HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Madame Bérard' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 111-886
most recent 20 JUL 18 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 2 JUL 18 by Patricia Routley
Virginia, is it possible for you [or someone else] to add translations of the early 'Mme. Berard' references please?
REPLY
Reply #1 of 13 posted 2 JUL 18 by HubertG
There's an interesting passage in the Rosen-Zeitung where someone writes in asking how to tell Gloire de Dijon and Mme. Berard apart, and the answer gives some interesting details. I'll post and translate that one later. It might be helpful. Very many of the other references in Rosen-Zeitung comment on how good a seed bearer Mme. Berard is, although this is perhaps no surprise given the number of its offspring.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 13 posted 2 JUL 18 by billy teabag
"Rose in Commerce as Adam / almost certainly Mme Bérard" is a prodigious seed bearer. It is one of those roses that produces a hip for practically every flower, and if not dead-headed, the plant puts all its energy into making hips and seeds and becomes weak and disease prone.
David Ruston mentioned 'Great Western' as another example of a rose that needs to be rescued from its extreme fertility.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 13 posted 3 JUL 18 by HubertG
From the Rosen-Zeitung 1898, pages83-84

"Frage-Kasten
... b) Welche deutlichen Erkennungszeichen hat man, um die beiden Rosen Gloire de Dijon und Madame Bérard zu unterschieden?

... Antwort auf Frage b. Die beiden genannten Rosen sind ebenso verschieden, wie etwa eine Souvenir de la Malmaison von einer Captain Christy verschieden ist. Vor allem verschieden sind die Blüten. Gloire de Dijon ist bedeutend heller; sie ist weiss und gelb, M. Bérard ist gelb und kupfrig. Gloire de Dijon öffnet sich leicht ganz und zeigt dann Wirrbau; Mad. Bérard öffnet sich nie ganz und zeigt nie Wirrbau; Aber auch andere Unterschiede sind auffallend. Gloire de Dijon ist reich, Mad. Bérard spärlich bestachelt. Gloire de Dijon blüht an langen, entspitzten Trieben an fast allen Augen; MB fast immer nur an den entständigen. Gl. de Dijon hat eine dicke, rundliche Knospe; M.B. eine mehr langliche. Gloire de Dijon gehört zu denjenigen Theerosen, deren reifes Holz - wie das des M. Niel - sehr hart und spröde ist; M. Bérard gehört zu denen, die sehr weiches Holz haben. Diese Unterschied ist, wenn mann beide Sorte nach einander okuliert, äusserst auffallend. Endlich hat M. Bérard durchaus dunkleres und reiches Laub als G. de Dijon. Aber schön sind beide."

My translation:

Question Box
b) What clear signs are there to recognise the difference between the roses Gloire de Dijon and Madame Berard?

... Answer to question b. Both the mentioned roses differ in much the same way in which a Souvenir de la Malmaison is different from a Captain Christy. Above all, the blooms are different. Gloire de Dijon is significantly lighter; it is white with yellow, M. Berard is yellow and coppery. Gloire de Dijon opens completely easily and then shows a confused construction; Mad. Berard never completely opens and never shows a confused construction; But other differences are also noticeable. Gloire de Dijon is richly and Mad. Berard is sparsely prickled. Gloire de Dijon flowers on long tip-pruned shoots from almost all eyes; M B almost always only on the teminals. Gl. de Dijon has a thick roundish bud; M.B. a more elongated one. Gloire de Dijon belongs to those Tea Roses whose mature wood - like that of M. Niel - is very hard and brittle; M. Berard belongs to those which have very soft wood. This difference is extremely noticeable when one buds both varieties one after the other. Finally, M Berard has thoroughly darker and richer foliage than Gloire de Dijon. Both, however, are beautiful.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 13 posted 4 JUL 18 by HubertG
Translation of the above is now added.
I should comment that "Wirrbau" is rather hard to translate so that the original intended meaning is conveyed. It literally means confused or muddled construction or build. However it doesn't seem to be a word that is normally reserved specifically for roses because it doesn't appear anywhere else in all the Rosen-Zeitung publications. It seems to most be commonly used for when bees start building a hive in an irregular way. In any case, I've left it as "confused construction" because that can cover a good deal.
I wonder if the writer means a twisted rosette eye once the flowers expand. Anyway, it is an interesting and hopefully helpful reference.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 13 posted 4 JUL 18 by billy teabag
Many thanks for this HubertG. There's a lot of very useful detail in that reference.
I ran the original through Google translate late last night and though it did a reasonably good job, it didn't even attempt "Wirrbau".
If we can safely conclude that the roses grow similarly enough in temperate Australia and wherever these observations were made (are there any hints about the location?), then reading the descriptions of growth habit and where the blooms tend to appear, "Not Adam" is more like 'Gloire de Dijon' and 'Mme Berard' sounds closer in growth habit to roses like 'Reve d'Or'.
I'm less certain that "Not Adam" is 'Mme Berard' after reading this.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 13 posted 4 JUL 18 by HubertG
Billy, you're welcome. I'll check later for clues on the writer's location. There are lots of Mme Berard references on Rosen-Zeitung. That one was probably the most interesting, but I can post more. I haven't grown either rose so can't comment but the photos I've seen over the years of Gloire de Dijon do give the impression of it having a muddled or 'wirr' form.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 13 posted 4 JUL 18 by Patricia Routley
Reference added.
REPLY
Reply #8 of 13 posted 4 JUL 18 by HubertG
The writer was "O.S. in L.". This must be Otto Schultze who was a contributor to the Rosen-Zeitung, but so far I haven't been able to determine the location "L."

This might be useful. From the Rosen-Zeitung 1894 page 7:
"Mad. Moreau ist in allen Eigenschaften mit Mad. Bérard identisch, das Lachsgelb der Blüte ist jedoch viel kräftiger als bei Mad. Bérard. Mad. Moreau erscheint farbenglänzender als letztere."

Mad. Moreau is in all characteristics identical to Mad. Berard, the salmon-yellow of the flower is however much stronger than Mad. Berard. Mad. Moreau comes more brightly coloured than the latter."

And from page 19 of 1894:

"Mme Bérard, besonders reich im Herbst blühend."

Mme Berard, especially abundantly blooming in autumn.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 13 posted 5 JUL 18 by Patricia Routley
Thanks again HubertG. Reference added
REPLY
Reply #10 of 13 posted 18 JUL 18 by HubertG
Has anyone considered Mme Chauvry (from Bonnaire) as a possible identity for the Australian presumed Mme Berard? It was Mme Berard x W A Richardson.
Superficially it fits the bill and was a profuse hip bearer, but I haven't looked into it enough to find any minutiae which might rule it out. Just throwing it out there.
REPLY
Reply #11 of 13 posted 18 JUL 18 by Margaret Furness
It would be helpful if anyone who grows Mme Chauvry, or has seen it growing, would post photos with ID-type details, and state the provenance of their rose please.
REPLY
Reply #12 of 13 posted 20 JUL 18 by HubertG
'Mme Moreau' (1889 Moreau-Robert) might be another one to consider for the Australian Mme Berard.
It was Mme Falcot x Mme Berard and was thornless or nearly so.
REPLY
Reply #13 of 13 posted 20 JUL 18 by Marlorena
There is also a 'Madame Simon', a seedling of 'Mme Berard' which is so similar, that I wonder if I grew this rose instead when I had it as 'Mme Berard'... incidentally Beales no longer offer it under the 'Mme Berard' name, only 'Adam'... looks like the same rose to me... but the sole photo of 'Madame Simon' on HMF looks more like the rose I had... and from reading the references it conforms to all that's said about it.... but I suppose I'll never know for sure..
REPLY
Discussion id : 111-851
most recent 2 JUL 18 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 30 JUN 18 by Patricia Routley
The Notes for 'Mme Berard' says:
"The Peter Beales Collection of Classic Roses for 2000-2001 says this rose was given to Peter Beales by Hazel le Rougetel in 1997."

Does anybody have this publication please? I would like to add the details as a reference.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 4 posted 2 JUL 18 by billy teabag
Peter Beales book 'Classic Roses', first published 1985, my copy 1997, has this on p385:

'Mme Bérard'
Levet FRANCE 1879
Fully double cupped largish flowers of a pleasing mixture of bright pink and yellow. Good mid- to dark green foliage. Growth generous for a climbing Tea. Given to me by Hazel le Rougetel.

I am wondering whether this might be the source of the 'E. Veyrat Hermanos' in commerce as Mme Berard.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 4 posted 2 JUL 18 by Patricia Routley
Thanks for that Billy.
I am now looking suspiciously at my provenance and need to work on how I determined my plant came from the UK-1; to Rumsey-2; to Ruston-3. to Natalee Kuser-4 [as Adam] in 2004.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 4 posted 2 JUL 18 by billy teabag
I don't think there's anything unsound there Patricia.

Two different roses:

1. your rose, the almost thornless "Rose In Commerce As Adam" that definitely isn't 'Adam' but there's a very good probability it's 'Mme Bérard'.

and 2. the "Rose in Commerce as Mme Bérard" (in Australia at least) that definitely isn't 'Mme Bérard' but 'E. Veyrat Hermanos'

The story of the discovery of Rose 1 (Not Adam, probably Mme Bérard) can be read in The Beales and Money 1977 book 'Georgian and Regency Roses', where it is pictured on the cover and also opposite the Introduction, titled 'Unidentified Tea Rose'.
("This well-portrayed example of an early Tea Rose is growing among several contemporaries at Flaxmoor House, Caston, Norfolk. There is no real evidence of when it was planted, but it is undoubtedly of great age.
Theories as to its true identity have been numerous, but mid-nineteenth-century descriptions come down strongly in favour of 'Adam', one of the first true Tea Roses if not the first. Later descriptions confuse the matter somewhat.
It is a sumptuous rose which, even in anonymity, will perhaps whet your appetite for the next few pages.").

Keith Money mentions this same rose in his 1985 'Bedside Book of Old Fashioned Roses'. Not far into the book, on the page opposite the photo of 'Dame Edith Helen' he writes, "Back to the first Norfolk garden of mine…Norfolk had been a good county for rose breeders and growers, and it was certainly more resistant than most areas to those besotted changes of fashion emanating from the Dean of Rochester and the Reverend Foster-Mellier. At the turn of the century, Norfolk was all very much as Nelson knew it.... Thus outside my breakfast room … could be found Gloire de Dijon of 1853 - though just possibly Mme. Falcot of five years later; as well as the supposed first Tea, Adam, 1833. Against the former apple store I found not only Souvenir de la Malmaison (1842) but also the intoxicating Reine Marie-Henriette (1878) - the true, not the fake; Souvenir du Dr Jamain of 1865; the Climbing Rene Andre of 1901; and … Dame Edith Helen…"

So sometime after the early years of 'might be Adam', it became unquestioned Adam on the Beales catalogue and was sent far and wide for people to grow and study and recognise an error.


We understood the error of the identification of Rose 2 - (the "Rose in Commerce as Mme Bérard" - in Australia at least - that isn't 'Mme Bérard' but 'E. Veyrat Hermanos') was an Australia-only one, but reading Peter Beales' description of the rose he calls 'Mme Bérard' in Classic Roses - "bright pink and yellow", "good mid- to dark green foliage" and "growth generous for a climbing Tea", we can recognise features of 'E. Veyrat Hermanos' while not one of these features is a good match for "Not Adam, probably Mme Bérard".

A theory to keep in mind with all the other theories in case something comes up to add weight or refute it.

And if after reading that your head is spinning, think of it as a good example for why it's a very bad idea to 'identify' foundlings on a hunch or scant evidence.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 4 posted 2 JUL 18 by Patricia Routley
Thank you for that Billy. One forgets what a superb job you did with Tea Roses. Old Roses for Warm Gardens. It is all there and answers the question about the provenance of my rose. I can only presume Heather Rumsey was writing the text for her 1990 book in the heat of summer when the rose is less petalled. I have added the references you mentioned and also the page numbers of Tea Roses where people may read more in depth.
REPLY
Discussion id : 109-691
most recent 29 MAR 18 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 29 MAR 18 by lbuzzell
Madame Berard is a star in our Santa Barbara, California garden - climbed quickly up an arch, strong canes, beautiful large tea-scented apricot-ish blooms, virtually no disease, thornless, repeats well, large red hips in fall. What more can we ask of a rose? I looked up her lineage and can see why she's such a winner. Her genealogy includes roses like Safrano, Gloire de Dijon, Deprez a Fleur Jaune, Souvenir de la Malmaison, Blush Noisette, Champney's Pink Cluster, Rose Edouard, Park's Yellow Tea-Scented China etc...
REPLY
Discussion id : 34-919
most recent 19 MAR 09 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 19 MAR 09 by AndreaGeorgia
Available from - Rosen Kalbus
http://www.rosen-kalbus.de/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_kalbus.tpl&product_id=204&category_id=29&option=c
REPLY
© 2019 HelpMeFind.com