-
-
|
This thing is still looking good. It looked good all through a very harsh summer too.
The foliage is good, and the bush is naturally shaping up without any effort on my part.
It's still flowering. Regardless of what this rose really is, it seems to be a good one.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you so very much for taking the time to share your experience with the HelpMeFind community. Participation like yours is what HelpMeFind is all about and why we keep plugging away.
|
REPLY
|
|
It grows in a very similar way to 'Lady Hillingdon'.
|
REPLY
|
|
Well both it and my LH are still young examples, so may change over time, but at this stage Mystery Beastie is more rounded/sprawling than LH (which is more upright). Seems tougher than LH too.
|
REPLY
|
|
The only Hillingdon I know is a climbing one I prune for a neighbour and I just thought the new growths and leaves look quite similar.
|
REPLY
|
|
Ah. I have the bush form of LH.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have just blundered onto this discussion so forgive me if this has already been suggested and discounted.
Could it be 'Susan Louise'?
|
REPLY
|
|
I vaguely recall suggesting it but am having trouble tracking the discussion. It's listed as #93-396.
|
REPLY
|
|
I need a lesson on how to track down discussion numbers.
|
REPLY
|
|
Likewise.
GMC's photos look pretty much like one of mine of Susan Louise taken at Renmark (plant from John Nieuwesteeg). http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.197204 The other plant of it there came from Thomas for Roses. Our Belle Portugaise came from Ross Roses, and I haven't seen any repeat on it to cast doubt on its accuracy.
|
REPLY
|
|
Not exactly sure where GMC is in NSW but hope they have their head above water at the moment.
|
REPLY
|
|
He's at Lightning Ridge - should be OK. But many Heritage Roses members must be in the flood zones, and we won't know till they get electricity back.
|
REPLY
|
|
No. I'm not at Lightning Ridge. I was in the middle of it and have had the power out for the last two days. Just came back on sometime early this morning, before I woke.
Fortunately the house is elevated, with its own septic system, so no significant problems* apart from the power going out. Brunswick Heads was lucky for water and power, so have been scooting down there for supplies and breakfast.
Other people weren't so lucky. 740 mm of rain in 24 hours during the worst of it. Record floods all over the place. Murwillumbah and Lismore are trashed. So is Uki and several other places.
*One minor problem. The culverts under the main road couldn't handle the volume of water coming down the valley. I checked the bottom of the block around midnight, and the pipes weren't visible then but the rose bed was still about 100 mm clear of the water.
However, after I went to sleep the water must have been rising at about 100-150mm per hour. I know this because it stopped raining around 4am, and sometime between midnight and 4 am the water got high enough for a camphor laurel log to float across the block, over the top of the rose bed, and land between Marie Lambert and Squatter's Dream without damaging either of them. More stunt gardening. :D
It went under last year too after only 400 mm in 24 hours (the previous record). I have decided that roses don't make good aquarium plants, and would probably be happier further up the slope.
|
REPLY
|
|
I'm sorry, don't know where I got the idea you were at Lightning Ridge. Must have been someone else on hmf.
Good to hear you didn't get out of it too badly.
Edit: I misinterpreted your comment on a previous thread, that Jay-Jay should try Lightning Ridge to see what "scorching " is.
|
REPLY
|
|
If I was at Lightning Ridge I'd plant cactus instead of roses. ;)
|
REPLY
|
|
740 mm is as much rain as I get in a year.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#18 of 36 posted
2 APR 17 by
 Jay-Jay
|
Margaret, I can understand why you got the idea! You have a good memory, as You might have proven at: http://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/qcs.php?categoryID=33&topicID=199&threadID=92479&qcID=92602&tab=2&rdir=1#q92602
At GMC: Hope that Your roses survive this deluge!
|
REPLY
|
|
The roses seem to be fine. They were only submerged for a few hours and there wasn't much current. Some leaves went missing, but the framework of the bushes wasn't damaged, and the roots had drainage in the morning.
I lost the mulch off the top of the bed, but that's easily replaced.
|
REPLY
|
|
Several countries around the world have seen bitter proof of the power of water / mud this last week. Have a look at the first half of this video clip: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-02/floodwaters-sweep-away-house-minutes-after-family-rescued/8409188 Fifteen minutes after a family were rescued from the roof of a house, the floodwater pushes the house downriver, knocking over trees in its path.
|
REPLY
|
|
I've never met Susan Louise, but the description says hardly any scent. Mystery Beastie is strongly scented.
Quoting from the Souvenir d'un Ami comments (back when the photos were over there):
"Mine has popped out a bloom today. The Infamous Tea Ladies' Compendium of No-Fuss Roses for Sensible People said 'Scent is a strong, sweet Tea, with fruity, floral and aromatic notes'. Billy described the scent as 'divine fragrance - like old fashioned boiled lollies or Pascall's Fruit Bonbons if you remember them'.
I can't really remember those, but my description would be 'rich, sweet, fruity and a bit musky', with musky again being in the pink Lifesavers sense. Doesn't really have any Tea notes as such, to my nose. Maybe they kick in later.
It definitely smells a bit like lollies of some sort and is generally rather scrumptious. So, allowing for differences in noses and choice of words, this is probably the same scent."
|
REPLY
|
|
Ditto re what Margaret said GMC - glad to hear that you and your roses are safe. Images we are seeing are frightening.
'Susan Louise'. It's always fraught when you think you know a rose in a photo but can I give you the long-hand reasoning before abandoning the suggestion? Comparing your pics with 'Susan Louise', your photos show the darker petal reverses (which makes the bud and partly open bloom appear to be a much darker pink than the fully open bloom). They show the right number of petals and bloom form, the glandular pedicel and the right sort of receptacle shape. The lovely long bud and overall grace of the plant looks right. Healthy-looking foliage - snap. Recurrent.
It really does look a lot like Susan Louise and I can't see anything that rules it out. It's alphabetically very close to 'Souvenir d'Un Ami', so possibly a case of a pot being out of line in the nursery?
Always easier to rule out an identity than to confirm one and I can confidently say it's not "Aust & NZ Not Souvenir d'Un Ami" which has a different receptacle shape, smooth pedicels and distinctive foliage.
Re Susan Louise's fragrance - we definitely need some more opinions because although Rosenlexicon gave it 3/10, Frances E. Lester described it as 'very fragrant' (SUSAN LOUISE, Originated by Dr. Adams, of San Jose, Calif., seedling of Belle of Portugal; a very strong growing New Rose of much merit; beautiful long buds and very fragrant, well formed light pink flowers borne continuously all through the season. Roses of Monterey: a book for rose lovers, 1933, p.18.)
Sorry I don't have 'Susan Louise' in my own garden or I'd be able to check for the fragrance notes you describe - will check the plant at Araluen the next time I visit.
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?
|
REPLY
|
|
Billy, I'm happy to accept that Mystery Beastie is not "Souvenir d'Un Aussie". I merely quoted my earlier comment about scent to help narrow things down.
The Lester reference is noteworthy, so I checked the T4R catalogue. It says:
"Susan Louise -(t) -semi double open flesh pink flowers, fragrant."
That indicates they agree with Lester on scent, and disagree with the current HMF description. Also, in the HYBRID PERPETUAL & TEA ROSE section of their catalogue, 'Susan Louise' is listed directly after "Souvenir D'Un Ami". Since I know they mixed up Charisma and Chanelle, due to those two being one after the other in both the catalogue and the nursery bed, they may well have made a similar mistake with "Souvenir D'Un Ami" and 'Susan Louise'.
Which is fine. I like the thing anyway, so am not worried about a mix-up if that's what happened. I was thinking of re-ordering 'Chanelle' this year as I really would like to try it. I think I'll add a "Souvenir D'Un Ami" to the list as well, with a note asking them to haul it out of the middle of the relevant section just to make sure.
Regarding hips: so far I have been very slack with deadheading, but it hasn't seemed to make hips. Will keep an eye on it and post pictures if it makes any.
Edit: There is one thing that is not so fine if it is 'Susan Louise', in that SL can apparently grow to monstrous size. I really wanted something about the natural size of "S. d'un Ami" in that spot. I can move it, of course, so not a major problem. I have plenty of space for monsters that need new homes.
|
REPLY
|
|
This thread has rekindled the urge to find a spot for 'Susan Louise'. Noelene Drage had one in her hillside garden in Boya and it always looked incredibly healthy. It was a good size there, mostly left to its own devices, but not enormous - about 2 metres wide and maybe 5' high. The lingering impression is of the clean-looking healthy foliage - lots of it - and the gorgeous buds. It was on water rations there though.
Melvilles Nursery kept one to very modest proportions by cutting it back hard each winter. I preferred the occasionally trimmed version in Noelene's garden - a really gracious shrub.
Scratching head re how on earth that log got there without flattening your roses GMC.
|
REPLY
|
|
You and me both. I was cracking up laughing when I saw it. I'm not laughing now, because I have to think of how to move the bloody thing back to where it was (preferably without flooding the block again). It weighs around 400 kg at an educated guesstimate, and is rather unwieldy.
Obviously water rations are not such an issue here, so 'Susan Louise'* may go bonkers. If it wants to go bonkers I would prefer to let it, so moving it soon may make the most sense.
And yes the foliage is great. Quite honestly, foliage of that quality is what I really want from roses. Not necessarily the same colour or size or shape, but definitely the same quality. I really do not like ratty-looking shrubs, nor do I like having to fuss over them to stop them looking ratty.
*I think we can now be 99% sure it is 'Susan Louise'.
Edit: While I think of it, what is Susan Louise like for fangs, to the best of your recollection? Mystery Beastie is fangless so far.
|
REPLY
|
|
I've just done a search of my old computer files, looking for anything useful. I did start collecting data on 'Susan Louise' before it was relegated to 'fellow-traveller' status, but only have one sheet of rough impressions taken in October 2002.
According to this, there were some small prickles on the new wood but that they tended to fall off leaving many thornless stems.
I'll put the whole thing here with a disclaimer that more obs need to be taken in the other seasons to see whether anything noted here varies widely over the year.
Susan Louise
Long receptacle shaped approx like a champagne flute that narrows slightly at the top.
Sepals are narrow.
Glandular pedicel/ some bristles, prickles.
New growth can have small prickles but tends to shed them over time leaving almost thornless wood.
Foliage has fresh appearance with a healthy sheen.
Leaflets - 5’s some 6’s and 7’s.
Blooms mostly singles, also clusters of 2, 3 and 4.
Bud is pointed, long, graceful. Very clean appearance.
Bud unfurls into a loose spiral – languid. Bloom has a graceful, relaxed appearance.
Petals have a pleasing lustre which gives the blooms a special luminosity.
Pedicel is curved, blooms nod.
Plant is twiggy.
Prickles are small, broad-based.
Bloom has 15 - 16 long petals.
Backs of petals are a darker pink than the face. The contrast between the face and reverse of petals adds to the shadow and light, interest and beauty of the bloom. Both sides of the petal lighten with age.
Generous boss of stamens.
Rich gold stamens quickly fade to straw colour with greenish tinge to base, and age whitish.
Stamens emerge from a fleshy dome.
|
REPLY
|
|
Quite a bit of detail about the blooms*, but no mention of scent**.
*Which all fits MB.
**Which MB has plenty of.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes - I was a bit disappointed about that but back then it was all about what the eyes saw and it was only later that the nose got a guernsey.
|
REPLY
|
|
I tend to follow my nose first. If my nose doesn't find something interesting, I tend to ignore the bush in question. At least with roses anyway. Roses should smell good, IMO.
Edit: Iceberg is a good example. Some people rave about Iceberg because it's a white rose. I can't stand Iceberg, because it has no scent. Loathe the silly thing. All the spikes, all the diseases, and no scent. What's the point? Napalm the stupid thing and save some bother.
|
REPLY
|
|
Agree to that. I have artificial silk roses inside the house that look good for the past 17 years (zero water & zero fertilizer !!) If a rose has no scent, why bother?
|
REPLY
|
|
Spent much of the day at Araluen and I arrived just after 'Susan Louise had been dead-headed' :(
No blooms or buds to sniff. Will try again next time.
I found just one prickle on the plant. It was very smooth.
|
REPLY
|
|
I would leave the log there to astonish visitors.
|
REPLY
|
|
On reflection, I think I'll just get a chainsaw and cut the log down into manageable chunks. I've been meaning to buy one anyway. Never know when it will come in handy on a rural block.
|
REPLY
|
|
You are made of stern stuff. I can never bring myself to remove these special points of interest in the garden whereupon hangs a good story which is probably why the garden has many tripping hazards.
Still.... it is a good story and the log is big enough to perch on with a cuppa - so..... interesting and useful.
|
REPLY
|
|
From my perspective it's not a special point of interest. It's just a log in the wrong spot. Or random flood debris, if you prefer. I would rather have a clear view of the roses from the side which is currently loggy. There are other things to sit on.
Edit: The other point to consider is that if we get another heavy rain and the bed goes under again, said log's behaviour may be rather more inconvenient next time. I think dealing with it before it can cause real trouble is the sensible option.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#34 of 36 posted
29 MAR 21 by
BEMONT
|
If anyone knows how to get this rose (Susan Louise) I would love to have it in my collection. My name is Susan Louise Montgomery. I have been searching for the rose(Susan) to buy from Kordes I live in the U.S.A sorry to interrupt but felt the strong need to find out more on this rose. Thank you susan
|
REPLY
|
|
Looking at the photos, I think your best bet is to contact a Heritage Roses group in California, and ask if any of them have plants for sale, or cuttings.
I'd suggest you remove your email address from your posting, as it will attract spammers.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#36 of 36 posted
30 MAR 21 by
BEMONT
|
Thank you Margaret, I will contact Heritage Roses and see if they could help me with my search. I took your advice and removed my email info . Thanks again for your help.
|
REPLY
|
|
