Thursday, 4 September 2008

I Think I May Have Bought The Ugliest Bunch of Flowers. Ever.


Is that even possible?

I mean, that's a bit like saying "that bar of chocolate is inedible". I don't have much experience of either of these two things. Until today. 

They don't smell, my disappointed three-year-old informed me, they feel papery and well, I don't really like them. They don't even have a name. "Mixed filler" is on the label.


In my defence all I can say is that we were rushing (what a surprise) and I'm on a budget (ditto) but wanted a bunch of flowers to make my yoghurt encrusted, dart pock-marked forty-year-old inherited wooden table pretty. Bit of a tough order, seemingly.


What I did the manage to do was choose the ugliest bunch of flowers in the supermarket (serves me right, hey, for shopping there). Still, it was a close call. My daughter wanted some bright yellow chrysanthemums. Thinking about it maybe I chose the second ugliest bunch of flowers. At least mine are purple.


Do you think I'm being unnecessarily harsh? Is there such a thing as an ugly flower?


 

10 comments:

  1. I dont think they are really ugly, but then I dont think any flower are really ugly. I cant remember their name but I'm pretty sure that they are a form of everlasting flower - in other words you dry them and they stay the same colour and you can pop them in a case without water.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree... don't put them in water, their ends will just get soggy and rot. Let them dry, and then put them in the pottery vase that leaks (the one your sister-in-law made when she was feeling creative, but wasn't very good at it) on the mantlepiece, and they will sit there looking colourful for ever (?). At least that's what I did with mine!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lucy @ Smallest Smallholding4 September 2008 at 20:39

    Yep I remember them from when Mum went through a phase of doing dried flowers in the early 90s (well over it now). Still, it's colour, it's something different so could be worse.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Patientgardener - you're right, I guess they're not *really* ugly, they're just not the 'look' I was going for! Y'know the dried flower option didn't occur to me but I knew someone else would know..!

    GardenGirl - oh drat, I don't like dried flowers. Next time I shall have to pick with more care! And that leaky vase, that would be mine....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lucy - you're right, they're colour and purple is a rather lovely colour. Just right to cheer up this dank day/evening!

    ReplyDelete
  6. They might look better - if you mixed them with greenery, then the wonderful colour would be dotted throughout the foliage of whatever shrubby bits you could get your hands on.
    Are they "statice" (Limonium perezii)
    Regards
    Karen

    ReplyDelete
  7. I believe they are called statice. I actually think they are quite lovely, especially in the dead of winter. I live in the Canadian north, so anything to contrast with all the white snow is welcome in my house.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, you are right - they are horrible.

    When they are dried they look just the same.

    What's the point of something that looks the same dead as when it's alive? Not better, not worse, not different - just the same. Bor-ring.

    They are the Ken Barlow of flowers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You've hit the nail on the head GM.
    They are indeed the Ken Barlow of flowers. And do you know what, they are still going strong! Much like him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Contrarian that I am, I shall declare that I rather like that little bunch of statice.

    And it could have been so much worse - hideous dyed chrysanths, those peachy coloured rosebuds that never open, insipid wilting tulips horribly out of season ... the list goes on. You'll be telling me you don't like fuschias next, GM ...

    ReplyDelete