|
'Garden and Home' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
This rose does very very well in my humid zone 7a garden. I bought this rose from the local hardware store and it’s likely grafted on Dr Huey.
My soil is clay, and often a little wetter than I’d like. I mounded this rose a bit higher than grade, and it has not had any problems from the clay. The flowers are large, fragrant and beautiful. The shrub is upright with strong canes. I’ve seen some black spot in my no-spray garden, and this rosebush seems to be pretty resistant-a few spots here and there, but not much. The blooms just kept on coming all season, and the shrub also grew a nice amount. I liked this rose so much that I ended up buying a couple more.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
18 APR 23 by
Joule
I am considering planting 3 of these 30” apart for a corner showstopper in a semi formal garden. But I am concerned it will be too big and out of scale. I too have clay soil in 8b. How big did yours get?TIA.
|
REPLY
|
In 7a, it stays pretty close to 3x3. One of mine (I ended up getting five!) is maybe a little wider than the others. But they are very well-mannered here.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Heirloom --- the jerks -- have changed the name on this one. I HATE when they do that. Argh! But we better list it. They want this rose to be called "Moonlight in Paris." While I'm sure that is a good marketing name, it just adds confusion UNLESS they get the original introducer and the ARS to change the name for exhibition purposes BEFORE they do it themselves.. Now people will buy the rose under that name and get disqualified in shows when they try to show it under that name.
See, https://www.heirloomroses.com/moonlight-in-paris.html
|
REPLY
|
Thank you Kathy. Added.
|
REPLY
|
Actually, I see Edmunds is also calling it Moonlight in Paris. Maybe 'Garden and Home' just didn't have enough zip to it. It is a pretty boring name (probably named for a magazine?)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
23 FEB 23 by
StefanDC
It's important to remember that all of these fanciful "names" are actually trade designations, and not names at all--in fact, the ARS does itself a great disservice as ICRA for the genus by referring to exhibition "names" when those approved "names" are frequently trade designations instead. These are not to be regarded as, or confused with, cultivar epithets under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, which the ARS is obliged to follow as ICRA. Known trade designations should also always be displayed along with the cultivar epithet.
It would be far better for the ARS to fulfill its obligations under the ICNCP by better and more consistently emphasizing that there is only one accepted name for each cultivar, consisting of a true cultivar epithet, which is to be indicated by enclosure within single quotation marks. Likewise, trade designations should ideally be displayed in different typeface or otherwise set apart from the cultivar epithet, and must never be enclosed in single quotation marks. For this cultivar, 'Delanac' is the correct name. The others are technically meaningless proprietary trade designations that may be employed freely only in a non-commercial context as a matter of "fair use." Proprietary trade designations are bereft of any true connection to the actual cultivar; the owner of such a designation may apply it to as many different varieties as desired, to change the designation or designations that it uses for a cultivar however it sees fit, and of course, there is no limit to the number of trade designations that a single cultivar may be sold under.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 8 posted
23 FEB 23 by
jedmar
The Approved Exhibition Name by the ARS is so last-century! No one outside of USA cares. It's time the Guidelines for Judging Roses are revised and simplified, if the ARS doesn't want to end up as an anachrony.
|
REPLY
|
This comment by me was 5 years ago. In the meantime, Bob Martin, who handled these things for the ARS until he passed, did change this rule. I believe that roses in ARS shows can now be shown under any name used to market them, including this rose, now commonly known in the USA as Moonlight in Paris.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 8 posted
23 FEB 23 by
Lee H.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet…”
I doubt the Bard ever imagined modern marketing. What I will say is that it has been a very good rose in my garden, and it probably would never have had the chance, but for the fact that Heirloom capitalized on an equally good name.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
24 FEB 23 by
StefanDC
Good on ARS for making at least that much of an adjustment--does it now insist on the use of the actual cultivar name as well? That would be a much more substantial improvement than simply allowing the use of any marketing designation (which is by definition not a name).
|
REPLY
|
Pretty much anything you use that identifies the rose will be allowed now.
|
REPLY
|
|