|
Questions, Answers and Comments by Category
-
-
'Lady Medallist' - I had accepted that a plant I found and thought was 'Lady Medallist' was indeed this rose. Reading descriptions which say lighter reverse this evening has made me seriously question the identity now. Photos under this rose seem to have darker reverses too.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
18 NOV 20 by
HubertG
I've noticed quite a number of roses in older catalogues having the description of either a lighter or darker "reverse" than the other side of the petal, and when you look at photos or illustrations it's the opposite way. My initial impression was that perhaps the rose was incorrect too, but now I've just come to think that whoever wrote the description simply meant that the petal faces contrasted, and perhaps they had a different idea of what was the reverse and what was the front of a petal. After all, the inner face of an opening bud is, in a way, the "reverse" of a petal compared to when it's fully open when it's the "front". I suppose it can be a bit subjective. I couldn't tell you offhand the names of the roses where I've seen this type of confusing description but if I recall or come across them again I'll mention them here.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
19 NOV 20 by
HubertG
They were just my thoughts but you're welcome, Ozoldroser. Take a look at Billy Teabag's photo of a bud of 'Lady Medallist' from spring 2008 (photo id 103184). To my way of thinking the darker face of the petal is technically the reverse, but looking at this example it's also easy to imagine someone describing the reverse of the petal as being lighter. And as you know one catalogue description can be repeated verbatim ad infinitum. The provenance of 'Lady Medallist' seems to be a pretty convincing one in my opinion.
|
REPLY
|
|