HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
Deborah Petersen 
-
-
|
Interesting to see my experience duplicated, Kim. I don't think I've ever seen a white bloom again on mine; it was such a tiny little thing when that happened (as it was for years...) that ALL of the blooms were white!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
As usual, I am wishing that HMF would better distinguish between the climbing form of 'Aimee Vibert' and the shrub form of 'Aimee Vibert'. According to the Vintage catalog, where both were sold, the shrub form was the original and the climbing form (which they called 'Aimee Vibert Scandens') a sport, but the description here gives a height of 9'10" to 15', which would be the dimensions for the climbing version. I have grown the shrub form, from Vintage, for more than 12 years now and it has stayed 4' x 4' with little in the way of pruning and is altogether delightful. With the two forms intermingled under this name, is is difficult to determine, for example, which form a vendor is offering, etc.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
31 MAR by
Lee H.
|
Did you notice that there is indeed a separate and distinct entry for the climbing sport?
I do agree that the listed height seems optimistic for the shrub version.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, but notice that two of the three sources given for the climbing version are historical only and now defunct. And, among the vendors for the supposedly shorter, original variety of 'Aimee Vibert', High Country Roses is, in fact, offering the climbing variety, though Rogue Valley Roses claims to be offering the 4' shrub. Heirloom Roses, based on their catalog entry, seems to be offering the climbing version too. The photos are, of course, also all over the map.
|
REPLY
|
|
Deborah, it is no trouble to quickly skim through 18 or so, mostly French, pages of Aimee Vibert references looking for a height. We have:
1835 2 to 3 feet
1856 moderate grower, dwarfish
1873. 2m. (6'7")
1879 before getting bogged down by this reference.
What about if we make the 1824 Aimee Vibert rose 3 to 5 feet. (Anita has said 5 feet)
Unfortunately I can find no reference to a height for the 1841 Aimee Vibert Climbing, apart from the 1992 and 1993 UK references which mention 15 feet. We will use that height for the moment.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks, Patricia -- I think specifying the correct, shorter height would help a great deal! Folks would then realize that the page they are posting on is for the shrub form of the rose, not the climber, and hopefully, over time, things will get sorted out.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I wonder if this could be the presumed-lost 'Franz Deegen', parent of 'Gruss an Aachen'.......
https://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.17146
:-)
~Christopher
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
22 JUN 19 by
HubertG
|
Could be, but would it be perhaps too on the peach side of yellow to be Franz Deegan?
I've been trying to compare the photos of it to 'Mlle Helene Cambier'.
|
REPLY
|
|
I could never go past ‘St. Helena’ (hybrid tea, Cant, 1912).
See also “Mrs. Frances Pickles”.
|
REPLY
|
|
I just obtained a band of this rose this year from a Friends of Vintage Roses sale and I must say I am already struck by its resemblance to some photos of 'Mlle Helene Cambier'. As indicated by the images posted by HubertG in its photos, 'Mlle Helene Cambier' was for sale in the 1910s by the California Rose Company, which was located in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time and thus not that far from St. Helena, in Napa County. I am looking forward to becoming more familiar with this rose in future years and continuing to make comparisons.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Clicking on the photos gives no close-up of the photo, only a little blue box with a question mark in it --- since last night.
|
REPLY
|
|
Working OK for me this morning.
|
REPLY
|
|
Working for me now, too -- ephemeral gremlin, I guess. Thanks!
|
REPLY
|
|
'Ephemeral Gremlin' would be a great name for a rose. :)
|
REPLY
|
|
Or pop group, or video game, or collection of verse. Etc.
|
REPLY
|
|
I've grown roses that COULD have been called that, would have been apt. :-) Not the "Comtesse de Rocquigny' here, though -- a lovely, lovely rose. Our only issue is that she maybe wants to be a pillar or a very large shrub (8' cane the first year in the ground, then more long canes this second year), where I was just thinking "shrub". But, I'm in love, so whatever she wants.
The photo "gremlin" is back, though, for me. Right now, the newest photos (first page) for this rose load fine, but older photos on subsequent pages won't enlarge when clicked on -- just gives a blue question box and the photo's id number on the left + caption in small print on the right at the top of the page and nothing else. Not happening with other rose varieties I just looked up and tried, only this one, and same thing happens in different browsers.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
