|
|
HubertG 
-
-
|
This one has everything going for it. If you’re one for a good sturdy hybrid tea, with a powerhouse of fragrance that will TKO you when you walk in the door, this is your ticket. Heaven. From 1-10, I would rate the fragrance a 14. Though it’s so intense, you’ll either love or hate it. The fragrance is like a big vat of fresh sliced Pink Grapefruits, like 100 of them. It is Dee-Lish like you want to eat it, but the number of names given to this sweetheart of a rose is nothing short of ridiculous! That’s the one thing ONLY I can say bad about this rose. Its a HT lover’s dream. Fights off BS and mildew like an angry truckdriver. Robust and vigorous upright grower, it’s fragrance defies the need to put it in the back. This one BEGS to be front and center. Even by the front door so you and your guests can enjoy and appreciate it’s unforgettable fragrance. The bees never stop trying to pollinate it. I’ve seen them even landing on the shattered petals on the ground.
I acquired it some time ago as Sweet Parfum de Provence. Imagine how gobsmacked I was to discover that it was Dee-Lish, interchangeably. Shame on whomever didn’t stick with one or two names at best. This isn’t a rose that deserves such ambiguity.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
2 days ago by
kgs
|
We just had a sudden heat wave with temps up to 100 degrees -- unusual for June in this area (Sonoma County, CA) and really hard on a lot of plants, roses and otherwise, particularly after our long, wet winter and delayed spring. Roses with delicate petals such as Gentle Hermione had completely frizzled blooms, and most of the plants had smaller buds afterwards, as if they were recovering from shock. Dee-lish was a notable exception: it didn't have a problem during or after the heat wave. Agree on its strong fragrance (which I like) and disease resistance. Due to the strange weather this spring some roses that normally shake off disease are experiencing mildew or BS, but not Dee-lish. Its blooms also last and last on the bush and as a cut flower.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
2 days ago by
HubertG
|
I have decided to get this rose next season after reading these comments. Thank you both for your reviews.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This is the same photograph as that labelled 'Mme. Schwaller' in Dingee's 1913 catalogue, page 30.
I've found Dingee's catalogues at that period to be inaccurate with many of their photos labels. For example, the photo for Mme. Melanie Soupert on page 37 of their 1916 spring catalogue also appears as Maman Cochet on page 24 of their autumn catalogue. Also, in the 1916 spring catalogue the same photograph is used for Laurent Carle on page 20 as well as for Papa Gontier on 53.
|
REPLY
|
|
Which begs the question: was Charles Dingee ever different from William R Smith? If the company was slipshod, if not worse, in their labelling?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
3 days ago by
HubertG
|
Good question. Dingee & Conard listed both 'Charles Dingee' and 'W.R. Smith' in their catalogues as late as 1932 (as far as I can determine). One might argue that they were the same and to save face, so to speak, the same rose was offered under different names, but that's still a long time to perpetuate a falsehood. They even included photos of 'W.R. Smith' in the same catalogues that promoted 'Charles Dingee' with photographs. They consistently claimed 'Charles Dingee' grew to 2 to 3 feet. And then there is the French catalogue from Bernaix from 1938 listing both roses, and they would not have had any vested interest in promoting a rose such as 'Charles Dingee' were it the same as 'W.R. Smith'. I think Sangerhausen listed both roses too.
Whatever the truth about this rose (or roses) I think that it is a somewhat different matter illustrating catalogues with duplicate photos to selling the rose under a wrong name (which of course still happens). They were a firm with a good name that survived for over eighty years.
I've noticed the earlier Dingee & Conard catalogues seem to be pretty consistent with seemingly correct photographs. It just seems to be this WWI period where it becomes very blatantly obvious that they are duplicating photos.
|
REPLY
|
|
There can be some blindness in it. A local nursery trusted their source of Mons. Tillier, and said it grew as a bush; but it was Marie Nabonnand, and it didn't climb in their garden because they pruned it as a bush.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This is the same photograph which appears in Dingee's 1913 catalogue as Mrs. H. Brocklebank on page 22.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This is the same photo as that of 'William H. Taft' in the same 1916 catalogue.
|
REPLY
|
|
