|
|
"Bishop's Lodge Precious Porcelain" rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Eric Timewell kindly once sent me a plant of “Bishop’s Lodge Precious Porcelain” budded on to ‘Dr. Huey’. This rootstock does not do well in our conditions and the plant has not thriven. However, my interest in this rose has never waned. Despite the slight differences in colour, I believe ‘Bloomfield Dainty’ 1924 should be considered for “Bishop’s Lodge Precious Porcelain”. It is within the 1895-1925 time frame mentioned by Colleen Houston in HRIAI 25-1-28. Both roses seem to have a prickly pedicel and glandular buds. Other similarities seem to be with the prickles, the canes, and the way the bloom can close up:
‘Bloomfield Dainty’. 1928-147 reference. Made 4-foot canes first season
“Bishop’s Lodge Precious Porcelain” Eric Timewell’s comment 25 of 27: “strong straight 4’ shoots from the base”.
‘Bloomfield Dainty’ Biercreek’s photo caption “These flowers close up in a funny way, with rainy weather.”
Bishop’s Lodge Precious Porcelain" Patricia’s photo 551 016 caption Dec 12, 2013. “6pm closing for the night”.
|
REPLY
|
|
Not if Bloomfield Dainty's maximum bloom size is 2". BLPP isn't dainty.
Also, my BLPP is low-growing. Not more than 1.2 m.
The receptacles match well, but if the rose currently sold as Bloomfield Dainty is a substitute, it doesn't bring us closer to the true ID of "Bishop's Lodge Precious Porcelain".
|
REPLY
|
|
You are probably right Margaret. I have found one reference to a 3 inch size, but it was a 1971 reference. Perhaps those “slight differences in colour” are more important than I initially thought. These thoughts might not bring us any closer to the true identity, but as you have said, “if we don’t try to get it right, who will?”
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
5 MAY 20 by
petera
|
I don't think we should eliminate Irish Harmony, the amount of red on the outsides and edges of the petals is seasonal but can be substantial in cooler weather. At the start of the April flush there was virtually no red but in the last two weeks the buds have been quite red. I haven't posted extra pictures as they would add nothing those already posted over the years by Eric and Margaret.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This rose is seed-fertile. My seedlings so far are likely to have been self-pollinated.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This is an interesting survivor. How does it go for resistance to black spot? Any good?
|
REPLY
|
|
Looking good at present, in my no-spray Mediterranean-climate garden (Adelaide Hills). It gets a handful of Seamungous once or twice a year (not Sudden Impact because that has too much phosphate for my native plants). Big orange-red hips.
Photos don't really give the impression of how big the flowers are, following the long buds. Visitors to the HRIAI conference in Mt Gambier were impressed by it.
|
REPLY
|
|
That sounds like my sort of shrub. I can manage to throw something at it twice a year.
I'm wondering if it needs the "full HT treatment" or is more of a Tea in growth. Does it need pruning, or can you just let it do its own thing?
Oh, and how would you rate it compared to 'Squatter's Dream'?
|
REPLY
|
|
You're asking the wrong person about pruning - I'm a lazy gardener, which I justify by "every leaf is a powerhouse". Standard pruning methods were developed for the English winter and production of showbench flowers, neither of which is relevant to my garden. I should deadhead through the season but have too many d roses, so I mainly do a hygiene prune in winter - cutting out dead wood and crossing-over branches. Some HTs can make very creditable shrubs if not hacked back hard each year.
Mine, left to itself, is low and a bit sprawly.
Bigger flowers than Squatter's Dream, and more of them.
|
REPLY
|
|
Sounds good, on all counts. I have a tendency to just let plants be plants. I figure they've had several million years to get the hang of it.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Responding to Karl Rand’s comment January 9, 2014 in ‘Irish Harmony’:
You should have received just four email notifications. One for each of your four photos that I noted may be “inaccurate” for ‘Irish Harmony’. Admin advise that there have been some system upgrades and no doubt this problem will not occur in the future.
Mistydowns’ website does have (BL) after the Precious Porcelain name. But nurseries should be using the internationally-recognised “double quotes” for a foundling’s study name – i.e. “Precious Porcelain”. If their system does not allow single or double quotes, they should be using the full name given to it by the founders of the foundling rose – i.e. “Bishop’s Lodge Precious Porcelain”. Or at the very least add a notation that the rose is a foundling rose.
‘Irish Harmony’ (note the single quotes) was a 1904 HT bred by Dickson. Whether or not the foundling “Bishop’s Lodge Precious Porcelain”(note the double quotes) is the same rose is debatable. There certainly are similarities, but there are differences too (the lack of the claret colourings) which does not allow us to say at this stage it is it is DEFINITELY ‘Irish Harmony’.
There were many old roses growing at Bishop’s Lodge in Hay, NSW and I can only advise you to take the time to look at their listing under / Non-commercial / Gardens / Bishop’s Lodge Heritage Rose Garden. The roses that they have not been able to identify have all been given study names commencing with “Bishop’s Lodge such-and such” etc….
|
REPLY
|
|
