Ranking perennials

I was reading Merlin's thread (Hi there) and it occured to me that many of us have the same problem - that of being new to gardening and wanting to grow plants such as perennials, but not knowing which ones. I started three years ago with an empty garden. I went to the garden centre and read books and saw a huge number of plants but no one said "this is a really good one but the one next to it at the same price is rubbish"

I have learnt a bit in the three years and come to realise that some plants are really good and others are not. For instance my neighbours in several gardens have a blue Geranium that looks nice but only flowers for 2 weeks. I bought a Geranium Patricia this year that looks lovely and flowered for 24 weeks. I rate it very highly and so does everyone else that has it.

SO - how do we seperate the wheat from the chaff? I have tried to give all my plants a score out of 10, using a fairly simple formulae. The idea of giving a score is not mine, others have used it. My points are given for :-

Length of flowering period. 0 to 5 points.
Wow factor, ie how impressive the plant is when in full bloom. 0 to 5 points.
Hardiness. Small deduction for non hardy plants that have to be protected in winter.
Maintenance. Small deduction for plants that need staking, or any other special treatment.
Propagation. Small addition or deduction for especial ease or difficulty of propagation
Foliage. Small addition or deduction for exceptional foliage effect.
Scent. Small addition for fine scent or deduction for foul stink.
Adjustment.

Total. This is the sum of all the scores above. If an individual score is felt to be too high or too low compared to similar plants, it can be altered by the adjustment.

The table in too big to post here, but if anyone is interested I would be very happy to e-mail them a copy - use the icon at the top of this item to e-mail me. The format is a Lotus spreadsheet, but I think there should be no difficulty in Excell reading this.

The details of the grading system are included in the spreadsheet, and only perennials are covered.

I would like to hear any comments you have on the principle of ranking plants, or any suggested improvements to the system. How about ranking your own!

 

Peters will have to get back to you on account of not having grown many yet, only a few in our tiny front garden - a couple of Lucifers,lavender and Hollyhocks,also not really clued up on families - herbacious- shrubs etc.ive got so much to learn!

 

Mmmm not sure Peter - so many perrenials depend on the soil and local environment they grow in. What would high score for me, may not for someone in a different location.

Local garden centres (not the chains) usually stock the ones that will do well in an area - and for most new gardener I would reccommend, see a plant you like in either local gardens or the centre or TV programme, and before purchase, look it up - on the internet, or in plant software programmes,ask other gardeners in GC or what for me is my bible the RHS A-Z of garden plants looking in particular for the RHS Garden Merit award.

Me when I started gardening - I just got what I liked, and learnt from my mistakes - surprising how many plants don't read text books :D . Enjoyed the experimentation and visiting gardens through all seasons to find what I liked.

 

Fran - you are right, there are difficulties and it will depend on your local conditions. But I feel that there is merit in trying to rank perennials. That is what the RHS Award of Garden Merit scheme does.

My source of inspiration was Bob Brown at Cotswald Garden Flowers - www.cgf.net . I see you can now download his catalog for 2006. I have found past catalogs a great source of information, in large part due to his scoring system.

 

I agree about the rating system, but it just goes to show. I hve bought a lot of plants from the nursery you mention and I reckon no more than 10% of them have even survived,never mind thrived.

 

Palustris - so sorry to hear about your problems. I live in Yorkshire and have only called in at CGF about twice, whilst passing on the motorway. I bought quite a few, but have never had any problems.

However it does beg the question, should you buy more expensive named varieties with impeccable backgrounds, or should you go for cheap as chips from the supermarket. With Clematis I go for Morrissons at �£1.69 rather than �£10 plus from a garden centre.

 

If you are in Yorkshire, you should go and look at Gordon Rigg's in Walsden.

 

Thanks Palustris. I have not heard of that, but will give it a look when the weather warms up.

 

Hello PeterS

Being a complete disaster in the garden, not having too much time, etc and also being on a very tight budget, I always go for long flowering ones..... I do like your suggestion very much... I can see the point the others were making about conditions, etc.... But when faced with the choices at the garden centres, and not wanting to waste my money, recommendations from people here on what plants to get would be invaluable.

 

PeterS - just wonder what your observations are seven years on?

 

LongK - you've found a very old thread, but its nice that the oldies are not wiped off.

Compared to 7 years ago, everything has changed and nothing has changed.

What has changed is that I have discovered that gardeners, collectors and plantsmen are not the same thing. When I started I had no clear idea of what I wanted other than a colourful garden.


That was going OK as in the picture above taken some years ago. But then I started to get interested in the plants themselves, collecting 60 different Salvia and going for too many different types of plant. And like the old vodka advert, my life started to go down hill as I sunk further and deeper into addiction. Then. when I thought I had hit bottom, I got seduced by the likes of you LongK, Pete, Kristen and others and started to acquire tender and unusual plants that never were going to fit into the garden. The garden suffered as it got cluttered and desperately overcrowded with pots. For instance I am still growing 30. often tatty, Brugmansia from seed just in case one has a nice colour.

So my observations now are :-

Be very clear what your objectives are. I am sure that you can combine being a gardener with a plantsman, but it needs careful planning - perhaps separate areas of the garden. This is the biggest change for me.

Otherwise very little has changed.

If you want a garden that looks nice, I would still stand by exactly the same ideas that I had above. My recipe would be :-

a) Look for the best plants. Some stand head and shoulders above others. For me the primary choice would still be for long flowering. Bob Brown of Costwald Garden Flowers gives his plants a score, and its a very useful source of information. Whilst I am not sure where the original list is, I suspect that I would still rank most plants in roughly the same order.

b) I would always keep perennials as the backbone of a garden as they keep coming back. But many tender perennials, such as Geraniums, Dahlias, Argyranthemums, Salvias and Osteopermums flower for a long time, so it can be good to incorporate them - but they need winter protection.

c) Have a colour scheme. Mine is primarily pinks, blues and purples.

d) You don't need a large number of different plants. Plants in blocks or drifts usually give much more impact than plants on their own.

e) I have since learned that the weather changes from one year to another, so what was good last year may not be so good this year and vice versa.

f) I have also learned that you need to regularly rejuvenate beds by lifting them every 3 or 4 years and replanting, and many individual plants need rejuvenating by division or cuttings at intervals. If plants or beds are just left they tend to deteriorate over the years.

 

Not sure if you meant Bob's list, your list , or a different list but Bob's list is here:

http://www.cgf.net/encyclopedia.aspx?id=6&hid=6

(There will be a "Bob's Score" next to any plant ... that has one)

 

Found it interesting as I got started about the same time as you.

Same here. For example; Lobelia Queen Vic was one of my first plants and remains a staple, but now it has to share space with Mediterranean Digitalis instead of the more common Foxgloves.

And bang went all my ideas of planting schemes! But my real interest is the plants themselves, so that is how it is!

Don't blame me! It's your fault that I had to overwinter twelve Iochroma last year!!!!

 

Longk - I didn't make myself clear higher up in the thread. I was refering to the list of my rankings. However I have since found the last list I made - in 2005, which I am attaching. I am not sure how to make tables, so its going to look a bit untidy. The headings are Plant name, weeks in flower in 2004, weeks in flower in 2005, comment.

Geranium patricia - 24 very long flowering - pretty pink - makes a mound
Verbena bonariensis 17 18 fantastic in a group with tall Cosmos
Achillea walter func 14 17 nice colour - longest flowering of achillea for me
Astrantia buckland 18 20 white - bigger flowers than red Astrantias
Diascia little dancer - 21 very delicate - really nice - more of a pot plant
Geranium rozanne - 23 adjusted to be just below G. Patricia - weaves
Dahlia arabian night - 15 loverly dark red - needs staking
Helenium moorheim beauty 18 16 copper red - needs staking
Argyranthemum celebrity rose - 23 not hardy - but worth the trouble
Aster fricatii Monch 16 15 longest flowering Aster
Astrantia hadspen blood 22 16 dark red - beaten by A.Buckland by flowering period
Astrantia roma 14 15 pink red - beaten by A.Buckland by flowering period
Campanula porscharskyana 12 19 small - but long flowering makes this a real asset
Geranium ann folkhard 22 18 weaves - not density of flowers of Patricia - good foliage
Osteospermum white - 19 I prefer darker colours but this won on flowering period
Penstemon blackbird - 11 from Morrisons - not true Blackbird - but fabulous colour
Achillea terracotta 17 18 pale yellow - but long flowering
Allium christophii 7 5 short flowering but seed heads last a long time
Alstromeria aiko - pink - 12 loverly - delicate - long flowering
Centranthus ruber red 27 17 this is a wild flower - its wonderful - very long flowering
Dicentra spectabilis 10 11 early - lovely fresh foliage
Eupatorium purpurea 12 13 tall - maroon pink - may need staking
Lobelia queen victoria 6 8 scarlet flowers with dark foliage - so easy to propagate
Lythrum Salicaria blush 1 10 new last year - fabulous this year - delicate pink

The list is essentially exactly as I wrote it in 2005. Though I have left out some other columns for simplicity. I would still stand by everything I said then, but would leave out Diascis (its lovely - but not a border plant). Even today, I rank plants largely on their flowering period. And there is no question that, for any given plant, these are reasonably consistant from one year to another - though they will vary with the climate. But the flowering period vary enormously between plants.