SKU: 32470216972
hardy english lavender plants

hardy english lavender plants Sensational Lavender Plants (Potted / P9 (9cm Pot))

$22.34 $24.82
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on gamcb.com >

Pay in installments of $6.21 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 21 - Jul 26

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

hardy english lavender plants Sensational Lavender Plants (Potted / P9 (9cm Pot))Variety: Sensational Species: Lavandula intermedia (Dutch lavender Lavandin) Colour: Deep violet purple, darker than Phenomenal, on thick stems Foliage: Evergreen, aromatic, broad silver green leaves; notably heavier than other Lavandins Height: 6075cm (2430in) Spread: 6090cm (2436in) Flowering: Late June to September, with strong secondary blooms after deadheading Scent: Sweet and floral for a Lavandin, with less camphor than Grosso or Phenomenal

  • Variety: Sensational
  • Species: Lavandula × intermedia (Dutch lavender / Lavandin)
  • Colour: Deep violet-purple, darker than Phenomenal, on thick stems
  • Foliage: Evergreen, aromatic, broad silver-green leaves; notably heavier than other Lavandins
  • Height: 60–75cm (24–30in)
  • Spread: 60–90cm (24–36in)
  • Flowering: Late June to September, with strong secondary blooms after deadheading
  • Scent: Sweet and floral for a Lavandin, with less camphor than Grosso or Phenomenal
  • Hardiness: Fully hardy throughout the UK
  • RHS AGM: No
  • Introduced: By Lloyd Traven at Peace Tree Farm, Pennsylvania. The next generation after Phenomenal
  • Sold as: P9 and 3L deep pots, grown on by us in Somerset from licensed young plants. Peat-free compost
  • Plant outdoors: From late April in the south. May is safer for northern and exposed gardens
  • Delivered: From April/May, weather dependent. Collection from Castle Cary also available

Sensational Lavender — Phenomenal's Bigger-Flowered Successor

Sensational is what happens when a breeder looks at one of the most successful lavender introductions of the last twenty years and decides it can be improved. Lloyd Traven at Peace Tree Farm in Pennsylvania bred Phenomenal; then he bred Sensational. The flowers are larger, the stems thicker, the habit more compact and upright, and the camphor note in the scent is lower. If Phenomenal was the plant that proved a Lavandin could look good all year round in a British garden, Sensational is the version that proves the point more emphatically. The flower spikes are around 10cm long, dense and fat, held on sturdy stems that do not flop even in wet weather. The colour is a deep violet-purple, a shade or two darker than Phenomenal's already strong showing.

It flowers from late June (earlier than most Lavandins) and, if you deadhead the first flush, produces a genuine second round of bloom that carries the display into September. The silver-green foliage is broader and heavier than Phenomenal's, giving the plant a more substantial, almost shrubby look through winter. It is fully hardy throughout the UK and, like its predecessor, tolerates humidity and heavy rain better than older Lavandin varieties. If we had to pick one weakness, it would be that Sensational is a new variety and has not yet been tested through as many British winters as Grosso or Phenomenal. Early signs, here in Somerset at least, are good.

Peace Tree Farm and the Phenomenal Family

Lloyd Traven runs Peace Tree Farm in Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, and he is responsible for a quiet revolution in lavender growing. Before Phenomenal appeared in 2007 (as a chance sport from Grosso), the standard advice for Lavandins in cold or humid climates was: don't bother. Phenomenal changed that because it simply refused to die in conditions that killed other varieties. Sensational is the deliberate follow-up: selected, not accidental, and protected by Plant Breeders' Rights (a bit like copyright for plants). The cultivar name is 'Tesseract'. Traven's stated aim was to produce a more compact plant with bigger flowers and lower camphor, and by most accounts he has succeeded. Whether the UK gardening public takes to Sensational the way it took to Phenomenal remains to be seen. We think it will.

Where Sensational Works Best

At 60–75cm, Sensational sits between the compact English lavenders and the tall, loose Lavandins like Grosso and Vera. It makes an impressive mid-border plant, a substantial low hedge (space at 45cm apart for a solid line), or a statement in a large pot (40cm minimum). For a layered lavender border, plant Hidcote or Munstead at the front, Sensational behind, and ornamental grasses or rosemary at the back. The thick stems make Sensational a good cut flower; the spikes hold their shape and colour well when dried. Browse our Dutch lavender range or see all our lavender plants.

Why Use Ashridge?

Your Sensational plants are grown on by us in Somerset from licensed young plants in peat-free compost. We only send them when conditions are right for planting, by next-day courier, and they come with our guarantee and support from the gardening team here if you need advice. We hold a Which? Best Plant Supplier award, which we mention because it keeps our customers happy when we do.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Sensational lavender better than Phenomenal?

Different rather than better. Sensational has larger flowers, thicker stems, and less camphor in the scent; the habit is more compact and upright. Phenomenal has a longer UK track record while Sensational has yet to be tested in a hard winter. (Of course, we may never see another one of those). The truth is they are similar, coming from the same breeding programme.

What is a Lavandin? How is it different from English lavender?

Lavandin (Lavandula × intermedia) is a natural hybrid between English lavender and Spike lavender. The plants are bigger and the flower spikes longer. The scent is stronger but it has that camphor note English lavenders lack. Lavandins are hardier than people think; Sensational, Phenomenal, and Grosso are all fully hardy in the UK. The main difference for the gardener is scale: Lavandins are 60cm to over a metre while English lavenders don't get much taller than 60 cm. For cooking, English lavender is better but for dried flowers and moth deterrance pick a Lavandins.

Can I use Sensational lavender for oil or potpourri?

The thick flower spikes and sturdy stems make Sensational one of the best varieties for cutting and drying. The scent is sweeter and less camphor-heavy than Grosso's, which some people prefer in pot-pourri and lavender bags. For serious oil extraction you would still choose Grosso (the world standard for commercial lavender oil), but for home use Sensational produces plenty of fragrant material.

How far apart should I plant Sensational for a hedge?

45cm apart for a solid hedge. This is the standard spacing for Lavandins, which are wider-spreading than English varieties. At that distance, plants from 2L pots fill in by the end of the second summer; P9s take a season longer. Always plant into warm soil. May is ideal in most of the UK.

Does Sensational lavender come back every year?

Lavender is an evergreen shrub, not a herbaceous perennial; it keeps its foliage all year and does not die back in winter. Sensational's broad silver leaves look particularly good through the colder months. With annual pruning after flowering, a healthy plant should last eight to ten years before it gets too woody to recover. When that happens, take cuttings or plant fresh; you can put new lavender exactly where the old one was without any replant problems.

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 32470216972

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell hardy english lavender plants

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.2 ★★★★★
Based on 8 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
C
Verified Purchase
Chris Morton
Bozeman, US
★★★★★ 5
Excellent!!!
Format: Kindle
A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Port Orchard, US
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
S
Verified Purchase
Stephen J. Jaros
Dallas, US
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
R
Ross L. Meyer
Waukegan, US
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0. Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law. Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014
B
Verified Purchase
Brenda B.
Massapequa, US
★★★★★ 5
My Grandchildren LOVED this!
Format: Hardcover
I read this out loud to my two grandchildren ages 4 and 6 at bedtime. They're so excited to be reading a chapter book and they LOVED it! The book's quirky sense of humor is great and it was fun to hear the kids giggle. We loved how the sloth appears in each story. They couldn't wait for the next night to read. Mr Angleberger- please write more!!!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2017

recommand products

Anthurium 'Water Dragon'
22.48
Envu
22.53
Anthurium Eliarmijos Inspirations — Ecuagenera Orquídeas del Ecuador
27.38
Anthurium Clarinervium – Toltec Plants
26.32
Anthurium Papillilaminum Variegated – Siamplantes
24.36