|
|
-
-
Initial post
23 NOV 06 by
Josep
|
I've bought HARfable as a Canterbury ( In Spain)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 6 posted
30 NOV 06 by
Cass
|
Do you remember the name of the nursery so we can update our nursery list.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 6 posted
1 DEC 06 by
Josep
I've bought it in Jardiland, that it's a Garden Center, but these roses, named "English Legend", are produced by Edirose. |
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 6 posted
28 NOV 10 by
Lucretia
|
Also available from Pickering (in Canada). I just planted mine this morning.
|
REPLY
|
|
no longer available :(
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 6 posted
16 OCT 11 by
Lucretia
|
If you're looking for it, Heirloom Roses (www.heirloomroses.com) has Perpetually Yours own-root. www.heirloomroses.com
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
27 JUL 06 by
Unregistered Guest
|
I need to rephrase my earlier post. I am searching for Louis or Louise , Betty, Madeline, Martha, and Rita or Reta Bugnet Roses. These were all bred by the late Georges Bugnet from Canada. These were once in the Commercial Commerce but have fallen out. I know Ashdown Roses has Louis as I am currently wait listed for it. Therese and Marie Bugnet are Iron Clad Hardy for me here in Alaska. Growing Roses here can be a challenge at times and is why I am seeking these other Bugnet Roses. Georges Bugnet used R. accicularis in many of his crosses and is the wild species rose here in Alaska. Does anyone know who might carry these Roses? or does anyone know who might have these in thier private Garden ?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
11 NOV 06 by
Cass
|
Sundog, I had another idea, although I don't know if these roses will be any more available than the hybrid rugosas you are looking for. I also don't know if they will be as hardy.
Look at the descendants of Rosa acicularis under the Lineage tab here:
http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/pl.php?n=5251
There is quite a list of interesting hybrids and a few more suppliers.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have heard of a nursery near Anchorage which sold some Bugnet roses. Contact the Alaska Rose Society for help also.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
29 JUL 08 by
Sundog
|
I am a member and past Board member of the Ak Rose Society. The nursery you mentioned I know of and only has one they sell as Mrs. George Bugnet, which i have. Interesting though there is no mention of a rose named by this in Georges Bugnet list of hybridized roses nor is it listed in Modern Roses 10.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I am trying to identify a rose I inherited at my garden. The original gardener says it's "yesterday" but I think it's more like "blue mist". I have (hopefully) enclosed a photo for your consideration.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
19 NOV 06 by
Cass
|
Photo ID is a tricky business, but if blind voting counts, I agree that your plant looks more like 'Blue Mist' from the pictures posted on HMF. I grow 'Yesterday.' During the spring flush, the blooms are held aloft quite a bit higher than your shot reveals. I've never see the color that light, although color is generally very saturated in my cool climate.
Take a look at the leaf margins on the several photos posted on HMF. 'Yesterday' has less pronounced serration. It also tiny but distinct fringed stipules. I don't know the parentage of 'Blue Mist,' so it's possible you might see fringed stipules there, too. If you check your plant for prickles and stipules, I can compare your findings to my 'Yesterday.'
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
15 OCT 07 by
Unregistered Guest
|
Look's like Lavender Dream to me.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
12 NOV 06 by
 jedmar
|
How come Liberty (1900) comes from Charles J. Grahame (1906)?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
13 NOV 06 by
Cass
|
You pose a perturbing question because of the dates. That is the breeding published in Modern Roses at least back to 1958. The first Modern Roses (1930) does not list the parentage. By Modern Roses V (1958), the next that I own, the parentage is shown. If it is an error and you have a more accurate reference, we'd like to include it here.
Speculations? First, that the breeder (Dickson family bred both roses) didn't release Charles J. Grahame (the actual date may be 1905, not '06) until after it was used it for breeding for some time. Another is that this breeding information is qustionable. See the link to Colin Dickson and the reference to the destruction of breeding records in a 1921 fire. Furthermore, some breeders were known to be less than truthful about the parentage of their roses, a kind of early intellectual property rights protection. I have no information that the Dickson family ever engaged in that practice.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
17 NOV 06 by
jedmar
|
Beside Liberty (1900, also Killarney (1898 or 1899) is said to be derived from Charles J. Grahame. This makes the date of 1906 quite improbable. In The Old Rose Advisor, Vol. II, p.218, Dickerson has two quotes on Charles J. Grahame from "Journal de Roses" Years 29 and 22. In the Bibliography he states that "Journal de Roses" was published 1877-1914. Year 29 would then correspond to 1905/6, but Year 22 to 1898/99! I believe Dickerson found the first quote from Year 29, established the breeding date as 1906 and never changed this although he later found a quote from Year 22. The date should be corrected to "before 1898" (provided the quotes are correct).
|
REPLY
|
|
Because, 'Liberty' and 'Charles J. Grahame' were bred by Colin Dickson. Often, a rose is evaluated ten or more years before is introduced, and if it recieves favorable evaluations, it is used in a breeding program. Dickson decided it was so good and introduced it, albiet after Liberty
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
19 FEB 07 by
Cass
|
Yes! In addition to the evaluation period you mention, the "Bred By" dates are much closer to a date of first introduction. Many patent applications disclose that a seedling was selected on a date that predates the patent application by 7, 8 or 10 years.
|
REPLY
|
|
