Re: TB: ideal (my favorite anyway) flower form

From: "Patrick Orr" <PatrickJOrr@hotmail.com>

Now here is a topic I have given MUCH thought on over the last year!  I am
so glad you brought it up Linda.

First and foremost, I must admit, there is a range of acceptable qualities
in form that I have evolved to since I started thinking about this topic.
Next, and this is just about equally important, is that I noticed I am not
as picky when I see the flower in person as I am when I see a still
photograph of one.  A picture may say a thousand words, but they it can
never replace the real thing. Not only that, one picture may look "perfect"
while another may be less than desirable.  Form does change slightly from
flower to flower in pictures I have noticed.

Now, for the form I like best, please refer to the following pictures if you
have them:

From the SCHREINER'S 2000 Catalog;
Hello Darkness on the back page,
Breakers on page 21,
World Class on page 42

From the SCHREINER'S 1999 Catalog;
First Interstate on page 25 (it is also on p.40 of the 2000 catalog, but it
is cut off by the ad)
Black Butte on page 6

From Mid-America Garden 2000 Catalog;
Aplomb on page 22
Awesome Blossom on back cover

I like domed standards that touch or barely overlap.
I like full waterfall type falls rather than falls on TB's that flare
outward.  I like to see a lot of color.
I like a good proportion symmetry, and gentle - not over done ruffles.
I like an opening into the throat of the flower to be open, so you can see
the anther and or stigmatic lip.

I am not fond of open standards, straight standards, falls that are too long
or standards that are too short, nor do I care for the ruffles in the falls
to "flute" (I think that is what it is called), for that takes color away. A
perfect example is the bottom of Starship Enterprise's fall on page 19 of
the 2000 catalog or the artists drawing on the cover of the '99 catalog.  In
addition to fluting, if the falls curl in or up, then it gives the
appearance that a chunk of it has been ripped off. I like the falls to be
nice and round or oval.  Stairway to Heaven, although I love that iris, has
the appearance of being scrunched on page 11 of the Schreiner's 2000
catalog.

The best example I have found would have to be Awesome Blossom.  Except for
the one flute in the fall, I feel its form is breath-taking.  Black Butte is
a close second except for the standards being open due to not being domed
enough - but since it is so dark it can get away with it, and First
Interstate is overall a wonderful form, gentle flutes and all.

You would think after all this pickiness that I would never have planned to
cross OVERJOYED and SKYWALKER which are pictured on pages 19 and 33 of the
Schreiner's '99 catalog and pages 16 & 57 of the Schreiner's '00 catalog.
However God willing, if they will both bloom for me this year at the same
time (they are new acquisitions to my garden last October) you can be sure I
will be out there crossing them to each other like mad.  These irises are
soooo fluted, the picture as a whole takes on a new dimension in
form...especially the picture of Skywalker.

I have really enjoyed reading other opinions on form and thank you again for
bringing this up.

Patrick Orr
Phoenix, AZ  USA
Zone 9


----- Original Message -----
From: linda Mann <lmann@mailhub.icx.net>
To: iris-talk <iris-talk@onelist.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 9:22 AM
Subject: [iris-talk] TB: ideal (my favorite anyway) flower form


> From: linda Mann <lmann@mailhub.icx.net>
>
> A while back we got in a discussion of what we like for form of TBs.
> And I discovered after hunting thru catalogs for a picture of what I
> consider "perfect" that there was no such thing.
>
> I've sort of changed my mind and think the photo of AFTERNOON DELIGHT in
> this year's Schreiner catalog comes as close as any (easier to judge in
> a photo than real life, where they are all nearly perfect <g>).  One of
> the things I've noticed from looking at these photos is that I don't
> like the ones that have standards that bulge out beyond the widest part
> of the falls (makes them look squashed to my eye), nor do I like flowers
> that appear wider than tall.  This latter distinction seems to be a very
> narrow tolerance - if they are more than a hair taller than wide, they
> look old and strappy (like the photo of FORT APACHE on the opposite page
> in the same catalog), but if they are perfectly round (or worse yet,
> shorter than wide), they look squatty and squnched (like the photo of
> EDITH WOLFORD, p58).  I notice a lot of the Schreiner photos are taken
> from an angle slightly above horizontal on the newer ones so they look
> 'longer' than a side view would show.  Maybe that's to show the view
> most of us would actually see when looking at the flower in the garden?
> Surely not to make the flower look like it is closer to the form I like
> rather than its true squatty self?
>
> Just curious as to what other iris growers like.
>
> Linda Mann east Tennessee USA zone 7/8
> taking a gorgeous April-like day off to play.  Another 2 1/2 inches of
> rain making everything lush - peas are up, redbud about to pop.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR!
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as
> 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
> Apply NOW!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2121/0/_/486170/_/953655449/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
DON'T HATE YOUR RATE!
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as 
0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2120/0/_/486170/_/953702388/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index