September 27, MSS. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
287 
■same footing. Yet this is hardly the case ; the imbricated and the 
•globular with high centre are the most admired forms, while the true 
cupped shape has fallen into disrepute. I say the true cupped shape, 
because Baroness Rothschild, which is figured in the N.R.S. Catalogue 
as the type, is hardly what used to be called a cupped Rose. I should 
perhaps have taken Coupe d’H6bd as more nearly representing the 
cupped type, and I remember once seeing a bloom of Anna de Diesbach, 
which was a most perfect cup, well filled up at the bottom, yet most 
Tegular and smooth in outside, inside, and edge ; a prettier object by 
far, I thought, for the eye to rest on than the silver cup which it helped 
fo win. Such a bloom is a hundred times more difficult to get than a 
perfectly imbricated A. K. Williams, or a perfect globular high centre 
Innocente Pirola. _ 
Regularity and smoothness of outline are of course necessary to 
perfect beauty of form, but how are judges to deal with the five 
•different types ? Are they, or are they not, to consider each perfect in 
its way 1 A case occurred this season in which I had the misfortune to 
•differ from brother judges. A celebrated amateur, a much better 
judge than myself, was the teller. He passed over a bloom of Heinrich 
Schultheis with 0 to its credit. I demurred. It was a good bloom in 
my estimation, regular and smooth in outline, the two outer rows of 
petals fairly expanded, the remainder standing well and regularly up ; 
but, and here was the difficulty, the upstanding part of the bloom 
formed a cup—a good cup-^well filled up at the bottom, and showing 
no pretence of an eye, but still it was hollow in the centre where it 
ought to have been high my confreres said, and I could not get one point 
for it. I called it a globular Rose with cupped centre, and opposed the 
dictum that'a bloom should have no points because it was hollow in the 
centre, or what became of the cupped form 1 However, I was in the 
minority, poor Schultheis got no points, and the stand, by a very little, 
lost the first prize. _ 
Again, in judging triplets of Teas two stands were nearly equal, but 
there was a bad triplet in each. In the first the triplet was certainly 
faulty, as it was stained and dirty; the doubtful triplet in the other was 
Jules Finger, and when one of my colleagues pronounced them the best, 
7 objected that they were doubtful in shape, and livid and ugly in 
■colour. “ Yes,” he replied, “ but that is the nature of the beast,” which 
I was constrained to admit is true. But ought we not to judge blooms 
.as they are according to a standard of perfection, and to make no 
allowance for “ the nature of the beast ? ” 
On these two occasions I had the misfortune to differ from my 
brother judges, but at least I had the courage of my opinions, which is 
not always the case. At a cottagers’ show held recently in a small 
Tillage the Judges were Mr. A, head gardener at the big place with a 
fair staff under him ; Mr. B, gardener in a smaller establishment, who 
has but one subordinate ; and Mr. C, the “ parson’s man.” All worked 
most harmoniously during the early part of the judging, Mr. A acting 
*s teller, and finding his awards duly confirmed by the other two. At 
last Mr. C ventured to differ, and appealed t.o Mr. B, whose confirma¬ 
tions hitherto had been mostly mute ones. His answer was characteristic, 
I fear, of a not uncommon spirit at a small local show—“ Oh ! I always 
goes with Mr. A ! ” It was just as well perhaps, for A is a competent 
painstaking and, conscientious Judge, but it was “ rough ” upon C, who 
was evidently in a hopeless minority throughout, if he should venture 
to differ, and, but for the look of the thing, might as well have gone 
home at once. _ 
I still find it a grievance, both as exhibitor and judge, that so much 
latitude is allowed as to the size of boxes and the distance between the 
blooms ; and I still think it would be better and fairer for judges, 
exhibitors, and the public if there was to be one uniform size each for 
■sixes, twelves, eighteens, and twenty-fours, and one agreed-upon distance 
■between the blooms. A smaller distance might be allowed for Teas, 
and a uniform plan be adopted for triplets. I am bound to add that I 
•can only call to mind one person whom I have overwhelmed by my 
■arguments and induced to agree with me on this subject, and I believe 
he is neither an exhibitor nor a judge. 
The practice of manipulating, or “dressing” Rose blooms for show is 
undoubtedly increasing, and has probably received additional impetus 
this year from the ungenial weather, which prevented the blooms from 
opening naturally. How far the practice may or may not be desirable 
is rather a difficult question. A purist, with no experience in the 
•matter, would probably declaim against it at once, as a silly sacrilege, 
as bad as “ painting the Lily." On further inquiry, however, he would 
probably find that an opening bud may be honestly, really, and naturally 
thus improved. The handle of a budding knife is the instrument 
generally used, though a pencil in certain hands is accustomed to work 
wonders. The great thing is to get the outside petals down. It is little 
use interfering with the inner ones except by blowing upon them. 
1 have said that an opening bud may be thus naturally improved. 
Rut it may also, if the expression is allowable, be unnaturally improved. 
There are certain Roses, of which Madame Willermoz is one of the most 
noticeable, with whom it is not natural that the outer petals should 
turn down. And 1 confess, though I am somewhat loth to do so, that 1 
think it a defect in this Rose that the outer petals continue to stand up 
so straight, and that it seems to me an improvement, though certainly 
not a natural one, when they are carefully and cleverly turned down. 
The outside petals are often stained and discoloured, while pure as snow 
within, and dressing would of course greatly improve the appearance in 
respect of colour and cleanness alone. I call to mind a triplet of 
Madame Willermoz at one of the principal shows this year, which, owing 
to extensive and audacious turning down of the outer petals, looked 
lovely against its weather-stained neighbours. But how far should this 
be allowed ? for they certainly did not look like Madame Willermoz. The 
character of the Rose was entirely altered. 
There are other Roses, such as Madame Eugene Verdier, H.P., of 
this shape, which I should called “ semi-cupped ” rather than 
“ globular,” with whom it is not natural that the outside petals 
should turn down: but because it is unnatural, I do not think it 
necessarily follows that it is no improvement. Florists think they 
can improve on Nature, and surely they very often do, by hydridis- 
ing, training, and cultivation. However, the turning down of petals 
received a slight check at a country Rose Show this season. Two 
beautiful H.P.’s were being compared with each other by the Judges, 
in competition for the silver medal for best H.P. The owner of one of 
these Roses, which we will call a Reynolds Hole, was anxiously watching 
the proceedings from outside, through the open door of the tent. Great 
was his dismay when the Judge who held his Rose passed his o her hand 
slowly and suspiciously up round it from beneath. Click ! back when 
the creased-down petals like released springs, and Reynolds Hole and its 
owner were “ shut up ” together. 
I do not, of course, mean that there was any deception on the part 
of the exhibitor, or that he had done anything wrong or underhanded. 
“ They all do itI do it myself. Competition is very keen, and, to be 
successful, the exhibitor must be like the two special coachmau friends 
of the elder Mr. Weller—“ up to all manner of games. ’ It would be 
very difficult to legislate successfully against dressing, even if it were 
universally disapproved of. And yet I think if we were to come to 
have instruments for dressing Roses regularly figured and advertised, as 
is done for Dahlias and Chrysanthemums, we should feel a little shame. 
Where are we to draw the line l —W. R. Raillem. 
RESTORING UNHEALTHY ROSES. 
Is it ever worth while to attempt to restore an old and sickly Rose ? I 
think not. I have often tried it, though not on Mr. Bardney’s plan, and 
never have succeeded in doing more than galvanising them into life for 
a year or two. If the Rose grown generally shows signs of going off, I 
suppose there is nothing for it but shifting the whole stock to some 
virgin soil if you can get it; but if, as is usual in an old ground, only a 
few keep going back every year, my plan has been to dig up the old 
plant, making a large hole, and exchange the soil with a barrowload 
from the kitchen garden, and then plant either a good stock or a new 
plant. Even in the first case I am practically sure of a good young 
plant the next summer but one, while no plan could secure a good bloom 
earlier, and even then the plant would be an old one ready to slip 
through your fingers at an early day. — Duckwing. 
R03ES ON THE MANETTI STOCK AT NEWTOWNARD3. 
Mb. D. Gilmoue, jun., and “ S. S.” seem (page 262) to entertain 
rery incorrect views of my reference to Messrs. Dickson s Roses in 
ny article descriptive of what I saw in their nurseries there less than 
i month ago, when having a holidav run in the North of Ireland and 
Scotland. I am not, I need hardly say, remotely interested in one 
Jose stock more than another, and I only attempted to describe what 
; saw, and what any visitor could see. I propose, like Mr. Gilmour, 
un., to consult your space, and first briefly refer to his and “ 3. S. s 
lotes, and then to make a few general observations. As to the latter, 
le says, “ I long since came to the conclusion the Manetti is worse 
ban useless, except for manufacturing yearly Roses ; for if most Roses 
i.annot live without it they will not live with it in many soils,’ and then 
le finishes a rather surprising sentence by saying in the last,clause 
< some good Roses have gone out of cultivation chiefly through it, men- 
;ioning for illustration Olivier Delhomme and Marie Baumann. 1 must 
Read ignorance of Olivier Delhomme ; and Marie Baumann, I am per- 
lonally aware, has not gone out of cultivation, nor is the Manetti so 
1 hateful to it ” as he seems to think. What is meant by 1 manufac- 
;uring yearly Roses r” Is the insinuation that Rose growers bud on the 
Manetti purposely to last a year, and that a new stock must be pur- 
ihased the following year if the Rose supply is to be maintained l 
im justified in putting this construction on it, for your humorous 
lorrespondent, D. Gilmour, jun., says, “ after the first year the grow 
ind the blooms become small by degrees and beautifully le . ss “ntd death 
doses the painful scene 1” and lest I, or any other benighted • Rose 
manufacturer, to last one year,” should not be demolished by this poetic 
ntastrophe, he warningly intimates, “ I could go on pitching into th 
Manetti over several sheets.” 
I am sure any reader who has been a careful student of his lacy 
style and fertile imagination will take this readily for granted. I wi 
lispose of my reference to the brief note of “ S. S.’ by asking you o 
nvite him to give an explanation to your Rose-loving readers who ha e 
not yet lost faith in the Manetti, of the seeming paradox- It most 
Roses cannot live without the Manetti they cannot live with it in many 
soils ” “ Most Roses cannot live except budded on the Manetti 1 vv nat 
Joes’Mr. Gilmour, jun., say to that ? I never made so sweeping a 
statement. 
