|
|
goncmg 
-
-
|
Striking coloration, raspberry caramel comes to mind. Very small plant, very small blooms even in mild temperatures of early spring. Blooms are coming in clusters as own root plant slowly develops. About the size of a miniflora this one is and I’m not happy about that. I’m also getting blackspot on this variety, 1 of 3 out of 70 that have it. I’m holding off making a “cut” here but the color alone won’t save it. I’m not a grower of minis and minifloras that’s the big deal breaker. Then there is the blackspot…….I’ll hold off until end of the year, will give it a full season but so far other than color it doesn’t appeal to me nor is it a good fit for my collection.
|
REPLY
|
|
Probably needs to be grafted/budded
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
25 MAR by
goncmg
|
I think I’ll try that as I do still have mine. I put it with the floribundas I grow and it fits in a lot better with them. The plant has gotten healthier and it does seem happy and eager. It remains very small scale with lots of clusters.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I am considering it could be a descendent of 'Buccaneer' but not 'Buccaneer' itself. I wish there were more photos of 'Amarillo' to go through, as they have the same inner petals and roughly the same coloration.
'Amarillo' is a City in Texas. The name made famous by several songs. It wouldn't be a stretch to find random 'Amarillo' roses around Texas due to the namesake, and Grandma's Yellow was found in Texas. That is not proof, but something to consider.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
13 MAR by
goncmg
|
Dang it does look a lot like those 2 pics of Amarillo. What about the 1980 Houston? The dull, narrowish leaf should give us an immediate name but nobody seems certain on this one and that fascinates me.
|
REPLY
|
|
It'd be funny if Canary Diamond was just a rename of Houston. Maybe its a sister seedling. Obviously, at least half siblings.
Houston/Canary Diamond have a bit different foliage than G. Yellow and Amarillo.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
20 JUN 12 by
goncmg
|
Between Ink Spots and Black Baccara I would recommed Ink Spots. Both are a small, somewhat formal bloom on a difficult plant. Ink Spots is, for me, the better of the two plants as in it is absolutely disease prone but not disease ridden. Compare EITHER of these two to OKLAHOMA which gives a big, fat, smelly, lusty bloom on a "decently" resistant albeit leggy plant and equally as is "black" in my opinion and there is no comparison..........
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
18 JAN 20 by
canaan
|
So who is more "black" Oklaoma or InkSpots?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
20 JAN 20 by
goncmg
|
About the same. Oklahoma can get darker, it gets dustier and darker, it will lean more dusky purple and Ink Spots will be more red per se. Ink Spots doesn't "blue" much. Honestly? It escapes me why anyone would want a BLACK bloom on a rose or any plant. Oklahoma has scent, it smells like a ROSE. Ink Spots has no scent at all. Ink Spots was a huge FAILLLLL when released. Oklahoma should have been AARS. Ink Spots dies back, it is uneven. Oklahoma is weedy but reliable. Black Baccara can give gorgeous blooms. The blooms are usually the size of a miniature rose. And the plant is so weak. Anyone who alleges it (Black Baccara) does better than that is simply lying or is simply happy with miniature sized blooms on a large and sick plant.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 4 posted
20 JAN 20 by
canaan
|
Hello.thank you very much for your information.
|
REPLY
|
|
Oh the "black" roses, I think 'Taboo' is the easiest, if you can ignore the minor mildew. Grows straight as an arrow. Easy to cut. Always dark and red. Good vigor. 'Black Magic' is probably the prettiest, but it has architecture issues, and seems prone to snap freezes.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
2 FEB 19 by
goncmg
|
Relatively sublime colors on a hideously sprawling plant and with hideously poor bloom form. And the blooms are way too small for the huge gangly plant. But she is 76 and still around!
|
REPLY
|
|
They had it at Washington Park for years, planted in rows next to modern HT/GRs. It was bolt upright and quite naked. With each leaf set far above the next. Then, these little semi-double, ragged blooms on top. It looked like Queen Elizabeth (the rose...) just came back from war lol.
But they must have loved it a lot back in the 1930s, because obviously someone loved it enough to place it there. Maybe the color tone was novel enough. Maybe it was the name. Who knows. I don't. I saw HTs from that era of that color palette that I felt were superior, on much more manageable plants.
|
REPLY
|
|
