HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Gloire de Dijon' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 29-921
most recent 3 NOV 14 SHOW ALL
Initial post 23 AUG 08 by Tearose
There is actually no evidence that Jaune Desprez was the seed parent of GdD. Jacotot did not record the parentage, but apparently told his family that the seed parent was an unnamed tea. I'm not sure where the idea that Jaune Desprez was the seed parent came from, but was much later .
Reply #1 of 7 posted 23 AUG 08 by Cass
The idea came from Brent Dickerson's The Old Rose Advisor.
Reply #2 of 7 posted 23 AUG 08 by Tearose
Brent got it elsewhere. I've discussed it with him, and he agreed with me that it's an assumption that's been passed on as if it was truth. I think either Beales or Thomas originally started calling it a Noisette based on this belief, but I don't know for sure where they got the idea. I think Rosenlexicon has it with a "?", but I haven't found an earlier source yet that Jager would have gotten it from.
Reply #3 of 7 posted 23 AUG 08 by Patricia Routley
What about Brent's reference from The Horticulturist, 1846-1875
“Certainly the colour, an ochraceous yellow, the size, as large as ‘Jaune Desprez’, and the Tea scent, make it a great acquisition.” (HstX:398)
Reply #4 of 7 posted 23 AUG 08 by jedmar
This seems to be the only clue to the 'Jaune Desprez' analogy. In the reference from "Flore des Serres" of 1854, which cites an earlier article by Jacotot himself, both the bloom form and the foliage is said to be that of SdM. Jacotot derives the tea classification from the reflexing of the sepals (lorsque le bouton veut s'ouvrir, elles se retournent fortement sur l'ovaire). Van Houtte first thought it was a Bourbon. Generally in that era the seed parent was known, but not the pollen parent. If I read the references correctly, the "fact" that SdM was the pollen parent was reported later by the Jacotot family as a "family tradition". It would have made more sense to list GdJ as a seedling of SdM. Interesting is the breeding year (1850, not 1853)!
Reply #5 of 7 posted 24 AUG 08 by Tearose
It would make more sense as the seed parent, but my SdlM has never produced so much as a hip, so I've never doubted the pollen parent story. My personal feeling is that Jacotot, like many other rose lovers, did some experimenting, grew some seed he collected from roses in the nursery, and one was likely the unnamed yellow tea. I have quite a few unnamed roses, that are not worthy of introduction, but I keep them for my own pleasure, since I produced them. I even have one that I think might be useful as a seed parent, if pollinated by the right rose. I think that's similar to how GdD came about. After all, it was the only rose he ever introduced.

I agree with Patricia that the Jaune Desprez reference may have planted the idea in someone's mind that it was the parent. I'd love to know who first stated that it was the parent. I'll have to check my references to see which is the earliest I have.
Reply #6 of 7 posted 24 AUG 08 by jedmar
If we accept that SdM is the pollen parent, can we speculate which "yellow Tea" Jacotot might have crossed it with? Was he trying to achieve a yellow Tea with the form of SdM's blooms? Was the vigour and climbing tendencies of GdD a chance by-product? Assuming that he would not have called a Noisette a Tea, there were not so many yellow Teas at the time which could have been attractive as a crossing partner for SdM:
Flavescens (Park's Yellow), Hymenée, Thé jaunâtre, Narcisse, Reine Victoria, Devoniensis, Princess Adelaide, Solfatare (sold initially as a yellow tea).
The climbing characteristic must have come from one of these. Except for its climbing sport almost 50 years later, there are only few climbing direct descendants of SdM, and those have all seed parents which carry the climbing gene. So, Devoniensis and Solfatare? Were the others climbers?
Reply #7 of 7 posted 3 NOV 14 by CybeRose
I don't trust family traditions in such matters. In an article in American Gardening 19: 392 (May 21, 1898) the author reported that 'Harison's Yellow' was a seedling of 'Persian Yellow'; "Our knowledge of its origin came from Miss Harison, the grand-daughter of the originator, and who for many years and until recently, resided in Clinton Place, New York, and is now living at their old country home on the St. Lawrence."

Of course, this origin is impossible because 'Harison's Yellow' was in commerce before 'Persian Yellow' reached the West.

I think it is useful to note that some contemporary writers regarded 'Mme Desprez' (Desprez 1831) as having Noisette in its parentage. 'Jaune Desprez' (Desprez 1830) may share parentage with the other. This could explain the Noisette-like characters in 'Gloire de Dijon'. Folks back then were not clear on the concept of recessive characteristics, beyond some vague notion of atavism.

'Souv. de la Malmaison' is capable of bearing seed. 'Lucy H. Nicolas' (Nicolas) is one example.

If 'Jaune Desprez' or some other yellowish Noisette (Smith's Yellow?) was the pollen parent of 'Mme Desprez', even a self-seedling of 'Malmaison' might show some yellow, along with the climbing habit that was mostly latent in 'Mme Desprez' and 'Malmaison'.

Or if the unknown pollen parent of 'Malmaison' happened to be a white or yellowish tea, the same would be true.

I think it would be interesting to back cross 'Gloire de Dijon' (as pollen parent) with 'Souv. de la Malmaison'.
Discussion id : 81-429
most recent 3 NOV 14 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 3 NOV 14 by CybeRose
Journal of Horticulture and Practical Gardening, 11: 375-376 (Oct 29, 1885)
T. W. G.
Deducing a hybrid's origin from its outward characteristics or habit may perhaps be objected to as only presumptive, and therefore inadmissible; but as there are so few records of the origin of Roses (and even those preserved generally give only the seed parent), until the hybridisation of these plants be much more exactly effected and noted, no other method of classifying the bulk of the florists' varieties exists. That the origin of a hybrid may be fairly accurately deduced from the evidence of its exterior is indicated by cases where the exact cross has been recorded. Moreover, it is well known that seedlings raised from a hybrid frequently show a tendency to revert to the form of one of that hybrid's parents. Now it has long been held that Gloire de Dijon originated from the crossing of some Tea-scented Rose by a Bourbon variety. True, there was no yellow Bourbon that could have assisted in the production, but then Gloire de Dijon is only a yellow Rose by courtesy on a north aspect, and the opaque colour (as in Bourbon Queen) that seemed to overlie the yellow in the petals, the flat expanded flowers with the stamens all hidden by the doubled-over petals (as in Souvenir de la Malmaison), and the broad leathery leaves, were deemed sufficiently conclusive evidence. Myriads of seedlings have been raised from Gloire de Dijon, many inclining more to the Tea-scented type, as Belle Lyonnaise, &c, until now comes the white Etendard de Jeanne d'Arc, which at a little distance looks like the ghost of a Souvenir de la Malmaison. This seedling therefore affords an additional indication by reverting to a Bourbon type that the supposition, founded on its external characteristics, of Gloire de Dijon having been a hybrid between a Tea and a Bourbon was well grounded, and this may serve as an argument in favour of reasonable deductions of a similar kind in other cases.
Discussion id : 81-409
most recent 2 NOV 14 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 2 NOV 14 by CybeRose
Roses and their culture (1877) pp. 116-117
By W D. Prior
In 1853 a Rose of a far different stamp was vouchsafed to us—Gloire de Dijon (raised by M. Jacotot), a hybrid of unknown origin, classed with the Teas. In this discovery we have one of the very best that ever grew, and which stands, in spite of any rivalry, at the very head of the true rosarian's list. The shape of the flower somewhat resembles that of "Malmaison," though deeper and with more stuff in it. The ground colour is a creamy-yellow deepening into a rich coppery-salmon, which is sometimes transmuted into a full golden hue— particularly in the bud stage. Its growth is stout and vigorous—equal to any demands that can be made upon a wall, pole, or pillar Rose. This splendid variety is first-rate for all purposes, and is certainly one of the sheet-anchors for town rosarians. It is further a most prolific parent, having yielded many excellent seedlings, amongst which Madame Berard, a deeper salmon colour and even a stronger grower; and Belle Lyonnaise, a paler yellow, are most attractive varieties.
Discussion id : 78-645
most recent 31 MAY 14 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 31 MAY 14 by Give me caffeine
As someone very new to heritage roses, which primarily interest me because of possible disease resistance under subtropical conditions, I've been scouring this site quite a bit lately.

I have noticed that different sources often give different opinions on disease resistance. I have even seen listings with notes like "Very resistant to disease. Susceptible to blackspot.", which for someone from the subtropics reads much like "Definitely mammalian. Has scales and gills." or "Tough as old boots. Will curl up and die in ten minutes flat."

This particular rose, 'Gloire de Dijon', has one member comment saying no problems with disease in Belgium, but elsewhere on the site I found an experienced gardener saying it was a "blackspot magnet" in Virginia, USA.

(Discussion id : 30-163 -

If this susceptibility, in that sort of climate, can be confirmed by anyone else, perhaps this rose should be listed as "Susceptible to blackspot", or at least a caveat added somehow.
© 2018