|
|
-
-
Initial post
2 AUG 16 by
Hardy
|
How mysterious! Redoute's 'Quatre Saisons Lelieur' looks like a fairly pure damask; thorny, blooming in clusters, with flowers more pink than red, and some damask (ovoid) shape to the leaflets, but this looks like an altogether different rose, with a dark, lone bloom, acute leaflet shape, and mere bristles. Could there have been an impostor in place within 50 years of the original's release? Hard to know what to think about this rose!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
3 AUG 16 by
 CybeRose
|
There does seem to be some confusion.
I added the text associated with the picture. It describes, "colors of bright red, crimson, purple in reflection", which may be helpful.
I remember discussing this matter with Brent Dickerson several years ago. In June of 2001 he emailed me:
"It's the Damask Perpetual 'Bifera Macrocarpa' masquerading under the name of its, um, well--I was going to put "breeder" or then "introducer," but the situation is that M. le Comte Lelieur was essentially the functionary visiting the office once a month to pick up his paycheck while people like Ecoffay did the work, and the extent of his being the "introducer" would have been that one day over some fine cognac he might have happened to mention to one of the Cels Bros. or to Monsieur Noisette that one of his people back at the nursery had come up with something interesting. At any rate, the rose in question is the old Damask Perpetual 'Bifera Macrocarpa' masquerading as 'Lelieur' or 'Rose Lelieur'."
Karl
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
3 AUG 16 by
Hardy
|
That makes perfect sense to me. I suppose that could also account for some early descriptions which say it is thorny, or pale pink, or not very double, or a mediocre rebloomer. Confusion right from the beginning! I'm almost ready to believe that the rose in commerce might be correctly labelled.
|
REPLY
|
|
