HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Bewitched' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Available from - Roses Unlimited
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
16 MAR 13 by
 goncmg
|
Have grown this one off and on since I was a child (it was AARS my birth year) and can say it has never truly "let me down" but never, EVER has impressed me. Quite fragrant. Blooms a lot. Unique foliage. But the plant isn't particularly robust in my experiences, is rather tender in 6a, and is no better than average and actually usually under-par with disease resistance............
What "bewitches" me in 2013 is how for the past 5 or 6 years this seems to be everywhere?! The discount chain stores, the hardware stores, as a band, as a custom root, as a budded 2 year field grown #1...........a no better than average medium pink from 1967? How and why? Sweet Surrender from 1983, also AARS is VERY CLOSE to this one in my opinion and although STILL not a great rose, probably MORE fragrant and a little lustier a grower. Sweet Surrender has a dahlia-llike form but it isn't like Bewitched set the shows on fire! Yet nobody at all seems to be offering Sweet Surrender while I am pretty sure I can buy Bewitched in the McDonald's drive thru..........
Just speaks to the randomness of marketing in general, roses in particular, and this endlessly intrigues me.
No, not a BAD rose. Just also not a very GOOD rose. A DECENT rose. A FINE rose. Arguably the BEST of a weak AARS year but how the others from 1967 are done for and this one is surviving tremendously truly does escape me..............
|
REPLY
|
|
It smells, it's pretty and it's pink. That is what the majority of people who come in and ask any questions about roses usually ask about. I agree about Sweet Surrender. I love the odd form, wonderful scent and can even tolerate the weak, nodding "necks".
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 9 posted
17 MAR 13 by
goncmg
|
Kim, I DO wonder what came over that AARS panel in 1983. Sweet Surrender was such an unlikely choice......would have been more "fitting" years earlier and actually more recently................back to Bewitched, I own all the annuals for the most part and it DIDN'T take the world by storm. It WAS widely grown, all AARS were then (sigh)....but the ratings were actually on the LOW side.....and lots of talk about the scraggly bush and the crooked peduncle/zig zag trait in growth...........I grow Gay Princess from 67 and actually think it is a pretty good rose. The color is so CLEAR. Personally I think GP is the best of the weak 4 from 67............Roman Holiday! Eh???
|
REPLY
|
|
Much of the time, the contract growers who produce these bare roots you find all over (not the "major producers") don't base their selections on ratings. If the name is recognizable, it is easy to produce and enough bud wood is available somewhere to be able to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet their production needs, it gets budded. I've encountered many odd varieties in these types over the years. At least they've moved forward some decades. I used to find Lowell Thomas and Mme. Chang Kai-shek all over. At least now, it's Golden Glow!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 9 posted
17 MAR 13 by
goncmg
|
Love it! And get it! Just so CRAZY how "that wood" is out there-----where??? Ya know? WHY? Look at UC Davis, and conversely look at whatever flopped in 1996 and just went off patent.........LOVE from 1980 is also everywhere anymore but somehow with that one, from "my" perspective, I sort of applaud but not sure what the "mass" appeal would be................MOJAVE appeared, suddenly, last summer at Meijers here in Ohio and Lowe's here tripped into a retro-collectors dream in Columbus last summer with beat-up, sad, somewhat salvagable pallets of pre-potted stressed-out plants of PROMISE, HEIRLOOM, JADIS, PROUD LAND, EVENING STAR...............all true to name! So odd..........
|
REPLY
|
|
Bewitched is oddly healthy here.You will see it in older homes, where you will often see Tropicana. It seems to be a love and leave it variety up here. I kind of like it for all of the wrong reasons. Its HUGE, and the foliage is neat, but... I would never own it. Its pink as pink gets. Its, again, HUGE. And the stems make my hands sore looking at how they have to be pruned every winter. They are THICK. But, yeah, I think even the form looks cool. I'll stick to the other pink oldie, with a much warmer color and medium-sized stems, 'Touch of Class'.
|
REPLY
|
|
Agree with what goncmg wrote: "But the plant isn't particularly robust in my experiences, is rather tender in 6a," Bewitched died in its first dry winter (no snow) as a tiny-own-root in my zone 5a. I winter-protected it well, but it didn't make it through the winter like my 15+ Austin own-root roses .. these have deeper roots to survive dry winters.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yeah, I don't think it is meant for colder areas. Half of it is from a very cold-tender line related to Golden Wave. The other half is Queen Elizabeth.
'Aunt Honey' may be a good option for "typical pink, tea form" type in colder areas.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
We live outside San Diego in zone 10B, and Bewitched has been a very good rose in our garden. Bewitched puts out great flowers--which is what I want in my garden, though the plant growth is a bit scraggly and uneven.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Bewitched produces large, clear pink, marvelous smelling blooms on nice cutting stems.
She seems to require more water than her neighbors to remain happy in the heat.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
29 DEC 06 by
digger
Bewitched is a thirsty one here too. I planted a clematis (Henryi) beside her since I thought the extra moisture would do them both good. It has worked out great. Well, except that Henryi has become a huge monster. Dave |
REPLY
|
|
|
