HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
HubertG 
-
-
|
I am puzzling over ‘Kaiserin Augusta Viktoria’. Jedmar has added a 1910 photo in which the blooms seem quite small. This smallness is backed up by the 1918-62 reference; perhaps the 1932 ref and the 1947-170 reference. Other references say KAV was large. I am wondering if there were in fact two roses.
Looking at the chronological references
1891 KAV bred. - initial references say the bloom was said to be large to very large.
1898-56 a parentage listed (Perle des Jardins x Belle Lyonnaise) large blooms and resembling Belle Lyonnaise.
1898-23 I am wondering if ‘Grande Duchesse Olga’, said to be a Tea, was a renaming, or a new rose with a parentage as shown in the 1905 reference.
1905 parentage listed as ’Coquette de Lyon’ (T) 1870 x ‘Lady Mary Fitzwilliam’ (HT) 1880.
’Coquette de Lyon’ initial references say this was said to be a small to medium sized bloom.
If ‘Grande Duchesse Olga‘ was incorrectly presumed to be a synonym of ‘Kaiserin Augusta Viktoria’, this might explain Jedmar’s photo of small blooms.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
today by
jedmar
|
The photo is indeed strange. I think we can be certain that the Kaiserin had large Blooms, as otherwise she would not have had the impact she had. Possibly the bllom in Mütze's photo is small because he used a forced plant? It looks like a buttonhole-size.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
today by
HubertG
|
Is there a later edition of the book with the same photo? Maybe in this photo the white rose is incorrectly labelled and perhaps it is corrected in a later edition.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
today by
jedmar
|
No, there is a recent reprint, but the 1910 edition is the only one.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
In a list of sports:
Journal des roses p. 106 (Juillet 1902)
Madame Falcot (Guillot fils, 1858), a produit Madame Chédane-Guinoisseau (Levet, 1880).
Mme Falcot (Guillot son, 1858), produced Madame Chedanne-Guinoisseau (Levet, 1880).
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 4 posted
9 APR 18 by
HubertG
|
From "Report of the Conference on Genetics (1906)"
"On the Derivation of Some Recent Varieties of Roses" by Arthur William Paul, Waltham Cross, Herts.
"... and some excellent new varieties of roses have also been obtained from branch sports of existing varieties. In the latter connection may be mentioned the Tea roses 'The Queen', 'Rainbow', and 'Madame Chédane Guinoisseau' ... "
It is not mentioned from what variety Mme C-G was supposed to have sported.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks HubertG - and Karl. I have added both your references and changed the parentage from "seedling of Safrano" to "sport of Mme. Falcot". It still seems very iffy, so have added a Note that 'Mme. Chedane Guinoisseau' could be either a sport of 'Safrano' or 'Mme. Falcot'.
|
REPLY
|
|
Do you know HubertG, this reference[*] makes me think strongly of "Mulvay Rose". It might just have been that Stirling Macoboy in his 1993 reference told us what the "Mulvay Rose" was and we ignored it.
* oh, where has it gone..... perhaps I cut it instead of copying it. It was this 1887 ref:
From "The American Florist" 1887, page 58
"Mme C. Guinnoisseau is too nearly single for open air culture, and is superceded in color and habit by the new rose Comtess de Frigneuse."
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 4 posted
today by
HubertG
|
The photo of 'Mme. Chedanne Guinoisseau' just posted by AmiRoses is rather exciting. I didn't know that this was in commerce. If this is the correct variety, then "Vestey's Yellow" isn't MmeCG.
It's rather more golden yellow that I imagined from the reference descriptions.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The correct color is orange and it is a Tea rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
Colour is a bit variable, and not just orange, but I agree this photo does appear to be of a different rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
It's some years since I visited the Trevor Griffiths Garden, but I got the impression that where a rose had died, its replacement wasn't necessarily what was on the master plan (and was often an Austin).
|
REPLY
|
|
That makes sense. No idea what this one is, but it's very unlikely to be C-du-C.
(Although old roses can do extremely odd things at times with colour and form)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
6 days ago by
HubertG
|
It looks a little bit like 'Mrs R.M. Finch'.
|
REPLY
|
|
The lady currently in charge of the Trevor Griffiths Garden has responded to an email from me:
“Our records show that the rose Comtesse du Cayla should be in bed number 2 at the Trevor Griffiths Rose Garden but due to the time of year I am unable to confirm if this is a match for the rose Johno posted. However all images I have found of Comtesse du Cayla do not match this image in anyway. I feel confident in saying this is not an image of Comtesse du Cayla. This being the case, I will have to do some checking next flowering season to confirm my thoughts. I appreciate the enquiry as it is also some help to me. It is very important to have a correct labelling system in place for these collections and I shall endeavour to work on correcting this.”
All we have to do is tell the public gardens that their labelling seems incorrect - and why we think so. They, like us, really do not want incorrectly named plants on their gardens.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Rose Listing Omission
Madame Dr. Jute
From The California Horticulturist and Floral Magazine 1880, page 196:
"Madame Dr. Jute is a novelty in roses, and a worthy one it is, as near as possible the color of a piece of copper rubbed brightly, a rich red and deep gold so mingled as that neither predominate; not a very large size, but good shape, and tea odor. All that I have described are bush roses, and nearly all quite low growing.
[...] Caroline Kuster is a more rapid climber and quite a novelty in color, rather after the style of Madame Dr. Jute in color, but not a very compact or good shaped flower.
|
REPLY
|
|
Probably ‘Madame Dr. Jütte’, HubertG
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
8 days ago by
HubertG
|
Thanks. I did think it might be a misspelling but I searched for 'begins with' madame dr. and also 'contains' dr. , but nothing showed up that seemed close.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
