HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
"Agnes Smith" rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 109-048
most recent 8 MAR HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 6 MAR by HubertG
I wonder if "Maud Little" (Tea, 1891, Pierre de St Cyr x Comtesse de Labarthe) might be a contender for "Agnes Smith".
Many aspects of Agnes remind me of CdL and I came across Maud Little looking up CdL's offspring. Although Pierre de St Cyr is a Bourbon, looking at the photos here it can bear some resemblance to Agnes, and it isn't difficult imagining it as one of the parents.
The time period is about right too, although I have no idea if, or when, it was introduced in Australia. Just some food for thought.

The other thought is that even though this rose was renamed after Agnes Smith who died in 1893, her husband Archibald was buried in the same grave in 1901. Had a large rose been planted on Agnes' grave it would have made things awkward for Archibald's burial. Even though "Agnes Smith" might have been a rose variety already very old in 1901, it still could have been an introduction closer to Archibald's death.

From the Old Rose Advisor:
Maud Little (Dingee & Conard, 1891). From Pierre de St.-Cyr (B) x Comtesse de Labarthe (T)
Of moderate growth, satisfactory stature, medium culture, flowers beautiful and full; colour, China Pink, delicate with a distinctly bright tint; distinctive, noticeably beautiful.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 7 posted 6 MAR by Patricia Routley
It might be a contender. I too have seen similarities between the two roses, mainly in the foliage, I think.
I have indexed many old catalogues but I can find no record of 'Maud Little' entering Australia (in my computer). It still might have come in though - my selection of old Australian catalogues is relatively small.
It was not listed in The Dingee & Conard Co. 1901 catalogue and only the name was mentioned in the American Rose Annuals 1917 to 1922, so at this stage, there is almost no information on 'Maud Little'.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 7 posted 6 MAR by HubertG
I found this description online for Maud Little in a Dingee catalogue under new roses imported 1891:

"Maud Little. — Raised from Pierre St. Cyr and Duchesse
de Brabant; a very pretty Rose, of good form and substance,
not entirely full, but very handsome and sweet; color soft
china rose, with a peculiar glowing, lustrous bloom ; very
beautiful. 25 cts. each."

This certainly suggests it was a European rose.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 7 posted 7 MAR by Patricia Routley
We'll add that reference if we can have a page number please HubertG. I presume it is the 1891 catalogue?
REPLY
Reply #4 of 7 posted 7 MAR by HubertG
It appears to be the 1892 catalogue. Here's the online transcription:
https://archive.org/stream/ournewguidetoros18ding_1/ournewguidetoros18ding_1_djvu.txt

I can't see a page number.

There are lots of interesting tea descriptions. You'll have your work cut out for you.

I found two things interesting. Firstly, all their roses were cutting grown and secondly, they offered a cheap package deal of three roses that they said thousand of customers took up. The three were Marie Lambert, Coquette de Lyon, and Mad. Agatha Nabonnand. I can only assume that these in particular were offered because they were easy to propagate by cuttings. I wonder if they still exist in the same gardens all over America.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 7 posted 7 MAR by Margaret Furness
The latter two have no recent photos, and no seller or garden currently listed on hmf. Gone, gone.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 7 posted 8 MAR by HubertG
They might still be growing somewhere or be something else in disguise. Regarding the Marie Lambert offer by Dingee; I was just reading the descriptions for Ducher as there seemed to be some confusion between the two roses. One of the early writers said how Ducher differed from the other Chinas in that it was very hard to propagate by cuttings. If this is true I suppose that this would distinguish the two roses as distinctly separate if Dingee could offer thousand of Marie Lambert from cuttings.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 7 posted 8 MAR by Margaret Furness
Good point: that unwillingness to grow from cuttings should be a valid discriminator.
There are plenty of lost-name roses around; but early descriptions (and recent) were usually so non-specific that there's no chance of identifying them. Unless they have an unusual characteristic, eg like Marquise de Vivens.
REPLY
Discussion id : 107-864
most recent 9 FEB HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 9 FEB by HubertG
One characteristic I have noticed about 'Agnes Smith' is that it readily sets normal-sized hips but each hip contains only a few seeds, sometimes even none. It is an excellent tea rose and should be grown more widely. The flowers can be quite large at times.
REPLY
Discussion id : 99-120
most recent 8 MAY 17 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 8 MAY 17 by scvirginia
Looking at the photos here, the buds for "James Watson" seem to be quite glandular, whereas the buds for "Agnes Smith" look smooth, with slightly longer sepals (at least in the March 2008 photo from Jane Z).

If this is a consistent difference, I wonder if they are the same variety?

Virginia
REPLY
Discussion id : 89-753
most recent 13 DEC 15 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 13 DEC 15 by Spotto
Available from - Roses and Friends Nursery
rosesandf@bigpond.com
REPLY
© 2018 HelpMeFind.com