|
-
-
Thank you for sharing these wonderful cards, Billy! Unfortunately, it appears here in the US, Betty Uprichard and Edith Nellie Perkins are confused. From the petal count, it also appears what we still have is Betty as her petal count is about right for our rose and many fewer than what Edith is reported in Modern Roses to possess.
|
REPLY
|
I've put a few more references in for both roses. It appears Betty smells of lemon, and Edith has veins
|
REPLY
|
Thanks very much Patricia - and you have prompted me to do something about replacing the 'Betty' I lost last summer. The house and garden that 'Betty' was collected from has been sold, but the beautiful old rose was still there when I last drove by. This rose isn't a re-identified foundling - the lovely woman who owned the garden remembered her father planting it and teaching her the name. I've always thought this rose shows a lot of its Tea heritage. It is slow to establish and vulnerable in its earliest years but becomes stronger with age and is clearly capable of living to a great age if it makes it through the early years. The foliage is very nice - smooth and clean-looking. It doesn't like a hard prune - looks far lovelier and seems healthier if just trimmed and tidied up around the edges as you might a Tea. The fragrance is definitely fruity - though to my nose not just citrus notes - far more complex and layered. The colour has a subtlety and varies to the extent that sometimes it looks like a pink rose and sometimes more apricot. And yes - not a lot of petals.
|
REPLY
|
I feel sure you are talking about 'Betty' 1905 (or is it 'Betty Climbing' 1926) and not about 'Betty Uprichard', 1920. My 'Betty' I got from you is still out there, but still only one foot high. It won't grow up!!!
|
REPLY
|
You're right Patricia - 'Betty' 1905 and off topic here. Miss N said her father planted it well before WWI, so no chance it's an abbreviated 'Betty Uprichard'. Hope your 'Betty' 1905 gets a wriggle on soon. The 100 year old plant in Miss N's old garden in Guildford is over head-height and just as wide.
|
REPLY
|
You're welcome Kim - I'm glad you like them and find them helpful. There are 22 more to come and I'll work on that asap. This series are typical of the photos of the era - they look primped and pimped up. It is excellent that most attempt to show a bud, an open bloom and some foliage but sometimes the endearing idiosyncrasies of the rose are lost in the process of trying to display them at their most perfect. Often it's the warts-and-all portrait that is most recognisable.
|
REPLY
|
|