Oh, that's what they are called? "Tulip topped." Interesting. I didn't realize there was a name for it. Well, apparently I don't care for it in most cases, though I have to admit I have seen a very few of them that did appeal to me. It just depends.

I have noticed that certain breeders, and one in particular is putting out a lot of these "Tulip Topped" irises, and I thought maybe they were increasingly imbedding a form flaw that we'd all be sorry about down the road if they are used extensively for breeding. But there we get into the possibilities that came with dog breeding, so maybe good things can come from it.

I have been slow to accept "broken" colors, for instance, because they remind me of the broken tulip colors that turned out in the end to be due to a virus. So, like at least one other member on this site, when I see broken colors, I want to barf. But, hey, maybe some day I'll see one that I actually like, and suddenly change my mind.

Well, maybe I coined the phrase, "Tulip Topped" Just what I call them haven't heard anyone else use that term.

I don't like iris that have loose tops that flop or don't stay formed up like they should, they get culled to the compost. I will order a plant if it has a name I like, IF I think it will also perform well, but not just for its name. I will however NOT order a plant if I don't like the name, even if I think it will perform well-there are too many that will also do well and not have a name I don't like.

I guess the 'changes' in the breeding standards for iris, just as any plant-or animal too for that matter- can be seen as positive or negative, and what impact it has on the lot as a whole in the long term is up for debate. To me, breeding an iris to purposely have a loose ill formed shape, or no top to it, is a DEformity, and isn't a natural state for an iris, if one popped up in my garden like this willy nilly-I'd deem something wrong with it and oust it to the compost. Why pay money on purpose for something that is deformed? Of course breeding can result in the opposite- is PROformed a word? The purpose of breeding is to BETTER a species, so the question is, does this or that better the plant/animal?

Sherry, I think you're right on the mark about it. I've gotten, for instance that I don't even look at a certain vendor's photos because they are so photoshopped to make them more colorful and appealing than they really are.

And having noticed that certain cameras of certain people seem to be "off" I will say that I have also been able to identify certain photographers who must have excellent cameras, because they always seen to "nail" the foliage color correctly, which tells me the flower color is also realistically represented. I always find myself looking for their photos when I really want to know what a flower looks like. My kudos in this regard go especially to Aruba, who always seems to get the foliage color spot-on, so that I know the bloom colors are also right.

FrillyLily, I agree with you 100%. You said it well.

I share many opinions here, but also disagree with some.

At first, I didn't like broken colors, but now I like some of them.

At first I only liked solid colors (self's), now I like a variety.

At first I didn't like ruffles, now I like some, but still, not overly done to excess.

I agree about the shape of the standards, not being too straight or stiff-looking. It's nice to have a good balance and Daisy presented several that are ideal.

I am still a bit slow on neglectas, variegatas, bitones and bicolors, but I found a few that I like. Plicatas are nice, but there are too many purple and white ones, so I don't know which ones I like best on those. I don't know yet about the pattern called Debbie Rairdon. I like the newer plicatas in different colors, like brown or red. Oh yes, I like brown and tan irises, which many on this forum do not like...especially Thornbird, which is a controversy in itself.

I have read about so-called "green" irises. I have never seen one. And don't get me started on the color "blue"! Many irises are described as being blue. It seems to my eyes that every last one of them are blue-violet, or a tint thereof. Is there a pink that isn't peach or lavender???
I would like some!

Well, hopefully my tastes will refine a bit as I go. I will be experimenting with crossing a few to see what happens. I expect most will be tossed, but it holds my interest long enough to at least do it for a couple of years.

I know that in many cases, it takes years to develop just one good iris. And other times, I see that more than one name has been introduced from the same cross. (Usually those are from people that have been doing that for decades.)

Well, there are more irises out there than I ever imagined. I used to buy a few with my perennial orders, but I was never aware of all of these different iris vendors. That happened when I came to this forum, "just looking"! Little did I know how involved I would become.

(It's all Rob's fault!)

tveguy3 said:Well, maybe I coined the phrase, "Tulip Topped" Just what I call them haven't heard anyone else use that term.

I like the old fashioned oval shaped tulip blooms so that phrase would mean the opposite to me.

I like flatties. I do not think of them as bad form as they were bred to specifically go flat. They still have beards though! Of the flatties I have grown, Why Be Normal does the best job of having all the standards go flat so I can see why it got an honorable mention. It also has a thicker substance to the falls than some of the other flatties. When it doesn't open all the way the blooms have a (true) tulip shaped form which I also find interesting. They are part of the group of "novelty iris" that aren't to everyone's taste, but that I find add a little zing to the garden.

Tulip Topped - I see it for the squared off (or upright) form of some standards, but Bonnie is right, tulips often have a rounded in shape too.

After reading this thread I have to say - Thank goodness that there are thousands of irises out there to choose from, because you all seem to be very demanding in what you want from your iris. Hybridizers work to make new and interesting blooms. Some appeal more to some than to others but increases the choices we have.

(A note on color in photos - yes, they can be photoshopped, but there is also a big amount of color change depending on geographical location, mineral content in the soil, age of the bloom (as some fade) and lighting conditions in which the pictures are shot. On any given day you would have a very hard time finding, for instance, all the foliage to look the same color all day long in my gardens.)

Evelyn, like you, I have started out with a preference for selfs. But I have finally realized my underlying gut reason for that preference by looking at photos of en mass plantings of the various cultivars, which I do every time I want to consider one for my garden. I may absolutely adore the various non-selfs as individual blossoms, but when I look at the en-mass landscape effect of them, it is sometimes almost trashy. Okay, I guess I should show some examples of where selfs are the stars of the garden, and some patterns look trashy en mass.

Selfs:

Here Dusky Challenger is the star

Starring various selfs in the foreground, while the patterns in the background look less than stellar:

Here Sultry Mood and Happenstance are again (selfs) really stealing the show, while the patterns in the background actually look a little trashy:.


And in these two in which Paul Black is the star of the gardens:

and



Or this planting of Gypsy Romance:

This gorgeous clump of Hollywood Nights:

Mary Frances, backed by a couple more selfs, and simply stunning:

Blue Suede Shoes:

Blueberry Bliss:


****

Now I am going to show you the "at distance" effects of some of the patterns, which are high award winners, and I absolutely love as individual blossoms, but which give a messy effect when viewed from a distance:

Gypsy Lord. Gorgeous individual blooms. But in a mass - too busy. My eye does not know where to look, so I keep seeking out individual blossoms, rather than the mass effect:


Stepping Out. Though I love the individual blossoms, the landscape effect makes me absolutely dizzy! All I see is spots.


Blueberry Parfait, messy en mass:

High Chaparalle. Not bad, but nothing like the impact of a self:

In fact with bicolors, I have much trouble even finding landscape shots of them. And you have to realize that people take landscape shots of en mass flowers that they find to be pleasing. And if you find a cultivar in the database that has oodles of individual shots taken of them, but not a single landscape shot showing them en mass, you have to ask yourself, "Isn't its effect en mass pretty enough for ANYONE to have taken a landscape shot of it?" What I have concluded from the non-self landscape photos that I HAVE been able to find, is that the total effect of them is often just too busy - too many competing colors all compressed into a small area.

****

Now having said that, I'm going to show some notable exceptions that I think are stunning en mass, even though they are patterned, blended, bicolor, plicata, etc.

Stairway to Heaven:

World Premier:

Celebration Song:

Parisian Dawn:

Queen's Circle:
And this very controversial blended that I have said I don't like because of its color, but I have to admit is stunning en mass and as a foil to other brighter colors: Thornbird:

DaisyDo,

Thank you for posting those lovely clump shots. I certainly agree with your choices of bicolors that make beautiful clumps. Interesting that they are all Dykes medal winners except for Parisian Dawn.

I especially found your post helpful because I am currently planning my planting of a new iris bed.

(Thornbird!)

Daisy ~ Yes, that was my reasoning as well, since I had my irises in perennial beds. I felt that the selfs went well with the other flowers in the beds. I always thought that irises looked too busy with patterns, unless they were in a place of their own.

And yes, Thornbird looks very nice with colorful irises.

Andrea, yes, I think that a major, major influence in the awarding of a Dykes Medal is that it needs to have beautiful en mass effect. At least that is the conclusion I, too, have drawn from my researches of the landscape shots in the database.

#1 it needs to be vigorous and floriferous enough to form a good clump, and #2 the clump needs to have good visual impact from a distance. That of course in addition to having pretty individual blossoms.

Tom, I was thinking last night about iris standards, and the thought of tulips came to my mind, too - so "tulip top" is a very good description!

I can't say that I like the "flatties", at least for bearded irises.

Re color enhancements... I have noticed (at least in my hiking photos) that images from my cell phone were much more vibrantly colored than the ones from my digital camera, and this was before I did anything to any of the images.

[quote="DaisyDo"]Evelyn, like you, I have started out with a preference for selfs. But I have finally realized my underlying gut reason for that preference by looking at photos of en mass plantings of the various cultivars, which I do every time I want to consider one for my garden. I may absolutely adore the various non-selfs as individual blossoms, but when I look at the en-mass landscape effect of them, it is sometimes almost trashy. Okay, I guess I should show some examples of where selfs are the stars of the garden, and some patterns look trashy en mass.

I quite like my non-selfs, love blended colors, and really don't like them being called trashy. I think to say that makes the owners of said non-selfs feel like their garden is somehow inferior. Which I don't really believe is the case. For instance I find this clump of Patchwork Puzzle glorious. Others might not, but that does not make it trashy.

Starring various selfs in the foreground, while the patterns in the background look less than stellar:
Now if the shot had had the patterned iris in front, with all the selfs behind would you have found it so offensive? Sometimes it's perspective.

Here Sultry Mood and Happenstance are again (selfs) really stealing the show, while the patterns in the background actually look a little trashy:.

Okay, here you call some very popular and pretty darn subdued patterns trashy. There is really nothing trashy in this photo. The colors all blend just fine. Not your cup of tea obviously, but really not trashy.


Now I am going to show you the "at distance" effects of some of the patterns, which are high award winners, and I absolutely love as individual blossoms, but which give a messy effect when viewed from a distance:

Gypsy Lord. Gorgeous individual blooms. But in a mass - too busy. My eye does not know where to look, so I keep seeking out individual blossoms, rather than the mass effect:


I disagree. Many people would love to have a large clump of Gypsy Lord. Not messy, just something you don't care for in a clump.


In fact with bicolors, I have much trouble even finding landscape shots of them. And you have to realize that people take landscape shots of en mass flowers that they find to be pleasing. And if you find a cultivar in the database that has oodles of individual shots taken of them, but not a single landscape shot showing them en mass, you have to ask yourself, "Isn't its effect en mass pretty enough for ANYONE to have taken a landscape shot of it?" What I have concluded from the non-self landscape photos that I HAVE been able to find, is that the total effect of them is often just too busy - too many competing colors all compressed into a small area.

You know there is another really reasonable explanation for single shots in the database. 1) The database is used to identify the iris and close-up shots are much better for ID than clump shots; and 2) a lot of people do not have big huge clumps of each of their irises. Especially when they haven't had them very long. So thus, they don't take mass shots of them. If they had them they would probably post them. A lot of the large clump pictures in the database were taken in hybridizers' and vendors' fields. It is also hard to compose a really good landscape shot, so people's camera skills also come in to play.
****

Now having said that, I'm going to show some notable exceptions that I think are stunning en mass, even though they are patterned, blended, bicolor, plicata, etc.

Yes, they are stunning. They are not all that different in their subdued colors than those you called messy above so wonder what the difference is? I am guessing personal preference. Which is fine because everybody should have the right to grow whatever fits their personal preference.

Stairway to Heaven:

World Premier:

Celebration Song:

Parisian Dawn:

I applaud you that you have strong opinions, but please respect that others will not always agree. And please respect others' garden shots without calling them trashy. They have put a lot of love and care into their gardens.

Personally I like the craziest irises out there. I'm so impressed with what hybridizers can do with genetics. It's fascinating what can be produced in form and color expression every year. Just when k think everything has been done, I'm wowed by something brand new.

A comment on some of the "tulip"standards - depending on when the photo was taken in the life of the bloom can have a major effect on how it looks. When first opening standards can be quite tight, but as the bloom progresses it can open a little more or much more. The temperature also changes how wide the standards open or how floppy they become.

Very true Liz. Hot temps are bad news for standards. They open up wide.

Off subject, but wanted you to see this photo of Command Performance that I found this evening. Talk about visual impact in a clump shot! Surprised it didn't get Award of Merit this year. Can it be eligible next year?

http://wiki.irises.org/TbAthru...

I see a lot of what Daisy is saying, and I agree to some of it. From some of the pictures she showed, there's too much going on - too many of the same colour iris blooming to make the whole picture blind you fully, only allowing you to only what the colour of the iris is, or maybe the foliage with the plant. Personally, I am not the biggest fan of a huge clump of irises all the same colour. In my own garden, I'd absolutely select a few to stow away aside in their own bed because they're simply best on their own, or that they're gorgeous enough in a large clump like that to be as such.
I always put my iris types in a likely very disorganized fashion. A red, a pink, a white here. A yellow, a bitone, a plicata there. I like to spice up my placements with similar or contrasting blooms that make a good statement.
My garden is very messy (there's so many weeds that we couldn't keep up on, it has really taken a toll on our gardens), but there are large clusters of the same coloured irises blooming in the same area, but, they're not the only ones. Some bits of one particular bed might be very mix and matched, or messy, or all unanimous, pretty or....not so pretty. Luckily for me, all of what I have mixed together, or separated out looks great to me! What do you think? (Please ignore the bad state of these beds).

Here's a good mixture - Tan and purple/white noids

And some more mixtures!


One with a yellow noid introduced!

And one with mostly purple/white, but a stalk of a yellow noid, and a pink noid. (There were a few more pink that came up, but I couldn't catch them).

An...interesting mix between some lavender noids (Dalmatica??) and my tan noids from 2016 in a tire!
Here's some large clumps of mostly one colour!



Clumps of one with another cluster behind:



Some of my favourites of all groups!
Grouped:


Singles:



I even did some groups of two or three different varieties of my new iris types!
TBs Mariposa Autumn, Kind Candace, and Faithful and True together!



Lucy Doodle (IB?) and Deborah Dances (TB) together!


SDBs 'Cara' and 'Anne Lowe' together!


And TB noids that are pink/reddish bicolour and a yellow self!



An odd paring between the aforementioned noids of pink/reddish and the noid of yellow directly above, paired also with a noid I think is 'Gay Paree' around a pole.

Potentially 'Gay Paree?' (Either way, this iris is now around the pole with the aforementioned noids P/R and Yel)


That pole used to host some of my tan noids. Which really grew well.

And yes, I do also place irises of the same group/type together! My new lavender noids from a friend! (Dalmatica??)







I like a large group of the same to an extent, say four or five clumps together of just that, but my biggest preference is to say, take one rhizome of 'Beverly Sills,' place it down next to, or with 2-3 or even four other buddies that match enough of a feel to not be tacky, but be bold, yet graceful. Then again, I do like making some stark contrasts too! Who says I can't put a purple iris with an orange?

I guess it depends on your preference ~ I do like how some of what I've seen in this thread are arranged, and some, perhaps not as much.

I do not know what I think about the flat tops of irises...I am leaning more towards disliking them, unfortunately. I have grown very accustomed to irises over the years, and know that the falls stick down in petals of three, and standards stick up in petals of three. Flares are...alright to me (some are really better with the flare sometimes!), but a flat top looks unnatural to me as if the standards all fell down because of disease, or rain or something of the sort. They're....odd. They differ so much from the norm that I see that I think it is making me lean towards disliking "flat tops" because they are so irregular to my "norm."

I do not know how I would feel if I had a flat top blooming in my yard, I could very well begin to love them just the same, but for now, I am not very fond of them, sadly.

Also, very much agree on Thornbird being a really...unnaturally good big clump blooming together. They're beautiful!

Heat does cause iris standards to open. In a cooler spring I will get different shades of color on my irises than I will in a warmer spring. I am not a big fan of open standards but i have bought a few, and will keep them, if there are other things about that particular iris i love.

Daisy, you do have very strong feelings about the irises you like and the ones you do not. But for my two cents worth I am very grateful to the hybridizers that have given us every color combination and pattern available in irises today.

This allows us all to have the garden we love. And in my opinion I think this photo is gorgeous!


I love seeing photos of different gardens Daisy. Some will be similar to mine and some will be nothing like i dream about but they all will be beautiful. I am looking forward to seeing your lovely photos next spring.

Thornbird is an outstanding iris and grows like a champion. It's color blends very well with a wide variety of colors. I like mine with reds and corals and pinks, mostly a blend of those colors with Thornbird being the primary solid color. Like you Monty, my garden is quite a mix of colors. And varieties. I love non-bearded iris so flatties look fine to me. I wouldn't grow a whole bunch of them, but they add contrast here and there, just like the old historic forms add contrast to the newer fuller and ruffled forms.

Oh, and an orange iris next to a purple iris with an orange beard is outstanding!