HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournalMember
Garden
Member
Listings
 
billy teabag
most recent 6 DEC SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 21 FEB by billy teabag
Extra refs.
Hazlewood Bros catalogue 1933
New Roses 1933
GIPSY LASS (H.T.) (Alex. Dickson & Sons, 1932). - Rich scarlet crimson with blackish shading; full, globular, lasting; foliage hard and disease resisting. Vigorous growth, free and perpetual bloomer, strong, pronounced true rose perfume. Price 4/- each.
[Hazlewood's notes: "Growth good, colour very good. Sweet fruit scent. Should be a splendid garden rose. 66 petals.")

Hazlewood Bros catalogue 1934
New Roses 1933
GIPSY LASS (H.T.) (Alex. Dickson & Sons, 1932). F. 3. - Rich scarlet crimson double globular flowers with a very pronounced sweet scent. The blooms are of medium size, while the growth is upright and somewhat slender. E.

Hazlewood Bros catalogue 1935 p56
GIPSY LASS (H.T.) (Alex. Dickson & Sons, 1932). F. 3. - Rich scarlet crimson, double globular flowers of medium size and tall upright growth. A splendid garden rose. Sweet scent. Recommended. E.

Hazlewood Bros catalogue 1936 p56
GIPSY LASS (H.T.) (Alex. Dickson & Sons, 1932). F. 3. - Rich scarlet crimson, double, globular flowers of medium size and tall, upright growth. A welcome addition to the red garden roses. Highly recommended. Very sweet scent. E.

ditto 1937 p56, 1938 p58,

Hazlewood Bros catalogue 1939 p54
GIPSY LASS (H.T.) (Alex. Dickson & Sons, 1932). F. 3. - Rich scarlet crimson, double, globular flowers of medium size and tall, upright growth. A welcome addition to the red garden roses in spite of the somewhat weak foliage. Highly recommended. Very sweetly scented. E.

Hazlewood Bros catalogue 1940 p35
GIPSY LASS (H.T.) (Alex. Dickson & Sons, 1932). F. 3. - Rich scarlet crimson, double, globular flowers of medium size and tall, upright growth. A welcome addition to the red garden roses in spite of the somewhat weak foliage. Recommended. Very sweetly scented. E.

ditto 1941 p22

Alex. Dickson & Sons, Ltd. catalogue 1938-9 p 20
Gipsy Lass (H.T.) By Dicksons of Hawlmark, 1932. Rich scarlet crimson with blackish shading. Full, moderately large flower, but short petalled. Free banching habit, carrying the blooms on long erect stems. A Rose with rich colour, pronounded fragrance and excellent growth. V.H. [very highly perfumed]
REPLY
Reply #1 of 6 posted 21 FEB by Patricia Routley
You want some more? It sounds as though this rose is invaluable for hot Australian conditions. And its 1932 date makes it a heritage rose. I haven't even tackled the books yet.

1933 American Rose Annual
p149. Proof of the Pudding. Gipsy Lass HT. (A. Dickson, 1932). A.R.A. 1933. Two roses of this name are extant. The Dickson variety is reported by Ontario to be an interesting, deep velvety red flower, exquisitely shaped, as a rule. ….
p172. New Roses of the World. Gipsy Lass (Gypsy Lass). HT. (A. Dickson & Sons, 1932) Bud ovoid; flower full, double, globular, very lasting, intensely fragrant, rich scarlet-crimson with blackish shading, on long, willowy stem. Foliage leathery. Vigorous, upright, bushy; abundant, continuous bloomer.

1933 Australian Rose Annual
p51-5 Harry H. Hazlewood. The New Roses of 1933. Red….The best undoubtedly Gipsy Lass (A. Dickson and Son). It has good, deep crimson colour, which lasts particularly well, and is highly endowed with rich, sweet perfume. On occasions it will be up to exhibition standard, but so far it promises best as a good garden variety.
p119-4 Mr. Allan Brundrett. Gipsy Lass (A. Dickson) appears to be the most promising of the red varieties of this season’s novelties. It is hardy, and has long stems and plenty of petals (about eighty) and the rich and dark scarlet crimson colour lasts well. Its only drawback is its short petals, but this may improve on established plants.

1933 The Rose Annual
p71. Herbert Cowley. The Spring Rose Show. Other new roses worthy of special mention were: Gypsy Lass, a deep velvety crimson of rich and delicious fragrance.

1934 Australian Rose Annual
p76 C. C. Hillary. Hot-Weather Roses. Gipsy Lass is a gay thing and well named. The growth is good and flowers are produced in abundance. Sometimes the stems are weak, but this weakness is forgiven when its delightful fragrance charms our senses.
p125 Mr. John Poulsen, Christchurch. NZ. Gipsy Lass Foliage and growth have been good and the flowers which are very full and lasting, carry a good perfume. It seems a garden red of promise, which will need good cultivation to be seen at its best.
129 Mr. H. Wilson, of the firm of Wilson and Johns Ltd. Gipsy Lass This Rose has come to stay. Fairly tall, and Roses, when open, have no centre, which makes it a fine decorative type; fine, dark red colour.

1935 Australian Rose Annual
p95 Frank Mason. New Zealand Roses. Gypsy Lass is an outstanding Rose for colour, and one of the best red bloomers for two seasons. Although the shape is not strictly exhibition, some of the blooms are good enough, but as a cut flower it stands out alone.

1936 Australian Rose Annual
p66 Frank Mason. Roses in New Zealand Gypsy Lass is a fine bedding Rose and will be a favourite in gardens.
p122, Mr. O. P. Fry. Interesting Notes From Nedlands, W.A. One rose in particular has caused amazement - Gypsy Lass. It has come through days of excessive heat without shrivelled blooms (end of January). It is the only bush in my garden to put up such a record. To show that this was no fluke, the performance was repeated through a second burst of heat. It must be a point of constitutional merit worth noting. And the dark red velvety flowers of rich scent make ‘Gypsy Lass’ a good friend in the garden.

1937 Australian Rose Annual
p68-5 T. G. Stewart. A Rose Reverie. As I continue on, and the thought of the child lingers with me, I come to Gipsy Lass, with her striking red, full-bodied bloom and carefree growth, and though she does not flaunt her colour to the extent of ‘Angele Pernet’ or ‘Cuba’, her name seems very applicable. Although vital, hers is not the beauty of the child, but something more mature. There is nothing retiring about her, and she has that free independent air of the gipsy.
74-10 Harry H. Hazlewood. Some Better Roses 1930-1936. Red: (8) Gipsy Lass. A fine upstanding garden variety with fully double deep crimson blooms with very rich fragrance.
124-1 Mr. O. P. Fry. Roses that Last Well. ….Gipsy Lass blooms stand up to the direct sunshine in Perth. They do not show any sign of burning on the hottest days. Two days in succession of 98 and 99 degrees in the shade, following other days only a few degrees lower, mean a direct sun temperature of about 150 degrees! It would be interesting if some plant pathologist would explain what peculiar characteristic such plants possess as against those whose flowers shrivel in the space of a few hours, all other conditions being equal, of course; by that I mean soil, watering and situation in the garden. If ‘Gipsy Lass’ is related to ‘Etoile de Hollande’ then some of the mystery is solved, for the latter Rose displays the same resistance to hot sunshine.

1939 Australian Rose Annual
p121-8 Mr. W. L. Summers, Blackwood, S.A. Gipsy Lass A first-class garden Rose; free flowering and vigorous. Flowers rather flat, but colour stands the heat well.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 6 posted 21 FEB by billy teabag
This is excellent Patricia. Thank you! Jacqui is investigating this as a possible identity of one of the roses growing at Araluen. The information about how well it copes with heat is going to be really useful.
If it proves to be 'Gipsy Lass', there will be some photos for this entry.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 6 posted 21 FEB by Patricia Routley
I'll search some more. The references have made me think of "Moyes Rich Winey" but there is one photo of a bloom singeing.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 6 posted 6 DEC by Patricia Routley
I have added more references for 'Gipsy Lass'. On careful perusing, I now believe my foundling "Moyes Rich Winey" is 'Gipsy Lass' and am considering merging these two files later on.
Margaret - what happened to the four plants of "Moyes Rich Winey" (your email Sep 1, 2015). Has anybody had further thoughts on the identification?

Billy - How are you going on the rose at Araluen?
REPLY
Reply #5 of 6 posted 6 DEC by Margaret Furness
One was planted at Ruston's, D93 in the north bed. I thought it was a mislabel because it was behaving like a climber, but I see that Gipsy Lass was tall-growing.
I don't have records of the others - may have given them to HRIAI members or to bushfire victims.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 6 posted 6 DEC by Patricia Routley
For Heritage Roses members, keeping records is almost as important as keeping the roses themselves.
REPLY
most recent 10 NOV SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 27 JUN 14 by Michael Garhart
Definitely does not have pure Tea traits. It looks like a mixed Tea of sorts.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 10 posted 28 JUN 14 by Margaret Furness
Thank you. I've added more photos.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 10 posted 28 JUN 14 by Patricia Routley
Margaret - the details given for this rose were "low growing". That may be misleading as your photo shows a taller rose. What is the minimum and maximum height of this rose please.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 10 posted 29 JUN 14 by Margaret Furness
The plants I know are young, hence the erroneous conclusion. From Jane Zammit: "Mine is sort of a typical 2m x 2m x 2m – original at Rookwood had a wider spread & not much height – could have been any number of factors to cause that.
Would suggest it is probably closer to Drawing 3 in Vintage Gardens catalogue than Drawing 2, as it can be a little more open and ‘rangey’ than others."
REPLY
Reply #4 of 10 posted 29 JUN 14 by Patricia Routley
Thanks Margaret.
Has anyone considered 'Rhodologue Jules Gravereaux'? That is a medium height rose. What is the colour of the wood, both for "George Whatson" and "William James Wright"?
REPLY
Reply #5 of 10 posted 29 JUN 14 by Margaret Furness
Jane commented that the growth of "William James Wright" was similar to that of RJG and of Mrs B R Cant, but doesn't have the colour variability of many of the Teas. "George Whatson" has similarities to RJG and varies considerably in colour, but doesn't have the bicolour tones of RJG.
The wood of my plant of "George Whatson" is green, sometimes brown on one side. I will post more of Jane's photos of both tomorrow.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 10 posted 8 NOV by John Hook
I consider this rose to be 'Souv. d'un Ami' which I posted in 2013 on the 'Souv. d'un Ami' page. After growing for several years I have become more convinced. Please compare to the Hermann Baisch lithograph in Nestel's Rosengarten1866
REPLY
Reply #6 of 10 posted 8 NOV by Becky Hook
I consider this rose to be 'Souv. d'un Ami' which I posted in 2013 on the 'Souv. d'un Ami' page. After growing for several years I have become more convinced. Please compare to the Hermann Baisch lithograph in Nestel's Rosengarten1866
REPLY
Reply #8 of 10 posted 9 NOV by billy teabag
Becky and John - do you have "Bird Children Pink" in your collection?
REPLY
Reply #9 of 10 posted 10 NOV by Margaret Furness
To summarise: The rose sold in Aus as Souv. d'un Ami came from NZ and is incorrect, so we don't have a gold standard for comparison with the various candidates on offer.
One is "George Whatson", collected Rookwood, following your suggestion.
Another is "Bird Children Pink", a stable pink sport or reversion of a white Rookwood Tea, "Bird Children". A white sport of Souv d'un Ami, known as both The Queen and Souv de S A Prince, reached Australia.
A third is "Almerta Orchard Pink", which is thought to be the same as the "McClinton Tea", which Vintage Roses suggested might be Souv d'un Ami.
I'm no expert, and shouldn't speculate on which of these - if any - is correct. Early illustrations can mislead, and it's difficult when it's uncertain whether anyone has the true rose to compare foundlings with.
REPLY
Reply #10 of 10 posted 10 NOV by Becky Hook
No, Billy we don't have that, just the G. W. Rookwood.
REPLY
most recent 10 NOV HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 8 NOV by billy teabag
I have a rose that arrived with the name 'Radiance' that's definitely not 'Radiance'. Trying to discover its correct identity, I've noticed a change in the description of 'Radiance' over time.
The early descriptions tell us that the backs of the petals are darker than the petal faces and this can be confirmed in the earliest photographs.
However, by 1958, Modern Roses V has this reversed: ("rose-pink, reverse lighter"), and this description has carried forward to at least Modern Roses 10. I don't have a copy of the most recent Modern Roses and haven't been able to check whether this has been amended.
Wondering how widespread the confusion is and how many are growing or selling 'Radiance' impostors.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 11 posted 8 NOV by Margaret Furness
The photos on hmf look like they have the darker pink outside (apart from one that I'm not sure is correct). The one in the HRIAI Collection is from an old plant of David Ruston's, budded by John N, who presumably also supplied the plant at Maddingley.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 11 posted 8 NOV by Patricia Routley
It hasn't been amended. Still ("rose-pink, reverse lighter")
REPLY
Reply #4 of 11 posted 9 NOV by billy teabag
Thanks Patricia
REPLY
Reply #3 of 11 posted 9 NOV by billy teabag
Thanks Margaret.
Do you know the provenance of Red Radiance at the respository?

My rose is flattish-globular warm deep pink with lighter petal reverses and about double the usual Radiance petal number.
The budwood was said to be from Rustons some years ago - not the respository.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 11 posted 9 NOV by Margaret Furness
Yep - Red Radiance came from 'Kombacy' via Thomas for Roses.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 11 posted 9 NOV by billy teabag
Thanks Margaret. A long shot - Would you happen to know whether the Red Radiance budwood for the Stirling Square project would have come from the repository plant or another 'Red Radiance' from the Ruston collection?
REPLY
Reply #7 of 11 posted 9 NOV by Margaret Furness
I have the Kombacy Red Radiance here - do you want photos of it?
REPLY
Reply #8 of 11 posted 9 NOV by billy teabag
Always good to see more photos, but this will be the same as the one in the repository and that doesn't look like our ring in.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 11 posted 9 NOV by Margaret Furness
I think on my plant the outside of the Red Radiance petals is minimally darker than the inside, but is quickly bleached by hot sunshine.
A while back I posted a photo of the unstable Careless Love in the channel row at Renmark, but I don't think it helps much.
REPLY
Reply #10 of 11 posted 9 NOV by Margaret Furness
Pat tells me that David's plant list doesn't include Red Radiance (which must be why Thomases asked me for budwood from Kombacy when they lost their stock plant). Can't tell you where the budwood sent to WA came from.
REPLY
Reply #11 of 11 posted 10 NOV by Ozoldroser
Weren't there a few Radiances at a property near Hay at that conference?
REPLY
most recent 10 NOV HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 9 NOV by billy teabag
Could someone who knows 'Columbia' very well give me some guidance on how to recognise this rose.
The descriptions suggest a bright pink rose with blooms that darken in colour as they age, but none of the photos here show a particularly strong coloured bloom. Do any of the photos show a good likeness of the colour?
There are references to 'almost thornless stems'. Is the whole plant almost thornless, or just the flowering stems?
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted 10 NOV by Patricia Routley
If it helps, there used to be a 'Columbia' at the Pinjarra Heritage Rose Garden, bed 8, site 19.
REPLY
© 2018 HelpMeFind.com