Let’s keep it clean

The discussion of quality grades among artificial flowers may have seemed interminable, but I felt a need to describe the advances that have occurred in the manufacture of artificial flowers, especially in the last decade, so as to overcome the negative connotation associated with them. I frequently say to customers, “these are not your mother’s artificial flowers”. They are vastly superior to those we knew as children. Of course, even the best currently available are not a perfect substitute for living plants, but as their appearance becomes ever more realistic, they become beautiful objects unto themselves.

If I examine a single stem, I am very critical in appraising its quality. However, when a number of stems are composed as an arrangement, I am more likely to respond to the artistry of the composition – its form and colors and proportions. Then, if the appearance of the blossoms comprising the composition is very close to real, the arrangement is even more pleasing. That is why high quality artificial flowers have become an integral element of interior design today.

In addition to their visual attributes, artificial stems do not incur the costs of upkeep and replacement associated with live plants. This is a great advantage and everyone in the industry touts the cost efficiency of using faux blooms: they last for years and years. And they do…with proper care. They are like any other item in the home or office: the carpet needs to be vacuumed, the furniture needs dusting, windows need to be washed, and the artificial flower arrangements need to be cleaned. However, the intricacies and delicacy of a faux floral arrangement seem to preclude an easy approach to this task. If you search on line, you will find that a great many people have expressed a plethora of approaches to this chore.  I did some experimenting with the most popular of these suggestions and will pass along what I have learned.

The on line suggestions are sometimes contradictory, but all agree that heat should never be applied to faux blossoms because it will soften the glue that holds the flower together. Implicit in most methods is the need to attend to your arrangements frequently and not let dust accumulate. This means removing dust once a week. After this point, opinions diverge. Many postings recommend a quick going over with a feather duster. (I didn’t even know anyone still made feather dusters.) Others suggest using a hair dryer on a cool setting to blow dust away. Someone even proposed using a can of compressed air, but the naysayers maintain this is too forceful for delicate arrangements. Whichever method you try, do it outside to avoid simply relocating the dust in your home. As an alternative, you may try using a hand held vacuum. First, stretch a piece of nylon stocking over the end to prevent sucking components of the arrangement into the vacuum.

In spite of your best efforts, dirt may still accumulate that will not be removed by the above methods; your once beautiful arrangement will look cheap and tacky. At this point, a more concentrated effort must be made. The most labor intensive method is to wipe each petal and leaf, individually, with a solvent that will remove the dirt. Suggestions for this approach include using water and vinegar, water and alcohol, water and dish soap. There is a consensus that an inconspicuous leaf or petal should first be tested to make sure your solvent doesn’t damage the material being cleaned. This is an agonizingly tedious approach. Alternative proposals include taking the arrangement outside and gently spraying it with a hose or placing it in the bathtub and giving it a gentle shower (with cool water).  A caveat here is not to let water accumulate and stand in the vase. A more aggressive method entails swishing the stems in a weak solution of dish washing liquid and water, then immersing in clear water to rinse, blotting gently and allowing to air dry.

It should be noted that there is a school of thought opposed to the idea of ever getting your permanent botanicals wet. There is a method that does not involve water. Into a large paper bag add about a cup of rice, salt, corn meal, baking soda – take your pick. Lower three or four stems, blossom ends down, into the bag, but don’t let them touch the bottom. Squeeze the top of the bag shut around the stem ends that should be protruding at the top. Now shake vigorously for about a minute. Remove blossoms from the bag and shake clean. This procedure gently scours the blossoms and renews their original luster.

The simplest method of all for cleaning artificial flowers is to use a product made expressly for the purpose. There are several brands on the market that are equally effective. To use, move your arrangement away from walls and furnishings, spray to moisten all surfaces in the arrangement and allow to stand and dry for a few minutes. That's all. Repeat this every three to four months. (When Flower Design delivers an order, we provide a complimentary can of cleaner.)

This orchid was stored, uncovered, in my
basement for a year. I treated it with a
commercial cleaner and it is pristine
enough to be used in an arrangement.

This hydrangea was stored with the orchid to the left. I immersed it in soapy water, rinsed it in clear water, blotted gently with a paper towel and let air dry. It is in mint
condition with nothing to betray its sordid past.

It should be noted that to clean by immersing in soapy water or to employ the dry cleaning method, the arrangement must be taken apart, as only several stems at a time can be processed. Then the arrangement must be reconstructed, which can be an arduous procedure. If you do not wish to use the commercial cleaner, and you do not wish to make this your tedious chore, Flower Design will provide the service of cleaning your arrangement.

This elaborate arrangement could be easily cleaned with
a commercial spray at home. Flower Design offers the service of
cleaning it with the alternative method of your choice.

On another note, The Minnesota State Horticultural Society is sponsoring an exhibition at the Home and Garden Show in the Minneapolis Convention Center, Room 103, later this week. It will be a display of fresh arrangements offering interpretations of songs. I will have a display there, just to keep in practice  with fresh flowers. Please come by and see my take on Lennon and McCartney's "Blackbird".    

As Good As It Gets

Having progressed through the ranks, we are now going to examine the highest quality artificial flowers on the market today. Ten years ago, the technology for making these reproductions did not exist. They not only recreate the appearance of plants to a high degree of botanical accuracy, their surfaces have a tactile quality that feels natural. Therefore, “natural touch/new generation” was the term first coined for this new, high-grade variety of artificial blooms by the folks at Hibiscus Florals, who were early adopters of this product line.

The beautiful Casablanca Lily with
stamens laden with pollen.

This is an artificial Casablanca Lily.
It realistically reproduces the aspects
of the real lily, even the
translucency of the petals.

Only blossoms with the natural touch characteristics and which include a high degree of botanical accuracy, are classed as grade 6. These artificials are not usually made of fabric, but of molded plastics. (I don’t think we need to get into the chemistry of synthetic polymers.) The specimen I have chosen to examine is a Casablanca lily. We will be comparing a false blossom to a real one. This lily has six slightly reflexed, irregularly twisted petals. The edges are somewhat ruffled and a thick midrib provides the petal’s supporting core. Hairs and small nodules on the inner surface of the petals (nectar guides) are reference points to allow bees to orient themselves at the blossom’s interior. It has six pistils and the photo  shows them heavily laden with pollen. The leaves are blade-like with prominent lengthwise veins. The photo of the real lily shows what a beautiful blossom it is.

Here is the Casablanca Lily from the reverse angle.
It shows the stem attachment to the blossom and some
leaf structure.

This is the artificial lily. The stem attachment
is still a snap on mechanism, but it is done with great
precision and, in this case, closely resembles
the real lily. The manufacture of the leaves shows
as much care as the crafting of the blossom.

The artificial lily faithfully reproduces all these features. The color and shape are exact. The six stamens are authentic, as is the single tri-lobed pistil. Just as much care has been taken to get the leaves right -- the color, shape, veining and feel are spot on.  The reverse angle shows the mechanism for attaching blossom to stem is basically the same as with the lower grades. However, this artificial stem is so true to life and the connection is so neatly done, it does not detract from the artfulness of this specimen’s composition.

The only faux blooms graded a six must be real touch. This does not guarantee that all real touch flowers are grade six. The botanical accuracy and care in assembly must also be taken into account. There also seem to be different materials used to achieve the real touch effect and word on the web is that some materials don’t hold up as well as others. There are many on-line sources for real touch flowers and I am still researching to learn which sources offer the best product. There is a wide range in pricing, but, so far, experience confirms you get what you pay for. That means top quality artificial flowers can cost at least as much as fresh stems, and maybe a little more. They are still a better value, because they can last for years if properly cared for. Next week I will discuss how to take care of this floral investment.

Just about as good as it gets

This beautifully crafted Anemone
would be a lovely component of
any arrangement. It faithfully captures
the essence of the living bloom.

Now we examine an example which I believe typifies quality grade number 5.  I have chosen a stem of purple Poppy Anemone to analyze. While our previous examples were made of polyester fabric that was probably pre-dyed before the petals were cut, it is obvious that much more care went into the fabrication of this specimen. The first impression is that we are looking at real petals. (A botanist would say that this flower does not have petals -- that, technically, they are called tepals. There is a difference between tepals and petals, and the Anemone has tepals. I won’t expound on the scientific distinction, but will discuss this, and future examples, in common usage terms.)

The petals look real for a number of reasons. First, we don’t see evidence of the material from which they are made. There are no frayed edges. There is no coarse weave. The fabric used to make these petals was probably silk, rayon or a blend of such quality fabrics. There may even be some polymer coating. Second, the shape and contours of the petals seem natural. Each has its own irregularities in outline and surface warp. Third, the colors are nuanced. These petals were made from white fabric and hand painted. Finally, the play of light off the surface of the petals contributes to luminosity, unlike the saturated hues of the lesser quality examples.

The side view shows the leaves and stem in detail. Here, again, the textures and shapes appear real, but the botanical accuracy is questionable. The calyx-like leaves immediately beneath the blossom do not belong there, according to my research. The whorl of small leaves further down the stem is authentic. The stem, itself, displays a realistic texture: a decided improvement over the obviously plastic stems of the lower grades.

A side view of the anemone.
The stem and leaf whorl look
authentic. I question the
accuracy of the calyx-like element
at the base of the blossom.

Our anemone has its flaws. In profile, we see there has been little improvement upon our earliest examples in connecting the blossom to the stem. This crude mechanism does the job and is effectively hidden when silk stems are assembled in an arrangement. It creates problems when the blossom must stand on its own or is an outlier in the arrangement. Still, it is a very clean, discreet attachment. Also, when we see the blossom face on, the light reflected off the black center is unnatural and reveals the synthetic nature of this component.

Still, this is a beautiful specimen. Maybe it should only be graded a 4.8 and our previous example graded a 4.2, so there may not be an entire degree of differentiation between them. This grading system will be a little subjective at times and, certainly, the quality of all artificial stems are not going to conveniently correspond to whole number values on the continuum of this scale. Use it as a guide when evaluating faux botanicals.

Next week will complete our overview, with an examination of  the highest quality stems available.

We have made a quantum leap

We are now at quality grade number four and we will examine images of a Black-eyed Susan to assess the craftsmanship at this level. When I look at these pictures, I almost expect to see a bee settle on the disk petals of this blossom. (Remember disk petals from the daisy we examined at level two).  The yellow petals are a good color. I don’t know if the fabric was pre-dyed before being cut to shape or hand painted after, but some hand painting was done to add veining to the petals. Further, subtle parallel furrows have been impressed in the fabric, aligned to run the length of the petals. This is an authentic touch. Finally, the petals are shaped and mounted so they recurve, giving the blossom a uniquely characteristic, “cone” shape.

This Brown-eyed Susan shows
superior craftsmanship to
anything we have seen so far.

The construction of the central “eye” shows that this fine structure can be reproduced realistically. Photo three, a shot of the backside, shows a stem without leaves attached to a calyx. This is botanically accurate, as far as it goes.  A significant amount of attention was paid to reproducing this artificial blossom in great detail.

        

Flaws can still be seen in this
example, but the overall
appearance makes an asset of its
inclusion in an arrangement.

This photo of the underside
shows that the stem and calyx
are clearly plastic.

This example has some problems that keep it from being ranked at a higher grade. The close up photos reveal significant fraying on the petal edges. Fabric weave is visible in some petals, depending on how the light hits them. In the photo to the right, a cluster of leaves in the upper right actually show light through the weave. Not much care was taken in their fabrication. (Also, there are some petals that are not in tight formation. The blossom looks disheveled, like pillow hair. I initially saw this as a flaw, but I have reviewed some photos on line that show this to be a natural occurrence. Intentional, or not? I don’t know.) Finally, there is an issue with the botanical accuracy of the stem. It is characteristic of this plant to have bristly stems.  There is even a variety known as Rudbeckia hirta – hirta being derived from the Latin for hairy (I suppose akin to hirsute). This specimen’s stem and stamen are shiny, smooth plastic. This would not be an issue in higher grade stems.

These issues notwithstanding, this specimen is a substantial improvement over our previous example at grade three. A lot more care has been taken to simulate the living plant. Efforts to achieve an even greater sense of realism will increase significantly at the final two levels.