 
be all Tea Roses, except pure white ones. Little heed is taken, I fancy, 
of how generally, almost universally, these Roses are exhibited in a 
faded condition. 
All pink or yellow Teas are more or less faded when grown out of 
doors and not most carefully shaded by artificial means ; for instance, 
how many Mardchal Niels, Boule d’Ors, and Madame Hostes of yellows, 
or Souvenir d’un Amis and Catherine Mermets of pink, are shown as 
deeply coloured on the outer petals as within ? And that they are not 
thus whole coloured is merely the result of fading from the outset as 
soon as the calyx turns back, as may be seen under glass or careful 
shading. May I n&t truly say that I have very rarely seen a medal 
Tea bloom that was not more or less faded ? This early fading out of 
doors is, by the way, no doubt the reason why so many practically white 
Teas are described as anything but white in the catalogues, the descrip¬ 
tion has been taken from the first specimens grown under glass. My 
idea, therefore, is that the number of points that should be taken from 
a faded Rose is entirely a question of manner and degree of fading, 
which cannot be accurately described or limited, but must remain 
to a certain extent as a consideration of taste and experience.—W. R. 
Raillem. 
THOUGHTS ABOUT TOMATOES. 
No doubt the written thoughts of Mr. W. P. Wright on page 179 set 
many other persons thinking. The subject is very wide, and there is 
plenty of room for various opinions and theories. The past few years 
have made the chances of success rather small, and many growers will 
pause this season before devoting so much ground or house room to their 
culture as formerly. But there is this encouragement to be remembered, 
in our variable climate we are just as likely to have a good season as a 
bad one. When growers remember the heavy crops of the Jubilee year 
they are reluctant to throw up the chance of experiencing another such 
season. Year after year the plants are carefully prepared, and the only 
return is disappointment. I much question whether we shall ever have 
such a remunerative crop as in 1887, for it appears to me the disease 
has covered the country. It is only a few years ago that it appeared 
confined to certain districts, but at the present time it is general. 
Mr. Wright appears to think they will be a paying crop for many 
years to come. It may be so, but I am strongly of opinion that the 
actual growers will never reap the harvest from this crop that they have 
done in past years. There are so many acres of glass devoted to the 
cultivation of Tomatoes at the present time, that in the possible event 
of a good season the prices would fall so low that returns would barely 
pay expenses. You may take it for granted, that when the largest 
growers in this country begin to “edge off” by taking up fresh lines, 
they have found the crop is not so profitable, or that they can 
make more money in other ways. Of course all the small growers 
follow the example of the leaders, consequently everybody has been 
taking up Tomatoes, with the result that the large growers are looking 
out for something better. The crops may still pay, but the returns are 
far below the prices realised five years ago. The British public, or 
perhaps I ought to say a large section of it, will only patronise a certain 
class of produce so long as there is nothing better, but if once a better 
form is produced the sooner growers give up the old variety the better it 
will be for their pocket. 
It is not many years ago that the major portion of market men only 
grew the corrugated section of fruit, as Trophy, Large Red, Northumber¬ 
land Red, and others, because they obtained a greater yield. Now the 
smooth round varieties have become known the rougher forms are 
neglected. If top prices are to be realised the smooth varieties must be 
cultivated. If we take a look round the best fruiterers’ shops in London, 
or any large provincial town, the smooth varieties are in greatest 
abundance. A retail man told me last season his customers would not 
have the corrugated forms while the round ones were obtainable. This 
has handicapped the producer to a certain extent, for it is an undisputed 
fact they do not carry such heavy crops as their coarser compeers. 
