Re: TB: Unknown burgundy

Laetitia -  it is hard to say if the leaves were normally sized.  
First year plantings for me often don't exibit the size of foliage 
that they attain with maturity.  They were not noticably smaller than 
the others around them, but at 25" the height of the bloom stalk 
definitely was smaller than it's neighbors.  The flower was average 
mid-sized bloom.  It certainly wasn't an extra-large flower, but not 
the petite size that might suggest a MDB or the like either.  I'd 
lean toward it being a BB or IB, or just a TB that's small from it's 
first year and lack of ideal conditions.  The standards were slightly 
lighter than the falls but more from the texture than color, so 
definitely a self. The red coloration seems to come a little more 
from the orange/brown side than the purple side of the spectrum. It 
definitely had rusty overtones to it.

I look forward to your pics.  thanks for your assistance.  =)

Mike    

--- In iris-photos@y..., lmmunro@h... wrote:
> Mike:
>     OK. I will post some pictures of "reds" that I took myself. But 
> they are all home. Will get them tonight.
>  I had thought of something else since I sent that last message 
out. 
> How large are the flowers? Some reds are huge (SPARTAN, MARAUDER, 
RED 
> VALOR). Yours could be a small growing TB, or even one of the IB or 
> BB's. CRANAPPLE is another possiblity (picture at home too). It is 
> one of the smaller iris (height and flower size). It is very 
> saturated red; more of a solid self rather than TRD's lighter 
stands, 
> deeper falls.Also less purple.
> Are the leaves large? Or more in proportion to the plant?  
> I only have a few of the smaller iris, but the leaves are 
definitely 
> skinnier than TB's. 
>  Laetitia 
> 
> --- In iris-photos@y..., land_of_mu@y... wrote:
> > Laetitia-  I would welcome any photos you'd like to send me, or 
> post 
> > here if you like.  Thanks for the tip on TRD, in looking at the 
pic 
> > on the HIPS site it appears more purple-ish there than it did in 
my 
> > garden... could just be the light of course.  So hard to get a 
true 
> > color of an iris when they constantly change with the available 
> > light. =)  I look forward to seeing other pics of it.
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > -Mike U.
> > Oly, WA
> > 
> > 
> > --- In iris-photos@y..., lmmunro@h... wrote:
> > > This does not look like a very old iris to me. Definitely not 
> 1903.
> > > How about The RED DOUGLAS? That's what it looks like to me. I 
> have 
> > > seen TRD growing quite short; small rhizome, not very vigorous 
> > > grower, blooms late...but oh, those flowers...rich rich red 
> velvety 
> > > color, just like yours. TRD has very smooth velvety falls; 
stands 
> > are 
> > > a little lighter.
> > > I'll look at my collection of pictures at home to see if there 
> are 
> > > other close matches. If you want, I'll send whatever I have 
> > including 
> > > TRD
> > > Laetitia   
> > >


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index