|
|
'Cramoisi Supérieur' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
I live in the Houston area, and in the summer when we have months of 100 degree weather and no rain, this rose continues to bloom. It is very drought tolerant. The blooms are pretty enough to cut for the vase, and the scent is wonderful. No disease or problems with pests. I don't know why this rose has not been voted an EarthKind rose by Texas A&M, because it should be.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks for sharing your experience.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I possibly encountered this rose in a cemetery here and Virginia and have ended up ordering both it and Louis Phillipe to see which it actually was and to make sure out of the two, I do at least get the one I smelled in the Cemetery. Pictures I took match both, but the rose I smelled had an incredible pungent fruity smell to it and books and web sites do not mention this associated with Cramoisi Superieur, or it even having a strong smell at all. Can anyone tell me if they grow this rose and if it has a strong fruity smell?
|
REPLY
|
|
Bob, I grow what I believe is Cramoisi and one of the reasons I love it is because of that amazing fragrance. I read that it is called' rasberry' - maybe, I just know I love it. Best wishes with yours; it's a wonderful rose.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This rose was already described in the “Catalogue descriptif, methodique et raisonné” (1829) by Nicolas-Joseph Prévost (fils). It is the n. 796 at pag. 200.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 8 posted
5 NOV 08 by
 jedmar
|
Thank you for this important reference. Prévost identifies Bengale éblouissant = La Gaufrée = L'Èblouissante. We seem to be on the track of possibly at least two different roses which are currently in commerce as 'Cramoisi superieur'.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 8 posted
5 NOV 08 by
Cà Berta
|
As far as I can understand, according to Prevost, this rose had different names in different nurseries: L'Eblouissante at Pepinieres de M. Vibert in 1823; Bengale a Petales Stries at Pepinieres de N.L. Noisette in 1826. Do I understand correctly?
See the Explication des Abreviations at pag xij
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 8 posted
5 NOV 08 by
jedmar
|
That is correct. This can be an indication that L'Eblouissant is actually even older and was a "common" rose in Vibert's time. Very often such roses were marketed under different names by different nurseries. Prévost's catalogue is very valuable in indicating these synonyms.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 8 posted
5 NOV 08 by
Cà Berta
|
That Catalogue is really valuable: the more I go through it the more I have the impression that the history of many roses is not as it was told (Rosa serratipetala, Duchesse d'Angouleme ...)!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 8 posted
5 NOV 08 by
jedmar
|
Most of the early Chinas might have been bred by Villaresi of Monza and imported into France. See the Reference from "The Rose Garden" under 'Bengale commun'.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 8 posted
5 NOV 08 by
Cà Berta
|
I agree with you: apparently it is more likely that the "nowdays" china Rosa Serratipetala (that has nothing to do with the Rosa Serratipetala described in the Catalogue) stole the identity of Belle de Monza by Villoresi ... than the contrary (as someone suggested)!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 8 posted
6 NOV 08 by
jedmar
|
If you find early information in Italian on the work of Villaresi, we would be very interested!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 8 posted
6 NOV 08 by
Cà Berta
|
I am very interested myself and I will certainly share any information I get.
|
REPLY
|
|
