|
|
-
-
|
At Sangerhausen this rose is dated 1819. I would not describe it as "almost thornless". On the contrary, Belle Herminie is very thorny.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you for this update.
|
REPLY
|
Reply #2 of 5 posted 8 JAN 11 by  jedmar
|
The fact that 'Belle Herminie' in Sangerhausen is very prickly indicates that the attribution to Coquerel is incorrect, as early literature is quite clear on Coquerel's rose having glanular, unarmed branches. The date of 1819 has no corraboration. The first 'Belle Herminie' was by Descemet (before 1815), Vibert bred "a variety of Belle Herminie" in 1819, then 5 different Belle Herminie's from 1822-24, then another 10 until 1838. The rose in SGH might be one of these, but which?
|
REPLY
|
|
Very interesting info, thanks. I'm particularly interested in this rose, because I have found a rose in south-east Sweden ( where we have documented the areas rose heritage for the last seven years) that is identical to the one in Sangerhausen, its growth is very vigorous, and it's very prickly - but which rose is the one in Sangerhausen, then?
|
REPLY
|
Reply #4 of 5 posted 9 JAN 11 by jedmar
|
I am somewhat skeptical about the identity 'Belle Herminie'. In the large collection of Gravereaux in L'Haÿ in 1902, there was no 'Belle Herminie, nor 'Belle Hermine' nor 'Belle Hermione'. It did not exist in Sangerhausen in 1936, but in 1976. I believe the various 'Belle Herminie' were lost in the 1860s when Gallicas fell out of favour and that the plants we have today in rosaries and commerce are an "identification" from the 1950s, but I have not yet been able to trace the source.
|
REPLY
|
Reply #5 of 5 posted 3 JUN by Naasra
|
This same rose which is labeled as Belle Herminie in Sangerhausen, I have seen as Duc de Cambridge, Damask, from several sources. As this rose clearly has a lot of damask influence, except maybe the shape of the calyx tube.I think that this could also be Duc de Cambridge and the original Belle Herminie is lost.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
La Belle Sultane, aka Violacea, has intensely colored nearly singlr blooms with bright yellow stamens, clearly not the rose in this picture.
|
REPLY
|
Reply #1 of 1 posted 25 APR 12 by Naasra
|
Yes, you're right, this is not the Gallica rose also know as Violacea. As I've written - see Comments and Questions - this rose is a Hybrid Alpina also called La Belle Sultane.
This is why I've originally posted the pictures in Comments and Questions, not in Photos. I hadn't realised at the time that there already is a seperate listing for this Hybrid Alpina rose in HMF. As you can see in Comments and Questions, I've already asked the administrators to remove the pictures from here.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post 31 DEC 11 by Naasra
|
This seems to be Jacques Cartier White
|
REPLY
|
Reply #1 of 2 posted 31 DEC 11 by marcir
|
I received this from Weingart, who does not have 'White Jacques Cartier' on sale. Why do you think it is not 'Celina Dubos'?
|
REPLY
|
Reply #2 of 2 posted 1 JAN 12 by Naasra
|
I'm quite sure that this is Jacques Cartier White because I've got both the white and the pink version in my garden and I think that it is a very distinctive rose. I usually recognize it everywhere.
The leaves are much smoother as with most other portlands, very pointy, the bud form in an half opened state is very characteristcally, too.
I also have Celina Dubos and it looks quite different. Right now, I don't have really siginificant pictures to compare the roses, but I will take some in the summer and post it here.
By the way, it doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be Jacques Cartier White because Martin Weingart doesn't have this rose in his catalog. If he has received the wrong budwood, he couldn't have the correct rose. This doesn't have to be a mix-up.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post 31 DEC 11 by Naasra
|
This seems to be Jacques Cartier White
|
REPLY
|
|
