HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Bloomfield Abundance' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 93-540
most recent 19 JUN 16 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 18 JUN 16 by Give me caffeine
I notice that Thomas for Roses claim to have this rose. I assume that what they actually have is 'Spray Cecile Brunner'. I should probably ask Glenys about this too.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 19 JUN 16 by Margaret Furness
As far as I know, all roses labelled Bloomfield Abundance in Aus are Spray Cecile Brunner.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 19 JUN 16 by Patricia Routley
The three Australian nurseries are now shown as selling 'Spray Cecile Brunner'. Thanks to you both
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 19 JUN 16 by Give me caffeine
I've added a note to the T4R nursery page about the (common) misnaming in their catalogue. ;)
REPLY
Discussion id : 88-048
most recent 24 SEP 15 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 24 SEP 15 by Fred Boutin
Why Spray Cecile Brunner has been confused with Bloomfield Abundance. The only surviving photographs of the original Bloomfield Abundance do not reveal the size and scale of the shrub, flowers and inflorescences. It is easy to ignore the early description which said it was a Hybrid Tea in size. Another reason for the confusion is that both Bloomfield Abundance and Spray Cecile Brunner have similar growth habits and unusual brush or broom-like inflorescences which carry the buds and flowers distinctly way above the foliage. It was this latter characteristic which was so evident on the old specimen Judy Dean discovered in the California Mother Lode. The foundling looked like a giant version of Spray Cecile Brunner but with large hybrid tea like flowers on a large shrub.

A third reason for the confusion of Spray Cecile Brunner with Bloomfield Abundance comes from the immense influence of Graham Stuart Thomas' valuable book Shrub Roses of Today where in Spray Cecile Brunner is identified as Bloomfield Abundance.
REPLY
Discussion id : 86-976
most recent 1 AUG 15 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 31 JUL 15 by scvirginia
Journal- Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture, 1965, p.280

Concerning Rosa 'Cecile Brunner' some nurseries still list this rose though it is more difficult to obtain through the trade than a few years ago. However there is one point to watch. Some nurseries are supplying Rosa 'Bloomfield Abundance' in error. In the Waikato area I noted plants of R. 'Bloomfield Abundance' with nursery labels 'Cecile Brunner'. A few authorities say R. 'Bloomfield Abundance' is a sport of R. 'Cecile Brunner' but ' Modern Roses 6' and the Royal National Rose Society's latest edition of 'Roses — a Selected List of Varieties' consider it to be a separate cultivar in its own right.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 4 posted 31 JUL 15 by Patricia Routley
Virginia - I think this reference should go in 'Spray Cecile Brunner'.
We've added a note to the 'Bloomfield Abundance' page:
The information on this page is for the original, possibly lost, Bloomfield Abundance
REPLY
Reply #2 of 4 posted 31 JUL 15 by scvirginia
Do you think it's definitely 'Spray CB' that the writer was referring to when he wrote 'Bloomfield Abundance'? I do not know the history of those roses' confusion in commerce in NZ and Oz...

It seems that the roses were confused in commerce very early on in the U.S., and probably elsewhere, but it also seems likely that retailers who had the real 'Bloomfield Abundance' to begin with would continue to sell it.

Bobbink & Atkins was a large and reputable nursery; I don't know how long they carried 'BA' in their catalogs, but I wouldn't think they'd have been selling 'Spray Cecile Brunner' in lieu of 'Bloomfield Abundance'?

At any rate, I can't add the reference, since I don't see the publication listed...
Virginia
REPLY
Reply #3 of 4 posted 31 JUL 15 by Patricia Routley
The confusion was widespread in Australia - and New Zealand is just "across the ditch".
The publication is now added.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 4 posted 1 AUG 15 by scvirginia
I added the quote to the 'Spray Cecile Brunner' references.

I do wonder if the real 'Bloomfield Abundance' ever made it Down Under?

Virginia
REPLY
Discussion id : 86-874
most recent 27 JUL 15 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 26 JUL 15 by mmanners
I wonder if it may be time to split the 'Bloomfield Abundance' listing into two parts, perhaps with a Wiki-type "disambiguation," in that 'Spray Cecile Brunner' is the rose traditionally called by that name, yet Fred Boutin has found apparently the "real" thing, and it's quite a different rose. I see no current way, for example, to list which one grows (we have both in the FSC gardens).
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted 27 JUL 15 by Patricia Routley
We do have two separate files for
Bloomfield Abundance Thomas 1920 and
Spray Cecile Brunner Howard, 1941.

There are many photos of 'Spray Cecile Brunner' in the 'Bloomfield Abundance' file but I am not volunteering to move them. Hopefully, members will take up the baton and move them themselves.
REPLY
© 2017 HelpMeFind.com