|
|
-
-
Initial post
23 JUN 23 by
petera
|
I tried to find this rose at Vrijbroek Park but is gone according to their management. It is a parent of Lady Huntingfield and I had hoped that either of the found roses "Fake Perle" or "Wood Street Buff Yellow" would be it as they are similar in growth to LH. Unfortunately no other garden has it in their lists.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
11 APR 23 by
petera
|
It is BW photo but cannot be of the red "Charles Gregory" by Verschuren 1947, it must be the yellow rose by Gregory 1929. Reusing names!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
11 APR 23 by
 Lee H.
|
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but in the days of B/W film, a photographer might make a creative decision to (for example) use a red filter in order to make a red bloom lighter, and stand out from the green foliage. Otherwise green and red can record as nearly the same tone. One quick example is the red American Beauties in Georgia Drennan’s book:
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
7 MAR 23 by
petera
|
My plant has shown zero inclination to climb. It looks like a typical HT rather than a Noisette and is very slow growing. My experience with Noisettes is that even the ancient ones are still capable of demolishing buildings. My plant supposedly came from the tea-Noisette collection at Ruston's via John Nieuwesteeg but there might have been a mix-up in the ID. Does anyone know the original plant?
|
REPLY
|
|
The plant at Renmark was planted in 2012 (in the HT section, not the Tea-Noisette-China bed). It didn't get tall either in the time we had to observe it. Provenance was Port Arthur Policeman's Res-S-rock wall -> Naomi B (Pt Arthur gardening staff) -> Adrienne C (HRIA member) -> Paringa igloo. Best to ask the Hobart HRIA group to ask the Pt Arthur gardening staff if it's still there, and if so, to photograph it.
In the HRIA Journal 32.4 There is a condensed reprint of an article, 'The Old Roses of Port Arthur' by Isabel Chapman from The Australian Garden Journal 6. 4 of 1987. It says, "Lady Waterlow (1903) is a rich, soft warm pink with a tinge of apricot: it has the typical faint Tea scent and is quite a strong climber". The writer describes it as a Tea, and says that Climbing Lady Hillingdon and Climbing Mrs Herbert Stevens were on the same wall. It isn't clear from the article whether there was a planting list of the roses, or whether the IDs were guesses.
In the HRIA Journal 35.4 there is a reprint of an article, 'Three Ladies and their Roses' by Odile Masquelier, from the proceedings of the 13th International Heritage Rose Conference at Sangerhausen in 2013.
There may be two roses passing as Lady Waterlow (apart from "Pt Arthur"), as the earliest references to it describe it as soft pink with carmine edges to the petals: some photos show this.
Attached are two photos sent to me by Eric T on 11/2/2014, of a presumed Lady Waterlow growing on a veranda in Tasmania. He photographed a rose labelled Lady Waterlow at the Victoria State Rose Garden, which still lists it. I think both roses are identical in bud colour and flower colour with the Renmark plant.
Also attached is a photo of Naomi taking cuttings for HRIA in 2009: I don't know who took the the photo. The other climbing roses have disappeared since 1987.
Edit: Eric T says the rose was on a house bought by a now-late friend at Exton 20 years ago. Eric says he IDed it as Lady Waterlow, with no historical evidence, and it was a beautiful rose.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
9 MAR 23 by
petera
|
I think you are right about two roses being confused as Lady Waterlow quite apart from what we have as "Port Arthur". The carmine edges are not very prominent on Eric T's plant, to say the least.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Collected by John Nieuwesteeg and named for the family who grew it.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Margaret.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
4 NOV 18 by
HubertG
|
How regularly does this repeat? It does look more HT than anything else. It actually reminds me a bit of the early illustrations of 'Lady Mary Fitzwilliam'.
|
REPLY
|
|
The expert nurseryman who collected it says it's Portland. I can't answer re repeat but will keep watching it.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
21 JAN 23 by
Pacifier
|
I'm of the opinion it's likely the 1867 Baroness Rothschild (Pernet).
It keys out well with the references. George Arends is famously thornless so def not that. Lady Mary Fitzwilliam is very much in the classic HT style (unless you have Mrs Wakefield Christie Miller which was widely sold as Lady Mary).
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
2 FEB 23 by
petera
|
I don't currently have Baroness Rothschild to compare it with but my memory is that BR has conventional Damask style leaves, is much pricklier, and doesn't have the knobby, jointed stems. The short pedicels, flower form and total lack of fragrance are similar although S is a messier flower. From looking at the pictures on HMF the receptacle is constricted below the sepals in BR but not in S. There is a good picture of BR on HMF posted by Feva back in June 2012 to compare with my Shalice pictures.
The leaves of Shalice are very distinct; it is smooth, thin and papery, and in the spring the new foliage has a strong, silvery, metallic sheen that is not evident later in the season.
It doesn't at all resemble the plant I used have as Georg Arends. That was much like its supposed parent La France with thin stems and higher-centred flowers with a powerful perfume.
|
REPLY
|
|
