A survey of roses has discovered that the cheapest bunches can sometimes be the best. reuters

There is good news for men looking to impress their ladies but also keep an eye on just how thin that wallet gets!

They could opt for cheaper roses... and no that doesn't mean they will get the sickliest of the bunch.

A report in the Daily Mail mentions a survey of roses by Good Housekeeping magazine... the surprising result is that the cheapest roses may, in fact, be the best ones!

The polling was based on the flowers' availability, delivery service, the "wow" factor and their longevity; the roses were selected from five major retailers and were priced, roughly, between £30 and £50.

The judges were most impressed with the roses from online florist Bunches. These were priced at £29.99 - the cheapest of the lot - and scored a hugely impressive 93 points of a possible 100. What's more, they lasted for 16 days before drying up.

These were followed by those Serenata Flower and Fine Flora, with 85 and 84 points, respectively. Retailer M&S was fourth with 83 points. Their roses, priced at £35, lasted only for 11 days. Nevertheless, they were praised for having "the best-quality blooms".

Finally, the roses from Tesco, which were the costliest, were priced at a whopping £46.99 (not including a £5.99 delivery charge and a £1 credit card fee!). The judges awarded only 75 points to these flowers, largely because they lasted for only 8 days and had "some bruised petals".

Michael Marriott, a rose expert, reportedly advised buyers to "touch petals gently and make sure they are firm. If they are floppy the roses are dehydrated and won't last".

"You can source the best quality, but they are a delicate flower and are easily spoilt during transportation and storage," he was quoted as saying, in the Daily Mail report.