|
|
-
-
|
Wouldn't think so. Description doesn't really match.
|
REPLY
|
|
Maybe Susan Louise, then? With the possibility of someone mis-hearing.
|
REPLY
|
|
Doesn't sound like it. My beastie has a thumping good scent, and Susan Louise doesn't (according to the description).
|
REPLY
|
|
Just checking a few of the other photos. Billy's shots #208288 and #208289 show plenty of leaves with no purple reverses (paler green, like mine) and a cross section that's not all that tacoacious (some leaves more than others).
The first shot in particular, which is a winter shot so fits this time of year, has foliage similar to mine and unfurling buds of a similar shape. Mine gets the almost tubular form on the buds too. Colour is similar. The scent sounds similar to mine. The main differences are the number of petals, and the way mine's sorta gone "sproing!" and looks a bit like it's had quite a surprise, and the infamous slightly bristly pedicels.
I think it should be allowed to settle in for a while and see what develops. It might (should) look different in summer.
And anyway, whatever it is it's a drop dead gorgeous rose. I'm not at all displeased with it.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have neither 'Belle Portugaise' (apparently very fragrant), nor 'Susan Louise', but I am fairly certain that your rose from Thomas For Roses is not "Souvenir d'un Ami (in Australia)". Please compare your elongated receptacle shape (286274) with the more rounded shape of Billy's (208287 and 208288) and mine (286486, photo no. 015, bottom left).
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes it does look a bit different.
Perhaps I should give mine the study name of "Souvenir de la Sasanqua Effarouché" just for the moment.
|
REPLY
|
|
To lessen any confusion in the "Souvenir d'un Ami (in Australia)" file, I thought you wouldn't mind if I moved your photos into your GMC Headquarters garden file. This will give you more time to study your new rose and when you are more certain of its identity, it is a simple matter to move them again.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think there's probably enough known now that we can confidently call this 'Susan Louise'. Ok, if I move the relevant content over to that rose's pages?
|
REPLY
|
|
Looks like 'Susan Louise'. I had it here for some time.
|
REPLY
|
|
I remembered one of Billy's comments about 'Susan Lousie'.
"Seem to recall seeing some quite unusual hips on 'Susan Louise'. Lumpy ones - some almost dumb-bell shaped. Do you want to spare the secateurs for a bit and see what sort of hips your rose makes?"
I found a few immature hips on mine. Not dumb-bell shaped, but the one on the right does seem to be going a bit lumpy. Might get lumpier with age. I'll leave some on the bush and see how they go.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think I got the same hips but I don't recall them ever containing much seed, if any.
|
REPLY
|
|
Y'know on second thought you could be right here. Originally I just read the description of Belle Portugaise and thought it didn't sound right, but I've just checked all the photos for it and there is a remarkable resemblance.
Quite honestly I hope it isn't Belle Portugaise, because it's in entirely the wrong spot for a monster gigantea hybrid. To keep it within the limits there I'd have to hope it likes being bonsai'd. I'd also strongly prefer it to flower more than once a year.
On the other hand it is totally gorgeous, and I could find a suitable spot for it if I really have to.
Anyway, I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens.
Edit: Just checked, and T4R do have Belle Portugaise. I'd think it unlikely that they'd get it mixed up with something else, since they'd obviously know what it was, so am still hoping that I have something else.
|
REPLY
|
|
