HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Charles Lawson' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 49-109
most recent 14 NOV 22 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 26 OCT 10 by Patricia Routley
Has anybody done any more work on ’Charles Lawson’?
Brent Dickerson has written “discovered amongst some Roses from the Continent, and its origin is a mystery.”

I have downloaded photos of my rose which is a common foundling all over Australia. I believe some of the study names in Australia have been the “Brooks’ Rose” (WA); . “Sturt Valley Road”, “Sturt Valley Rose”, Lucindale Cemetery Rose”, Echunga Roadside Thornless Rose” (SA); and “Campbelltown Rose”, “Cemetery Rose”. and “Appin Public School” (NSW)

The bud seems to be a darker pink with the main flower colour a lilac lavender pink. The bloom form is flat, with a swirl of many petals usually held tightly cupped by the outer petals, before they unfold and the flower expands. Lee Sherman’s photo shows this cupping beautifully. There is a prominent yellow-green pointel. The flowering is a long one from spring (October) to early summer (December). Rain can ball most of the blooms. The bloom pedicel is stiff and there is an abrupt changeover in the stalk to a prickly pedicel. It seems almost as though there is moss in its background and I recall a previous comment from someone that it may be a form of the Banshee Rose.

My roses are almost thornless,with the few prickles being at the base of the bush and which are almost-straight with only a slight downward curve. I seem to have a memory of one coming to me from a local person which was quite thorny but I gave this one away, because at that time I was finding them everywhere. (I currently have six plants from four different Western Australian sites in my garden.) Brent Dickerson quotes Singer as writing: “Branches dark green; thorns unequal, numerous, bristling, the larger ones being hooked…."

The rose sets no hips and the mummies are retained until the following spring.

The bush has lax green canes of perhaps eight feet, gently arching over and the soft leaf texture is pale green, darkening with age.
The stipule is edged with glands and hairs. It has an excellent perfume.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 9 posted 26 OCT 10 by Margaret Furness
Although our rose is sold as Charles Lawson, it isn't in keeping with the description in Botanica's "Roses' - "the prickles are hooked", or with Bill Grant's description with his hmf photo -"awesome prickles". I have heard it equated to "Moore's Old Rose" (or "Old Moore's Rose"?), which I haven't seen. The references for Charles Lawson don't mention a lilac tint, which is very consistent in our rose.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 9 posted 26 APR 11 by Hardy
Whatever the correct name of this rose is, it seems to have quite a bit of variability with regard to prickles. The rose commonly found growing from Seattle to San Francisco, as "Dr. Peck's 12th Avenue Smoothie" and various other names, seems to be identical to what the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden has growing as Charles Lawson, but the found rose isn't as thorny. I suspect that it is genetically mosaic, and that the thorny cell lines are stronger in some clones than others.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 9 posted 26 APR 11 by Margaret Furness
That's an interesting idea. Would you call your rose pink, or lilac-pink?
REPLY
Reply #4 of 9 posted 1 MAY 11 by Hardy
It's usually mostly pink, but some flowers, particularly as they age, and often towards the center, will show silvery and lilac tones. Both roses smell the same, more of a Damask Perpetual scent than one might expect from a Bourbon. I just posted a picture of the base of the Charles Lawson bush (at San Jose Heritage Rose Garden) so that you could see the thorns.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 9 posted 1 MAY 11 by Margaret Furness
Thank you. I see you're stating that the (US) foundling is not Charles Lawson. Whether ours is the same as yours, and "Ralph Moore's South African OGR", is the next question.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 9 posted 1 MAY 11 by Hardy
I'm not calling the found rose Charles Lawson at this stage, yet I've recommended Charles Lawson as a replacement for the found rose, when CL was in commerce and the found rose wasn't. I don't know of anything to differentiate them aside from the thorns, and I know of other roses where clone lines vary a lot in prickliness. Whether Charles Lawson should be considered the same as the found rose, or if one should be considered the sport of the other, or if they're different roses with almost all traits in common, is still an open question, I think. It's confusing that the thornless, nameless rose is to be found more widely than the supposed original, although I admit to preferring the thornless one myself.

Something noteworthy about the found rose, which I guess is probably the same in western US as in Australia, is the pattern to be seen in the prickles. Rather than being evenly distributed, they're often to be seen in strange stripes and other patterns, and some canes may be reasonably prickly while others are completely smooth. This is what makes me think that the rose consists of more than one cell line. You can see them battling it out.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 9 posted 1 MAY 11 by RoseBlush
Hardy...

This is something to think about, too. I spent 3 months pruning roses at the SJHRG in the late winter of 2004. One of the roses in the garden surprised me in that part of the plant had a lot of thorns while other canes which had been almost completely covered by a neighboring rose had virtually no thorns. It was the same plant and no the other canes were not suckers.

What I am saying, is that viewing only one characteristic like thorniness may not be sufficient to determine the identity of the rose.

Have you confirmed with Jill that this is a "found rose" ? Many of the roses in the SJHRG are not found roses and she may have records as to where the rose came from before it was planted in the garden.

Smiles,
Lyn
REPLY
Reply #8 of 9 posted 21 JAN 15 by Hardy
Well, here's another clue, perhaps. The US version of Charles Lawson ("Dr. Peck's") never sets a hip, ever. If you emasculate the flowers, there are virtually no reproductive parts to work with. Too centifolic!

In 'Cultural Directions for the Rose' (John Cranston, 1877) it lists Charles Lawson as one of the best seed bearers.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 9 posted 14 NOV 22 by Paul Barden
I believe the thorny rose that Bill Grant described in the SJHRG is not the same rose that most of us know by the name 'Charles Lawson', as the plants found outside of the Heritage are nearly thornless, consistently.

I can also state that the four specimens of 'Charles Lawson I have known over the years have all been the same rose, without a doubt: it is quite distinct in the sum of its characteristics. Two were collected from abandoned sites in western Oregon, one was the specimen grown in the Heirloom Roses display garden years ago (labeled as "Charles Lawson"), and yet another was the one Ralph Moore gave me in 1999, labeled "South African OGR".
REPLY
Discussion id : 54-194
most recent 15 MAY 11 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 15 MAY 11 by Patricia Routley
From just a couple of old references, it seems as though the description for the original 'Charles Lawson' "Blooms in flushes throughout the Season" might be better changed to "Once blooming, spring or summer".
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted 15 MAY 11 by jedmar
Yes, Patricia. It seems to be once-blooming only. Thank you for the correction.
REPLY
© 2024 HelpMeFind.com