|
|
"Peggy Martin" rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Has anyone considered 'Climbing China Doll'?
|
REPLY
|
|
I've wondered about that too Patricia.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I planted 'Peggy Martin' in a less than desirable location for a rose, to see how she did. I knew she survived Katrina so thought she might be okay with soil that leans toward clay and doesn't drain as well as other beds in my garden. This is her first year and she's thriving.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 7 posted
18 MAY 08 by
Unregistered Guest
|
I planted mine and it is huge it has bloomed once but now there are no blooms. The plant was a year old in may 2008. Will it bloom again?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 7 posted
18 JUN 08 by
Unregistered Guest
|
Once it is established it should repeat moderately well.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 7 posted
6 JUN 10 by
jnmccool
|
Mine is now three years old and well established, but I have yet to see her repeat. Maybe this year ... (8b, high heat/humidity Louisiana garden)
|
REPLY
|
|
'Cl. Pinkie' didn't repeat for me either.
|
REPLY
|
|
Cl Pinkie flowered non-stop for me (Mediterranean climate, zone 9b). In fact it became "invisible", because it was always there.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 7 posted
1 JUL 10 by
jnmccool
|
My cl. Pinkie is currently reblooming nicely. My peggy is not. Perhaps the rose you have is not cl. Pinkie but Peggy Martin.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 7 posted
30 JUN 10 by
Hartwood
|
Mine began repeating in year two ... a few flowers at the base of the plant at first. Now, in year four, I can count on having a pretty decent number of flowers. Repeat is not nearly as profuse as the spring bloom, of course, but respectable enough to notice from a distance.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The true identity of this rose is thought to be, 'Climbing Pinkie'. It would be a shame if it lost it's original provenance.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 8 posted
6 JUN 10 by
jnmccool
|
I have climbing Pinkie and Peggy Martin in my front yard climbing on a pergola and they are definitely not the same rose. Peggy's blooms are more tightly clustered, darker pink and the blooms are more compact than Pinkie.
|
REPLY
|
|
It's common for different clones of named cultivars to vary.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 8 posted
1 JUL 10 by
jnmccool
|
Hmmm. I am not a rose hybridizer or anything other than a weekend gardener, but in my garden, these two roses are distinct. Pinkie reblooms; peggy, so far, has not. Pinkie has loose clusters of loose petaled roses that resemble a teacup before they open; Peggy has tight bunches of small, carnation-like blooms that open from tight, round buds; the leaves of Pinky are longer, smoother, greener; Pinkie tends to grow from the base, sending out lots of basal canes; Peggy branches more from one or two existing basal canes. The canes themselves are different; Peggy's were more easily bent around the pergola leg, as you cansee from the photo, Pinkie is more upright. Peggy tends to be less bushy than Pinkie. BTW, I planted them at the same time, the same size (very small) both from the Antique Rose Emporium. They are, in my mind more different than alike.
What authority opined that the true identity of Peggy Martin was cl. Pinkie, and on what information did it base its conclusions?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
30 JUN 10 by
Hartwood
|
In my garden, Peggy Martin and Climbing Pinkie are NOTHING ALIKE. Different foliage, different flowers, and vastly different growth habits. I would love to see where this theory that they are the same rose originated. I don't see it.
|
REPLY
|
|
Pink? Small blossoms in clusters? Nearly smooth? Indistinguishable in photographs?
It seems to me they are more than a little alike.
There are roses being "found" all over the country. Just because something isn't identified yet doesn't mean it didn't have a name.
I could walk down the street and name the roses in my neighbors yard for my dog or my cat.
Study roses are just what the name implies, a name you give something till the proper name is confirmed.
'Cl. Pinkie' was propagated extensively. There's no guarantee what is being sold by any a particular vendor today is the same as what it was 40 years ago or even last year.
The nice thing is the patent for 'Cl. Pinkie' lapsed decades ago. Even is it is some form of that rose, you can literally call it anything you like.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
30 JUN 10 by
Hartwood
|
Peggy Martin and Cl. Pinkie are distinctly different in the garden, despite how they appear in photos. The leaflets, stipules, flower color and form and size, and growth habits are quite dissimilar.
I just returned from a trip to the garden, where I harvested leaves and hip clusters from both roses. Unfortunately, our recent heat has fried all the flowers, so there were none to be had for this comparison. I have uploaded the scans under the photo tab of the respective roses.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Hartwood for taking the trouble to load the two photos of "Peggy Martin" and 'Cl. Pinkie'. I have had the two photos on a split screen. The developing cataracts are blurring my vision a little, but "Peggy Martin" does seem to be more glandular on the pedicel, with fimbriated stipules and bracts. Do you recall the provenance of your "Peggy Martin".
With thanks. Patricia
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
1 JUL 10 by
Hartwood
|
My Peggy Martin was purchased at Chamblees in 2007.
|
REPLY
|
|
