HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalMember
Garden
Member
Listings
 
Margaret Furness
most recent 2 days ago HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 3 days ago by thebig-bear
I know it mentions shade and poor soil tollerance for this rose in the references, but catalogues often list this as needing full sun. What are your experiences of it in your own gardens?
REPLY
Reply #1 of 7 posted 3 days ago by Margaret Furness
I collected one as a road- verge survivor, where it was growing under pine trees - probably got a little afternoon sun, and was quite small. (Strathalbyn Rd provenance in Patricia's photos). I have two from that plant, one in full sun, and one where it gets late afternoon shade. It's a tall arching shrub-climber in garden conditions here (zone 9b), taller in good soil, 2.1m and more. Best espaliered. Tends to proliferate. I'll post photos in a couple of weeks.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 7 posted 3 days ago by thebig-bear
Hi Margaret, thats great, thank you. I look forward to seeing it in all its glory in your photos.

Does anyone else find that it tends to proliferate a lot?
REPLY
Reply #3 of 7 posted 3 days ago by Margaret Furness
I should add: it's very prickly. See Patricia's photo.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 7 posted 3 days ago by thebig-bear
Oh, that would be ok, thorniness not too big a deal - it would be going somewhere that was off the beaten track. The place I'm thinking of is about 2.5 feet in front of a 7 foot conifer hedge, dry, poorish soil, partially under the very edge of a Magnolia's canopy, with full sun up until around 12 or 1pm, then shady for the most part of the rest of the day, unless the odd ray gets over the hedge top. Would it be quite happy in those sorts of conditions? I suppose if it can survive being under Pine trees on the edge of a road it probably can. It's one of a few contenders for the spot, others being Bourbon Queen, Coupe d'Hebe, Baronne Prevost and a couple of others. Would one of them be better suited do you think?
REPLY
Reply #5 of 7 posted 3 days ago by thebig-bear
Or does it really sound too bad for any of the roses!
REPLY
Reply #6 of 7 posted 3 days ago by Patricia Routley
I have three plants, all on their own roots and they do sucker. They are never watered.
Full sun (Provenance Ross Roses (as Cardinal de Richelieu-1; Sandie Maclean-2;)
Full shade (Provenance Ron Duncan-1; PT-2;)
Morning shade, afternoon sun (Provenance Strathalbyn Rd.)

The full sun and full shade are both on poor soil. They still do OK.
The morning shade and afternoon sun does much better but the site was where a neighbour dumped a tractor bucket full of cow manure for me probably in about 2000.

I feel 'Great Western' is the best rose for your site.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 7 posted 2 days ago by thebig-bear
Thank you Patricia, that's really helpful.
REPLY
most recent 3 days ago HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 6 days ago by thebig-bear
Please can someone tell me when and where La Reine was rediscovered? And, not that I am casting doubt on its identity, but how do we know that the plant we have today is the original La Reine?

I haven't been able to find out anything about its rediscovery - all I know is that Graham Thomas mentions in his book "Shrub Roses of Today" ,first published in 1962, that "It is sad and inexplicable to me that how such a famous pink rose as La Reine (1842) can have disappeared. In its heyday it was in every catalogue and its portrait in every book. Perhaps it may yet be retrieved." Yet it seems to have been around for quite a while now. If anyone can enlighten me, I would be very interested to know the story.

Edit: I have just noticed in the references that the discovery was made somewhere in East Germany, but I would still like to know where and when, and the circumstances behind it.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 21 posted 6 days ago by Margaret Furness
I can't tell you anything about its history in Europe. In Australia, a rose (or roses) similar to it is a survivor in old gardens and cemeteries. We've tried to work out if it's La Reine or its offspring Anna de Diesbach, because a found rose was circulated under the latter name in the 1980s, but early descriptions and pictures weren't distinct enough. I went through a stage of calling it "Anna-La Reine". It's further complicated by mix-ups between La Reine and John Hopper, apparently soon after they reached Australia. John Hopper is also a survivor, and there appears to be a form which is more scented than the usual. Now in listing the foundling collection at Renmark, I just use "La Reine family" for those whose outer petals stay curved upwards, and "John Hopper family" for those whose outer petals eventually turn down.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 21 posted 5 days ago by thebig-bear
Thanks Margaret, I appreciate your answer.

I am always interested in stories about roses that are lost in one or more parts of the world, and how they can turn up in another, or how their histories can diverge in different countries.

I remember reading somewhere of two American guys supposedly finding “La Reine” in amongst a number of old varieties growing in an old cemetery in the States in the late 60’s, but I don’t know which “version” it was, or how it was corroborated other than through comparing it to old prints. A shame that no original early photos of La Reine seem to exist from the time before it was lost from sight.

Yes, I thought I had heard once before about the mix up with John Hopper in Australia. I haven’t seen “La Reine” in the flesh, but having seen John Hopper (at least in the guise for sale in this country!) and having compared it to the photos of La Reine, I can see how the mistake could have taken place, even though I still find it strange. I too thought I had seen a couple of different “John Hopper” roses just from the pics here on HMF compared to the one I saw for sale (not helped by being a very changeable rose by all accounts), and to be honest I thought that there might be two different “La Reine” in the pics on here. Some seem to have more thorns/prickles than others, and some don’t match too closely with the original drawings and paintings to my eyes, although I am happy to be proved wrong! What ever it is, it seems from what I have heard to live up to the name, even if it isn’t it’s own!

Would be interesting to know about the different forms of “Anna de Diesbach” that are out there, and how they might differ from La Reine. I personally have never seen “Anna” for sale in this country, but I could be mistaken. I like your name of “Anna La Reine”! When I was first into roses, whenever I came across this rose in a book, I was always reading it wrong, as "Anna de Diesback", which would be a rather unfortunate name wouldn't it! It always makes me smile when I come across it now.

Another reason I was asking, other than just general interest, was because I would like to use “La Reine” in my breeding work, and wanted to know if the plant we have today matches the historical fecundity of the original. Having said that, as long as it is an original H.P. from the 19th Century with good seed production, I don’t suppose the name is too important in that particular matter! I have heard good things, but what is your experience with the various “La Reine” in Australia?

From a cool but sunny UK autumn!

Kind regards, and thanks once again,

Steve
REPLY
Reply #3 of 21 posted 5 days ago by thebig-bear
p.s. another thing I wanted to ask you about - I have often wonderd whether La Reine could in some way be related to Coupe d'hebe, as they seem quite similar in many ways, and both are from the Laffay stable from around the same time. Any thoughts?
REPLY
Reply #4 of 21 posted 5 days ago by Nastarana
See the reference from 1974, which has 'Rose de la Reine' being rediscovered in East Germany. Be aware that Mr. Wyatt does have a certain...reputation...among American rose growers.

Vintage Gardens Book of Roses states as provenance for their plant: "Robinson, found", VGBOR, 2006, p.72.
That might possibly have been at the Korbel Winery, where Mr. Robinson seems to have discovered quite a number of roses which had been lost to commerce.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 21 posted 5 days ago by thebig-bear
Thanks for that, Nastarana.

I was just wondering if the 1974 reference could be indicating that it was found in Sangerhausen then? (as that was in East Germany at the time). And if it had been rediscovered by 1974, then why does my reprint of Shrub Roses of Today from 1980, which has plenty of amendments from previous editions, not mention the rediscovery? Curiouser and curiouser!

The VGBOR reference sounds good, at least so far as an American discovery is concerned; I have been wondering all day after Margaret's message whether it is possible that there are at least three different sources for rediscovering La Reine, or multiple "La Reine"s - i.e. in East Germany for Europe, somewhere (am right in thinking California with the Korbel Winery?) in the States, and an Australian/Australaisian source. Personally, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Australian or US La Reine were the original, and the East German one, if different to the others, was a post WW2 mislabelling of something else.

I'm intrigued to hear about these discoveries by Mr Robinson. I will look at getting the VGBOR - is it a book you would recommend?

Thanks again,

Kind regards,

Steve
REPLY
Reply #6 of 21 posted 5 days ago by Margaret Furness
Yes re VGBOR!
I haven't tried planting seeds from what we have, or pollinating it, but it certainly sets hips. We have it from 8 gardens, each with its own study name.
Can't help with Coupe d'Hebe, sorry, as I haven't grown it.
John Hopper is at times the brightest-coloured rose in my garden. It is taller-growing than the other one/s.
REPLY
Reply #11 of 21 posted 4 days ago by thebig-bear
Thanks Margaret, those pics are great!

Edit: for what its worth, here is a photo I took of the pot label of the John Hopper that I saw was for sale last year. Unfortunately I don't seem to have taken one of the actual plant! I just wondered if it might help in any way with identification or something. It looks quite different from the La Reine that is for sale in the UK, but that doesn't say much does it?
REPLY
Reply #14 of 21 posted 4 days ago by Margaret Furness
Difference in climate maybe - mine reaches 1.8m without difficulty. But Austins can get very tall here too.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 21 posted 4 days ago by Nastarana
Absolutely you should acquire VGBOR. You might have to try the second hand markets. I don't think it has been reprinted since the nursery closed.
REPLY
Reply #8 of 21 posted 4 days ago by Patricia Routley
Nastarana - At my desk, Wyatt has a fine reputation for his efforts to save old roses.
He edited The Complete Rosarian by Norman Young in 1971 and I have added a reference in which he says 'La Reine' has been preserved in cultivation.

I have added the Vintage Gardens Book of Roses reference.

Virginia - I have also added the majority of your references which were in Comments. You might like to check I have chosen the correct Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener please.

Steve - you might like to give us the exact reference from Shrub Roses of Today (edition and page number) and we'll add that as well. Sorry, I only have The Graham Stuart Thomas Rose Book in which there is no mention of 'La Reine.

Margaret - There should be no mix-up between 'La Reine' and John Hopper'. I believe the form of the bloom is different (see my comment Oct 13, 2011 ) and the habit of the bush is different. 'John Hopper' being upright, and 'La Reine' being more shrubby. (Compare Vintage Gardens 2006 diagrams 1 and 2 on page 67.)
REPLY
Reply #9 of 21 posted 4 days ago by Margaret Furness
Agreed. But John Hopper was sold as La Reine early after its arrival in Aus, and there are still people who tell me firmly that they have La Reine, and show me what I see as John Hopper.
REPLY
Reply #10 of 21 posted 4 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
Wouldn't an original 'La Reine' have been in the collection at Sangerhausen?
REPLY
Reply #13 of 21 posted 4 days ago by thebig-bear
Hi Andrew. I would always hope that there might have been, and if I had to plump I'd say chances were that was where the East German example came from, but who knows! No specific reference for where in East Germany has appeared yet. And even then, even if from Sangerhausen, it could be wrong, as I believe someone once told me that some of the roses lost their labels, even though the majority are what they say - however the person who told me could be misinformed.
REPLY
Reply #12 of 21 posted 4 days ago by thebig-bear
I'll try and find it, but searches so far seem to suggest its going to hurt my wallet!

Edit: I was meaning the book, but yes, the rose is pretty expensive too!
REPLY
Reply #15 of 21 posted 3 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
Yes Steve, I know exactly what you mean. Every time I look at what roses are grown in Europe I end up buying plants like 'Erenningrung an Brod' or 'Gloire des Rosomanes', (which inexplicably aren't grown by British nurseries), at forty quid a shot!
REPLY
Reply #16 of 21 posted 3 days ago by Margaret Furness
How about joining a Heritage Roses group, whose members are willing to share cuttings around. I do believe in supporting the remnant nurseries that sell old roses, but paying postage as well isn't on. I don't think any rose is worth 40 quid.
REPLY
Reply #17 of 21 posted 3 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
Oh yes, I did join the Historic Roses Group at Patricia's recommendation and very interesting they are too, however they don't have any of the Q and A forums or resources found on HMF. In the future when we finally Brexit it will become more difficult and expensive to buy plants from Europe.
REPLY
Reply #18 of 21 posted 3 days ago by thebig-bear
That's it exactly - and I'm particularly glad you mention Gloire des Rosomanes; why that rose, which is so ubiquitous in other countries, is not available from one, single seller in this country is really beyond me!

Edit: Hmmm...... maybe I should go into business and sell it!
REPLY
Reply #19 of 21 posted 3 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
I buy a lot of roses from Trevor White Roses, they have a good range of unusual roses and are cheaper than Austin's and Beale's too.
REPLY
Reply #20 of 21 posted 3 days ago by thebig-bear
Me too,....sort of! What I mean is that I haven't ordered any from them directly (but I'm thinking I will) but the plant centre at the gardens I often visit have a really good range of roses for sale, and other than English Roses, everything else they sell is from Trevor White. They are superb plants, and really good value for money. What is your experience with their service direct? I only wish their range was just a little wider.
REPLY
Reply #21 of 21 posted 3 days ago by Andrew from Dolton
They are very good and the plants are good quality. I have also bought plants from the nursery at Perryhill in Hartfield, Sussex but I can only visit that on trips to see my family in Sussex 250 miles away.
REPLY
most recent 6 days ago SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 3 JUL 16 by mmanners
I think it should be noted that the original identity of the rose we grow as 'Pink Pet' is unknown, but that it is almost certainly not the true 'Pink Pet'. It is the same as "Caldwell Pink," and its leaves, prickles, etc., indicate Polyantha-like growth, probably with some R. setigera in its background, but almost no China characteristics other than that it reblooms a lot.

It is also known that this specific rose was first called 'Pink Pet' by a Florida rosarian who wanted to show it in ARS-sanctioned rose shows, and so she needed a registered rose name to call it. Since local judges didn't know what a real 'Pink Pet' looked like, she adopted that name for it, somewhat randomly, according to the story I've heard.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 11 posted 11 JUL 16 by Patricia Routley
It seems to me that, ideally, we should have two files. One for the original
CHINA. 'Pink Pet' (China, Lilley 1928) and another for the

POLYANTHA.
This second file should contain
"Pink Pet in Commerce as" (renamed from the current 'Pink Pet')
"Caldwell Pink"
"Bermuda's Pink Pet"

What do you think, Malcolm?
REPLY
Reply #2 of 11 posted 11 JUL 16 by mmanners
That sounds reasonable to me.

Malcolm
REPLY
Reply #3 of 11 posted 11 JUL 16 by Patricia Routley
Okay, done. If anyone believes they have the original china, instead of the polyantha, would they move their photos and let us know.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 11 posted 13 days ago by Tearose
I was reading references and comments here to see why the roses we have - Pink Pet and "Caldwell Pink", which are identical, were placed in the poly class, when they look like China roses to me. Polyanthas are dwarf multifloras, and have fringed stipules. I see no fringing on the stipules of these roses. The leaf shape of China roses is distinctive and that's what I'm seeing here. From what I've read, there is likely something besides China in its breeding, but I don't see where that would make it a polyantha.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 11 posted 9 days ago by Michael Garhart
Polyanthas are dwarf synstylae types. Not always multiflora-derived.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 11 posted 8 days ago by Margaret Furness
Yes, it 's a ragbag for "nowhere else to put them". Eg Little White Pet as a repeat-blooming dwarf of Felicite Perpetue.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 11 posted 8 days ago by Tearose
I suppose we should create a new class: Dwarf Shrub. Since Shrub is the catch-all for bushes of highly varied ancestry, it would make sense for there to be a dwarf equivalent. Anyway, I still think we don't need two listings for this rose- in commerce as and original China. I think they are the same, and the breeding is more China than poly. Possible China-Noisette?
REPLY
Reply #8 of 11 posted 8 days ago by Michael Garhart
Oh. Yeah, the class system is garbage. I don't know a nicer word for it. Outdated, maybe? But there is no excuse for it to be outdated.

The UK has a more refined system that is closer to ideal than most.

'Mother's Day' could be called many-flowered bush, for example.
'The Fairy' could be called many-flowered groundcover.
'Bonica' could be called many-flowered shrub.
'Baby Love' could be called many-flowered miniature.

And the buying public wouldnt need 50 society meetings to figure it out...
REPLY
Reply #9 of 11 posted 7 days ago by mmanners
In saying that it was Polyantha-like, I was not suggesting any genetic relationship; rather, it has tight, frequent branching, tight heads of large numbers of small flowers, and those flowers tend to have pointy petals -- all very un-China-like. Also, the foliage is unique -- deeply serrated, matte, turning brilliant orangey-red in autumn (even here in Florida), and with an amazing susceptibility to powdery mildew, but near immunity to black spot.

So it really doesn't fit with Chinas. It has been suggested that it may be a hybrid of R. setigera, and I could certainly believe that. And setigera is Synstylae. I'd agree that there is no evidence of multiflora in its background.
Malcolm
REPLY
Reply #10 of 11 posted 7 days ago by Michael Garhart
Sorry, I didn't intend to sound critical. The subject is frustrating to me, because I see it as a barrier between us (those with knowledge) and the common public in terms of growing roses.

As my generation comes into buying power, the easier roses are accessible in both nomenclature and ease of care, the more popular the rose could become.
REPLY
Reply #11 of 11 posted 6 days ago by mmanners
Oh certainly no offense taken, Michael. I just thought I should explain my use of the term. Best wishes. Malcolm
REPLY
most recent 13 days ago HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 13 days ago by AquaEyes
Has anyone compared this rose to "Schmidt's Smooth Yellow"?

http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=2.66582

I know there's a feeling that rose may be 'Eugenie Lamesch' but old depictions of that rose show prickles. Pictures of 'George Elger' seem to indicate a "smooth" rose. And the buds and blooms are very similar.

Something to think about.

:-)

~Christopher
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 13 days ago by Margaret Furness
Both have the square-topped buds, and fade to cream. Can't help much, because as far as I can see they're not grown on the same continent.
The plant at Renmark came from Trewallyn Nursery, but it isn't on their current list.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 13 days ago by AquaEyes
Well, one thing to ask -- does your GE have prickles? The foundling in the US is so-named because it lacks prickles.

There is another possible way to confirm if SSY = GE, and that would be to do a DNA test of SSY as a possible mother of 'Sunshine', whose seed-parent was listed as being GE.

:-)

~Christopher
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 13 days ago by Margaret Furness
I'll check next time I'm in Renmark, which probably won't be till late November. And take cuttings.
REPLY
© 2017 HelpMeFind.com