HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Blush Damask' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 86-991
most recent 3 AUG 15 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 1 AUG 15 by Patricia Routley
Responding to Charles Quest-Ritson's comment in photos.

Charles - an interesting comment. I had posted an earlier comment (Nov 21, 2010) on the receptacles of 'Blush Damask'. Part of it was: There is a vast difference between my wide receptacles and those of the thin (ellipsoid) ones in Jedmar's painting from Mary Lawrance. Do you have a photo of 'Blush Damask' showing the turbinate receptacle?
Reply #1 of 2 posted 2 AUG 15 by Charles Quest-Ritson
Patricia, No I do not have any digital pictures that show the turbinate receptacles of 'Blush Damask' but I have old transparencies of it which i will look at in due course so may I come back to you on this? My own stock came originally from Graham Thomas and I could never understand why he considered it a Damask. He could be very stubborn in his opinions. I consider 'Blush Damask' closest to the Francofurtanas – the early flowering, the thin petals, the hips and the leaves all suggest that this is how it should be classified. It forms a thicket of stems on its own roots but has one of the shortest flowering seasons of all roses. BW, Charles.
Reply #2 of 2 posted 3 AUG 15 by Patricia Routley
In The Graham Stuart Thomas Rose Book even though listing it in the Summer Damask section, he considered ‘Blush Damask’ to be “certainly not a typical Damask”. He has included Bunyard’s Plate 30 as a “worthy” illustration of ‘Blush Damask’. Turning to that plate, I believe I can see (bottom right) a receptacle more ellipsoid, than wide, but it is not really clear. As for hips – I’ve never seen any. There are photos of both the receptacles and the mummies on my bush in HelpMeFind. You are helping me to come to the conclusion that my rose is not ‘Blush Damask’.
Discussion id : 68-040
most recent 8 NOV 12 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 6 NOV 12 by Roseraie "Roses de Normandie"
I would like to know what is this reference dated 1759 concerning 'Blush Damask'?
I am unable to find any horticultural book written in English published in 1759 and
I don't know any rose named 'Blush Damask' during the 18th century in the horticultural literature I know.
Was this rose mentioned in a catalogue?
Thank you for your help.
Reply #1 of 3 posted 6 NOV 12 by jedmar
Our reference for 1759 is the statement in "Modern Roses". Unfortunately, they do not state where their information comes from. Our earliest reference is dated 1770, with later repeats in 1775, 1797 and 1799. However, we will investigate and come back again.
Reply #2 of 3 posted 8 NOV 12 by Cà Berta
I do not know if this may help.
A couple of references to Rosa Incarnata Damascena can be found in Teatro farmaceutico dogmatico e spagirico del Dottor Giuseppe Donzelli.
In the 1704 edition, page 162 “ Si chiama incarnata, per la similitudine, c’ha il suo colore con le carni delle vaghe, e delicate Donzelle. Nelle Spetiarie ha nome volgarmente di Rosa solutiva, & anche di Damascena: Nicolò Monardes asserisce darseli quest’ultimo nome, Quoniam ex Damasco nobilissima Syria de Urbe credum devenisse (Tratt. De rosa), e che si chiami Persica, vuole inferire l’istesso Monardes, che da Persia sia derivata, che perciò dice Unde prius originem duxerunt,..”
Translation “it is called incarnata for the colour resempling the blush of girls. In the herbalists it has the name of Damascena: Nicolò Monardes says that it has this name because it comes from Syria. And the same Monardes says that it is also named Persica as originally it came from Persia.

In the 1726 Edition, page 126 “Gasparo Shuvenckfelt dice, che la Rosa Prenestina sia la Damascena, ma di una spezie minore chiamata Rosa solutiva minore, ed anche Incarnata, o Precox cioè Primaticcia …” Translation “Gasparo Shuvenckfelt says that the Rosa Prenestina is the Damascena, but a variety called Rosa solutiva minore or Incarnata ..”
Reply #3 of 3 posted 8 NOV 12 by Roseraie "Roses de Normandie"
Many thanks for your interesting contribution!
In my mind, traditionally from the 16th to the 18th centuries, Rosa incarnata is Rosa damascena (i.e. our Rosa X damescena), for all the botanists of the continental Europe. This is the rose first mentioned by the Spanish botanist Monardes. 'Blush Damask' is mentioned much later and is different from Rosa x damascena.
Discussion id : 49-877
most recent 15 JUL 12 SHOW ALL
Initial post 21 NOV 10 by Patricia Routley
I have never questioned my 'Blush Damask' until just now when I put my photos on HelpMeFind. There is a vast difference between my wide receptacles and those of the thin ones in Jedmar's painting from Mary Lawrance. My rose has the gentle soft colouring of an alba - and the leaves remind me of an alba too. The fine thin stems don't though. It is a graceful, but floppy bush for me, growing in shade and doing just fine. I will propagate it more. Where do those big wide receptacles come from though. Does anybody have any photos of hips?
Reply #1 of 5 posted 13 JUL 12 by Chris
is this rose prone to suckering?
wondering if it is a found rose here in 5a.
Reply #2 of 5 posted 13 JUL 12 by Patricia Routley
Are you asking about my Western Australian bush (which has not suckered), or the 'Blush Damask' painted by Mary Lawrance?
Reply #3 of 5 posted 14 JUL 12 by Chris
your live bush.
it resembles something i found growing wild out here.
Reply #4 of 5 posted 15 JUL 12 by Patricia Routley
Chris, I've put more photos in the 'Blush Damask' page. Am embarrassed to say, that when I looked closely, yes it is suckering. Not rampantly, but probably about 10 canes for a foot from the main canes.
If yours is the same rose, have you had any thoughts on what it may be?
Reply #5 of 5 posted 15 JUL 12 by Chris
i keep wondering, as it bloomed before my gallicas.
or at least most of them
i wondered if it was shailer's provence.
so i bought one and am waiting to see if it devolops thorns.
Discussion id : 11-073
most recent 11 JUL 12 SHOW ALL
Initial post 31 JAN 06 by Rosenschule Ruf
I have heard this seems to be a hybrid between a damask and a pimpinellifolia,
and that seems to be reasonable: its bloming earlier than other damasks and it
has smaler leaves and finer stems.
Blush is one of the most uncomplicated Roses i know: disease resistant, hardy and
flowering even without any pruning ore care.
Reply #1 of 1 posted 11 JUL 12 by HonzaPM
R.R. - thank you for this nice comment from praxis :)
© 2021