|
|
Recent Questions, Answers and Comments
-
-
Initial post
21 MAR 13 by
Tammy-EastTN-6a
|
This rose appears to be offered by Rogue Valley Roses, but it is labeled as extinct or lost on HMF. Can anybody clarify?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 11 posted
22 MAR 13 by
 Robert Neil Rippetoe
|
Rose by this name as listed extinct.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 11 posted
22 MAR 13 by
Kim Rupert
|
I've emailed Janet Inada at RVR asking if this is correct. It should be interesting.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 11 posted
22 MAR 13 by
Robert Neil Rippetoe
|
I'll guess there is another unrelated rose going by this name.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 11 posted
22 MAR 13 by
Kim Rupert
|
No doubt Robert, but it's the only way to correct the information. I hope all is good with you guys!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 11 posted
22 MAR 13 by
Tammy-EastTN-6a
|
The one at RVR shows it is also a 1995 Tunningley intro....should be interesting! :)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 11 posted
22 MAR 13 by
Robert Neil Rippetoe
|
RVR has to be incorrect. The original specimen was destroyed by Tunningley and was not distributed prior to it's demise.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 11 posted
10 APR 13 by
Tammy-EastTN-6a
|
Kim, did you ever get a response from RVR? Just curious...
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 11 posted
10 APR 13 by
Kim Rupert
|
Hi Tammy, Janet received the plant in question from Paul Barden. Corresponding with Paul led to his having received it from Robert Rippetoe. A three way between us reached the conclusion that what RVR has as "The Monster" must actually be Secunda, the Old Blush X Gigantea cross. Where RVR obtained their description of the rose they have I wouldn't know, unless it is from HMF, but the only rose Paul received from Robert and then would possibly have forwarded to RVR is Secunda. Avery never let The Monster out of his greenhouse, unfortunately.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 11 posted
10 APR 13 by
Tammy-EastTN-6a
|
Thanks Kim! I didn't see Robert's response below until just now. I thought maybe the Monster had escaped! LOL
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#10 of 11 posted
today by
clstorey
|
I noticed that too, and was looking for a photo, as they did not have one.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#11 of 11 posted
today by
clstorey
-
-
Initial post
3 days ago by
Robert Neil Rippetoe
|
It seems odd to me, given the parentage, that this rose is rated to zone 4.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
yesterday by
jedmar
|
It's what the patent states. We can revise according to experience.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
yesterday by
Lee H.
|
It’s also what they say at the Proven Winners website.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
2 days ago by
Catarina Lund
|
This rose is ’Graciosa’ by Noack 2002.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
yesterday by
jedmar
|
On the Roskraft website, this is listed as a hybrid tea of up to 90 cm height. Other Swedish site (Österlenrosor) also state this as a hybrid tea. 'Graciosa' by Noack is however a climber of up to 2m. The blooms are similar, but we would need some further clarification.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
2 days ago by
luumma
|
Rose Listing Omission
Canada Blooms from J&P
I see the entry but not the Canada Blooms from Jackson and Perkins. I wanted to upload a picture. https://www.jacksonandperkins.com/canada-blooms-hybrid-tea-rose/p/29687/?srsltid=AfmBOopYwKduQanfJCXH0CzVQQBpAts4N4Y9oSYnOiy0ATIcfO16eWTQ
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
yesterday by
jedmar
|
This is the same 'Canada Blooms' already listed, as sold by Jackson & Perkins. See the Breeder code CA28 on the J&P site.
|
REPLY
|
|
