HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalCuttingsMember
Garden
Member
Listings
 
Patricia Routley
most recent today SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 5 AUG 14 by flodur
'Baltimore Belle' repeats from August to October - you don't need an extra "repeat version"!
REPLY
Reply #1 of 8 posted 3 days ago by StefanDC
I would counter that you may then simply grow (or be more familiar with) the "repeat version" rather than the original--mine certainly has never shown the slightest inclination to flower after the main season, and most of the early descriptions indicated that it was only once-blooming. It is likely to have sported a repeat-flowering form long ago, given the smattering of descriptions referencing that behavior. Since there was no new name given to that version, the two have probably remained thoroughly mixed in commerce. I wish that mine would bloom more than once a year!

Also, I just noticed that while this entry is listed as "Baltimore Belle (repeat version)" in the list of search results, the tabs within the listing itself only say "Baltimore Belle". It should probably be updated so that all of the tabs say "Baltimore Belle (repeat version)".
REPLY
Reply #2 of 8 posted 2 days ago by flodur
Already 1866 Francis Parkman says: "It shows a tendency to bloom in autumn;" If your rose doesn't rebloom, you probably have 'Mrs. Hovey', that looks very similar, but blooms only once.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 8 posted 2 days ago by Margaret Furness
We need photos including ID-type details of a named plant of Mrs Hovey.
What is grown in Aus as Baltimore Belle and offered by Roses Loubert (see their website) is different from what is / are grown in the US. I no longer have access to a plant. Patricia, do you have photos of yours?
REPLY
Reply #4 of 8 posted yesterday by Patricia Routley
I have “Not Baltimore Belle” (provenance Mistydowns-1; MF-2;) growing right next to “Lewes Kell”. The blooms are similar, but “Lewes Kell”s black thorns are evident, whilst “Not Baltimore Belle” seems to have brownish thorns. I will see later today, if I have any photos to add. There is a Jan 28, 2014 photo of mine in the “Lewes Kell” file which shows a bit of autumn blooming.

Later edit: Unfortunately I do not have ‘Felicite-Perpetue’ to compare, but I note that the Mitcham Cemetery has both “Lewes Kell” and ‘Felicite-Perpetue’ so you South Australian girls would have already compared, and found they were different. From vague memory, it was the way the petals were arranged.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 8 posted yesterday by flodur
Here you may find detailed photos of all parts of my reblooming BB plus photos from Sangerhausen (reblooming), Loubert and L'Haÿ (probably different and only once blooming). http://roses.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Baltimore_Belle
Plus links to all references starting from 1842 to 1866, plus some later ones.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 8 posted yesterday by StefanDC
Thank you for posting a link to your excellent Wiki on your plant! I would say from your photos that your Sangerhausen clone appears identical (or nearly so--I can't see any differences that might not be explained by soil and climate) to the once-blooming U.S. 'Baltimore Belle', other than the repeat flowers. As you note there, the repeat flowers you are seeing there do look a bit different from the main season flush, and if one were to only look at them, one might reasonably conclude that it was not the same variety. Arguably, it is now something else, just as 'New Dawn' was with respect to 'Dr. W. Van Fleet'.

I would say that yours looks very much like a true reblooming sport of 'Baltimore Belle', which was not originally repeat-blooming and still isn't, a fact that is supported by the oldest descriptive references (including the ones you have listed). The non-repeating U.S. plant doesn't need to be 'Mrs. Hovey' to explain this situation, and given that the postulated parentage for the Pierce hybrids at the time was R. setigera crossed with 'Maiden's Blush', I would expect them to look quite different in a number of ways despite of any superficial similarities of flower. The U.S. 'Baltimore Belle' is without a doubt a result of crossing between R. setigera and an early noisette, consistent with the reported origins of the Feast hybrids.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 8 posted yesterday by StefanDC
It appears to me that the references that mention 'Baltimore Belle' as a once-bloomer outnumber those that indicate it blooming repeatedly by a healthy margin; the earliest references, closer to the date of origin and less likely to be affected by occurrences like sporting or mislabeling, indicate it bloomed only once. So does Modern Roses. In fact, I would point out that another of Feast's R. setigera hybrids introduced at about the same time as 'Baltimore Belle' was specifically named 'Perpetual Pink' because of its repeat bloom. Also, the references that directly compared 'Baltimore Belle' with the similar-looking 'Mrs. Hovey' never hinted that one bloomed repeatedly while the other didn't. They were contrasted only by the reportedly greater hardiness of 'Mrs. Hovey', which may stem from the fact that Pierce's hybrids were thought to be from crosses with 'Maiden's Blush', while Feast's were considered likely to be hybrids with noisette roses.

Plants of 'Baltimore Belle' in the United States are generally all the same very well-known clone, and since it has been grown here relatively continuously (and widely) since its introduction, it seems unlikely that it would have been so easily supplanted by a different variety. Photos from plants in Europe and Australia do not appear to be the same variety as the U.S. one, and in fact, there seem to be several different roses in Europe masquerading as 'Baltimore Belle'. My plant, and all others I have seen, bear unmistakable hallmarks of a hybrid with an early noisette--that is consistent with the reported parentage. Such crosses between once-blooming roses and repeat-blooming varieties are known to occasionally sport to repeat-blooming forms, so there is no reason to suppose it shouldn't have happened to 'Baltimore Belle', even by 1866 (or earlier). Consider the case of 'Dr. W. Van Fleet' with respect to its sport 'New Dawn', if you will.

With the exception of just one variety, 'Pride of Washington', all of Joshua Pierce's roses appear to be lost today, and do not seem to have been grown (at least, not correctly identified) for many decades. Not even illustrations of them are in evidence, only descriptions. I have looked long and hard for them, even scouring his old home (only finding a sprig of 'Russelliana' and a double white multiflora rambler there), so I would be thrilled to find any! Even 'Pride of Washington' probably teeters on the brink of extinction and might vanish if it isn't propagated and distributed soon. Suffice it to say, no one alive today knows quite what the other Joshua Pierce varieties looked like.

I will say that your two photos of repeating 'Baltimore Belle' under that variety's "normal" HMF entry do look convincingly like hybrids of R. setigera, but your plant does not look quite identical to the standard U.S. version. I would have a hard time speculating further without seeing or knowing more, but since there were other "prairie rose" hybrids, there is also a good chance that your plant is something other than the repeat blooming 'Baltimore Belle' sport. More photos would be a good place to start in exploring this situation further!
REPLY
Reply #8 of 8 posted today by flodur
I have added some more photos from the University Garden of Trieste. This plant does not rebloom. I don't believe in a sport - why did Parkman not mention this, when he described BB in 1866 as "shows a tendency to bloom in the autumn" (My rose has more or less flowers in autumn, depending of the weather!). The cross with a Noisette brings the genes for reblooming. And Robert Buist already 1844 speaks of "expect (roses from this group) blooming at least three or four times during the season.". Looking at the leaves, the two groups of BB are different. Gravereaux descripes the leaves as "bramble-like" https://collections-roseraie.valdemarne.fr/index.php?metier=varietes&action=fiche_document&id=1041&varid=251
And we find differences in the parfum - my rose has a strong scent, the once blooming ones are described as medium.
Could you please take a lot of detailed photos of all parts of the rose in June/July - leaves, young and ripe, spines, branches, buds, blooms from all sides in different stages. Thats the only way to compare by photos - the best way is of course to have two blooming branches of both types, but then you must come to Germany ... !
REPLY
most recent today SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 12 days ago by a_carl76
The parentage currently listed seems to be different from that listed on the patent.

Patent states "It is a seedling grown from seed produced on the hardy climbing Rosa wichuraiana hybrid known as 'Glendale,' this seed was produced by fertilization with pollen of a self seedling from the hardy climbing Rosa wichuraiana hybrid known as 'Golden Climber, Mrs. Arthur Curtiss James.'"

Currently listed as Glenn Dale X Stargold
Patent Suggests Glendale X seedling of Mrs. Arthur Curtiss James and quite possibly Glendale X (Mrs. Arthur Curtiss James x Mrs. Arthur Curtiss James)
REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 11 days ago by Patricia Routley
I added more references yesterday. No time now for the next two days to look more closely at this one. I wonder if looking at the application dates for the patents will reveal anything.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted today by Patricia Routley
I agree with you about the pollen parent of (Mrs. Arthur Curtiss James x Mrs. Arthur Curtiss James) and will change it from 'Stargold' to the above.

I am at a loss to understand why so many of the Brownell roses are quoting different parentages to those of the Patents. But as nobody has contributed other knowledge, I think it is best if we follow what patents say.
The Brownell roses with wobbly parentages are
Stargold 1936
Lily Pons 1939
Pink Princess 1939 -and because of this one, also:
Creeping Everbloom 1939
Lady Lou 1948
Tip Toes 1948
Midnite Sun 1955
Maria Stern 1968
REPLY
most recent today HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 3 days ago by Sammy's Garden
Where are my roses?
REPLY
Reply #1 of 5 posted 3 days ago by jedmar
Photos are there. Are you missing a plant listing?
REPLY
Reply #2 of 5 posted 3 days ago by Sammy's Garden
The prompt says I have no roses. I have had roses listed here for years, and have paid my fee -- I pay it regularly.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 5 posted today by Patricia Routley
Sammy, I have no idea what happened to your list of roses. It is listed as being last updated on January 29, 2014. I can only hope that you kept your private records as well. Can I offer to help you reinstate your HelpMeFind listing? I can go through your comments and photos and add anything I see there. And then you can add anything that is missing.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 5 posted today by HMF Admin
Issues like this are most always a function of a member having multiple member accounts or garden listings.
Could you have opened a new member account at some point or maybe started a second garden listing. It is not likely your list is lost.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 5 posted today by Sammy's Garden
Is there a way that I can find them? When I last paid, I looked through them. I changed my email a few years ago, but I have seen the roses since then. How could they have just disappeared?
REPLY
most recent today SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 8 days ago by Eisrose
Rose Listing Omission

Luisa Spagnoli
https://shop.rosebarni.it/luisa-spagnoli-®~1176.html

Barni Italy
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted today by Patricia Routley
Thank you Eisrose. Sorry it took a week to get to this - we get there in the end. ‘Luisa Spagnoli’ added.
REPLY
© 2019 HelpMeFind.com