The front page of the Buisman Heerde catalog (autumn 1929) contains a color photograph of the rose Charles P. Kilham. This rose is here attributed to: G. Beckwith & Son. It is not the climbing rose. Is this right?

Responding further to Member 1923’s comment in What Is This.

Most references say G. Beckwith & Son was the correct breeder.
Modern Roses 2 in 1940 attributed it to Beckwith
Modern Roses 5 in 1958 changed it to McGredy and introduced by Beckwith.

This MAY have come about by a list of McGredy-bred roses that the editor of the American Rose Annual received. A paragraph in the 1935 Annual on page 164 as follows:
The McGredy roses. Included in the mass of material which came to the editors’ desk concerning the “House of McGredy“, was an impressive list of the roses originated by that firm. While a certain proportion of these roses has disappeared, those that have made history, or are still grown in gardens, make an impressive list. Varieties that won the Gold Medal or the Certificate of Merit of the National Rose Society of England, and others that have become generally useful in this country include:
….[following was a list of 25 roses bred by both Sam II and Sam III. The list does not contain ‘Charles P. Kilham’]

De frontpagina catalogus Buisman Heerde(najaar 1929) bevat een kleurenfoto van de roos Charles P. Kilham.
Deze roos word hier toegeschreven aan: G. Beckwith & Son. Het betreft niet de klimroos. Is dit Juist?

tekst catalogus 1933/1934 betreffende afstamming:
Mevrouw Welmoet van Heek (1932) is een kruising van de bekende Theehybride General Mc Arthur, waarvan zij de goede groeihoedanigheden heeft overgenomen. Na proeftijd van 2 jaar in rosarium Saverne met gouden medaille bekroond.

Het boek bevat 193 pagina's (exclusief bijlagen)