'Sénateur Amic' rose reviews and comments

	Description		Photos		Lineage		Awards		References		Member Ratings		Member Comments		Member Journals		Cuttings		Gardens		Buy From

'Sénateur Amic' rose Reviews & Comments

My HMF:

☐ POST COMMENT

Discussion id : 93-489 most recent 3 JUN 20 SHOW ALL

Initial post 17 JUN 16 by John Hook

The rose in commerce and which we sell isn't correctly attributed, It seems more like an HT. It doesn't have Gigantea characteristics which it would have as a first generation cross and is generally double, never single.	REPLY

Reply #1 of 6 posted 2 JUN 20 by Hiyamakki

I've seen it listed as Forestville (which is carried by Burlington) in The Sacramento City Cemetery Historic Rose Garden Catalog of 2010. They have it as a Hybrid Gigantea of arching shrub aspect with full blooms.	REPLY

Reply #2 of 6 posted 2 JUN 20 by HMF supporting member

Patricia Routley

HelpMeFind has a separate file called "Forestville Gigantea" and the photo in the Rosa Antiche Sorrosa link (in the Notes Source) shows a purple or dark red semi-double bloom. Should we merge “Forestville Gigantea” with ‘Senateur Amic’?	REPLY

Reply #3 of 6 posted 3 JUN 20 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

I wouldn't do that unless we have good side by side comparisons. We do not even have photos of FG.	REPLY

Reply #4 of 6 posted 3 JUN 20 by John Hook

The true Senateur Amic should have single or at most semi double blooms sending up canes of 10 - 15 metres, its foliage would be distinctive. In my opinion it is currently extinct	REPLY

Reply #5 of 6 posted 3 JUN 20 by Hiyamakki

I couldn't think of any other way to share it so my profile pic is the listing from the catalogue	REPLY

Reply #6 of 6 posted 3 JUN 20 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

The catalog has used the photo of Amiroses! Probably taken in the Rosarie du Val de Marne in France. The rosarium's own images can be found under this link: https://collections-roseraie.valdemarne.fr/index.php?metier=varietes&action=fiche&id=2966	REPLY

Discussion id : 119-736 most recent 9 JAN 20 HIDE POSTS

Initial post 9 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

HubertG

I wasn't sure where to put this and thought this might be the best place.

In Peter Lambert's 1934-35 catalogue on page 43 under the Rosa Gigantea section there is a rose listed called 'Soeur Amic'. One would naturally think that this is a error for 'Senateur Amic' but its breeder is given as Levavasseur as follows:

"Soeur Amic (Levavasseur). (Schnitt lang)."

That's the only description. It's also listed in the index as 'Soeur Amic'.
In Lambert's 1938-39 catalogue it is listed in the Rosa Gigantea section on page 36 as 'Soeur Amié' with the following description:

"Soeur Amié (Levavasseur). (Schnitt lang), gefüllt, lachsgelb."

which means double and salmon-yellow. In the index it appears as 'Soeur Amic'.
In the 2nd edition (1942) of 'Standardized Plant Names' under Roses there is an entry for "Soeur Amic HG. (Lev.)" and no entry for 'Senateur Amic'.

So I don't know whether being a Hybrid Gigantea it is a mistake for 'Senateur Amic', or because the description is not like 'Senateur Amic' that it is in fact a different rose by Levavasseur.

Reply #1 of 2 posted 9 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

Added as a separate rose for the time being. The nursery Levavasseur & Cie still existed in the 1930s, although it might not have been Ernest Levavasseur. There are catalogues of the nursery from the period, but could not yet access one.	REPLY

Reply #2 of 2 posted 9 JAN 20 by HMF supporting member

HubertG

Thanks. It's peculiar.	REPLY