HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalCuttingsMember
Garden
Member
Listings
 
Cass
most recent 1 OCT SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 29 NOV 06 by jedmar

George C. Thomas lists a


"CL. WINNIE DAVIS. (CL.HT.) California Rose Co. 1913.


Light salmon-pink in center, edges cream-flesh; large, fairly full. Strong grower. Good foliage."


 


Source: "Roses for All American Climates", New York 1924, p. 164

REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 1 DEC 06 by Cass
This rose has been added. The introducer will be completed when more is known about California Rose Co.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted 1 OCT by CybeRose
.
REPLY
most recent 21 AUG SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 4 JAN 10 by Jeff Britt
It would be interesting to know more about the discovery of this rose. It certainly doesn't look like a tea, but it's hard to know what to think based on only a photograph.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 4 JAN 10 by Cass
I agree. Doesn't look like a Tea based on the leaf shape, although it could be an early HT.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted 21 AUG by Michael Garhart
Only the blooms look tea-like to me, and some of the stems. The foliage looks heavily "Old French OGR" descended. It looks mixed indica/ogr to me, too.

Is it possible that another rose is being circulated as the original?
REPLY
most recent 27 JUN SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 6 MAR 09 by John Moody
I am getting conflicting reports on this rose. Is it a floribunda, grandiflora, or hybrid tea rose???
I love the color of the photos, and most of the pictures look to have more the form of a floribunda rather than a hybrid tea or grandiflora.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 4 posted 7 MAR 09 by Cass
If Kordes would register it, you would have the straight info. Unfortunately, it's sold within different classes in different parts of the world.
Floribunda in UK
Floribunda at Palantine Roses in Canada
Hybrid Tea in South Africa
Grandiflora at the ARS
REPLY
Reply #2 of 4 posted 24 OCT 12 by mtspace
It really doesn't fit very well with our typical idea of the high-centered hybrid tea rose. Nor does it send up long, tall cutting canes typical of many hybrid tea roses. Its flowers occur in small clusters of three to seven or so. It tends to repeat-flower more often than most hybrid teas, in my experience. It seems more vigorous than most hybrid tea roses I have grown, too. I think of it as a floribunda with large flowers; and it really fits into the garden best on those terms. Its flowers are quite bright and it needs to be sited accordingly. One of my favorites.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 4 posted 27 JUN by Philip_ATX
I don't believe the category of "Grandiflora" exists outside the U.S., so it makes sense that it falls on one side or the other of that category (HT or Flor.) in other countries. I don't grow it, however, so I cannot speak from experience to its form.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 4 posted 27 JUN by mtspace
The "Grandiflora" class has always seemed ridiculous to me. The whole idea of floribundas, IMO, is to combine the large flowers of hybrid tea roses with the floral generosity, cold hardiness, and shrubby habits of polyanthas. Every plant in the class necessarily posesses a combination of traits that lies somewhere in between. I will confess that I have viewed the grandiflora class as a kind of catch-all for roses that fail to have the shrubby and hardiness qualities of floribundas while also failing to make flowers the size of hybrid tea roses.

To the extent my prejudice is justified, lumping South Africa with such roses understates its qualities materially. It is as generous in flower as a good floribunda, Cherry Parfait. And as well branched. It tolerates late spring freezes better than any HT bred outside Germany, IME. Its flowers are as big as those of many hybrid tea roses. I even love the foliage. Its frame and its flowers are largish for a floribunda. Coming in at five or six feet in each direction it might better be described as a shrub. Its biggest drawbacks: The flowers are not notably fragrant, and they don't last longer than about two or three days on the plant. Of the 200 + roses in my garden I cannot think of a rose I've been less tempted to replace with something else, except, perhaps, Malvern Hills.
REPLY
most recent 18 JUN SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 11 APR 09 by Patricia Routley
Continuing the thread from ‘Other’, April 10, 2009
[in passing.... the 1922 reference for the Ardagh sport is most interesting] – Patricia Routley

From the descriptions in the reference section on Ardagh's Cecile Brunner it sounds more like 'Spray Cecile Brunner'. Large shrub,suitable for hedging etc. The early Australian references that I have also describe C.B.Climbing in a similar manner. Is it possible that the Australian version was 'Spray Cecile Brunner'? – Sandie Maclean

Hello Sandie,
That’s what I found most interesting about the 1922 reference too. I think that with this rose, anything is possible. Because the official ‘Spray Cecile Brunner’ didn’t hit the market until 1941, I think the answer has to be that Cecile was genetically unstable to start with. If you have a look at the first generation descendants from it, you will see lots of similar roses (Helpmefind, it would be great to see the sports designated somehow in the descendant listing), One most visible sign of that unstableness is the way it sometimes produces a flower from the middle of an existing flower.

You mentioned elsewhere that you had received four 'Spray Cecile Brunner's when ordering 'Climbing Cecile Brunner'. Do you still have room? Would you like some cuttings of my climber (provenance: the Pinjarra Heritage Rose Garden, bed 2, site 1). I’ve had ‘Cecile Brunner Climbing’ now for 12 years and it flowers weeks before ‘Spray Cecile Brunner’ in spring, but not too much at all after that. Both roses are on opposite sides of the path so the obvious differences in habit between the two plants is quite plain to see.
Patricia
REPLY
Reply #1 of 7 posted 11 APR 09 by Sandie Maclean
Even though the official 'Spray Cecile Brunner' didn't turn up until 1941 I am inclined
towards thinking that Ardagh's version was also the 'Spray' version.
As mentioned before-quite a few Australian Nurseries sell the 'Spray' version as the climber.
Interesting what you say about the tendancy to proliferation with 'Spray Cecile Brunner"-I actually used photos of one of the flowers to demonstrate proliferation on
a website.I also used a photo of a flower from the same bush to demonstrate fasciation.
A very obliging rose for showing anomalies. :)
I would love the REAL climbing C.B.-thanks for the offer.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 7 posted 21 APR 09 by billy teabag
I've just chanced on another Australian reference to "Climbing Cecile Brunner" that definitely sounds like the spray form and not the climber.
It's from a book by Harry Hazlewood's brother, Walter, published in 1968 and reads:
"That gem, Cecile Brunner, seems to be in a class of its own. It is not a Wichuraiana or a Polyantha. There is a dwarf form and a so-called climber. The dwarf grows to 3 or 4 feet high. The climber sends out long shoots, but is not a climber in the ordinary sense of the term. It is mostly grown as a tall bush and the long shoots are tipped back. Sprays of bloom about 2 feet long or more can be had from the climber and it is a great favourite with the florists. A good clean foliage is another thing in its favour."
I've added this ref to the Cecile Brunner and Clg Cecile Brunner (Ardagh) entries.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 7 posted 11 APR 09 by Cass
Where does Kerschaw fit in with yet another Climbing Cécile Brunner? Nomenclature de tous les noms de roses connus shows Kerschaw, 1904, for Cl. Cécile Brunner. I cannot find Journal des roses 1905 online, but the little I can read in google reports "Kerschaw, horiticulteur à Melbourne."
REPLY
Reply #3 of 7 posted 12 APR 09 by Patricia Routley
Cass, That spelling of Kerschaw is a little wrong I think.

All I have been able to find on the man and any connection with 'Cl. Cecile Brunner' is as follows:

1933 Australian Rose Annual
p24. Harry H. Hazlewood. Rose Stock Experiments. Climbing Cecil Brunner was used experimentally by the late Mr. G. W. Kershaw and good results were obtained.

1999. Peter Cox Australian Roses
p30. Although mentioned in Modern Roses 8, we have no other details concerning G. W. Kershaw.

2002 Richard Aitken & Michael Looker Oxford Companion to Australian Gardens
p431. The National Rose Society of New South Wales (1913) was founded by .....with commercial growers George Wilkinson Kershaw (1861-1924) and......

Brent C. Dickerson Old Roses: The Master List 2nd ed.
p463 ‘Mrs. G. W. Kershaw’ (dark rose pink. HT. A. Dickson, 1906.

Patricia
REPLY
Reply #4 of 7 posted 12 APR 09 by Cass
Thanks, Patricia. Brent Dickerson also mentions Kershaw in connection with Cl. Cécile Brunner. What I'm looking for is a link between Kershaw and Ardagh, one perhaps the discoverer, the other the introducer.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 7 posted 12 APR 09 by Patricia Routley
Brent has also picked up that mis-spelling of Kerschaw (Old Roses: The Master List 2nd ed. p131.
The only link to date is that they both lived in Australia and were rosarians.
Ardagh lived in Victoria and Kershaw in New South Wales.
Ardagh had his own nursery so it seems unlikely he would have given 'Cl. Cecile Brunner' to Kershaw to introduce.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 7 posted 18 JUN by Patricia Routley
Yet another clear description (and an earlier date) that indicates that Richard Ardagh's plant was what we now know as 'Spray Cecile Brunner':

1915 W E. Lippiatt’s General catalogue.
p27. Climbing Cecil Brunner (R. Ardah, 1902). A sport of extraordinary vigour, carrying the flowers sometimes 18in. to 20in. above the foliage; blossoms are produced both singly and in large trusses, but no larger in flower than the dwarf. Lasts in flower a long time (Climbing Fairy.) Not exactly a true climber, but makes a very large bush.
REPLY
© 2017 HelpMeFind.com