|
|
'Dazla' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
11 OCT 22
|
* Posted by unregistered site guest: Pending HMF administrative review. *
|
|
-
-
Initial post
6 JAN 21 by
bibi
|
How to distinguish " De la Grifferaie " to "Seven sister's rose " please ?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Does anyone know where I can order this rose in Australia please
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Apparently ‘De la Grifferaie’ is fertile. The 1936 reference says “hip smooth, few anthers, long pistils smooth”. There are eight descendents listed by Helpmefind, but seven of them say they were “seedling of De la Grifferaie”. Does anybody have any photos of hips?
Thanks.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Patricia, I have this growing here in Deniliquin, but where I planted it gets to big so I have to cut it down pretty hard each year. I might try and use it in a breeding cycle next year as I like the thought of it being alkaline tolerate, plus the bloom cluster looks pretty niffy.
Warren
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
27 JAN 15 by
Hardy
|
Although it's not discussed in the HMF description, it's also pretty wonderful smelling, gallica-damask OGR fragrance with the multiflora just making it a little bit sweeter. A pretty unique combination. I really hope it works out for you as breeding stock, it's a very good rose here.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Warren. But still no photos of any hips. Could you take your camera out next time you pass the rose?
And Hardy, 'De la Grifferaie' was scentless up to and including 1933. It developed a faint damask scent by 1936 and by 1980 became deliciously scented.
I still don't have 'De la Grifferaie' and should do something about getting a cutting. While it is all very well to write about a rose, "one look-see is worth a thousand words". However, I've put my article from the heritage Roses in Australia journal in as the 2011 reference for 'De la Grifferaie' (and also for "Mrs. Something")
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
27 JAN 15 by
Hardy
|
Also, De La Grifferaie was "very fragrant" in 1948 (Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society, p. 180), "ultra fragrant" (Effective Flowering Shrubs, Michael Haworth-Booth, p. 253) with "rich scent of the really old roses" (New Zealand Gardener, v. 15, p. 405) in 1958, "very fragrant" in 1963 (The Rose Anthology, Henry Fletcher, p.108), with "rich scent from the Damask" in 1966 (Roses, Nancy Steen, p. 180). Since what I smelled came from old rootstocks predating 1933, I wouldn't place much faith in its alleged scentlessness. Gertrude Jekyll said that "one expects every rose to be fragrant," and expressed disappointment in those that were not (Wood and Garden, 1899, pp. 234-5), yet said of De la Grifferaie, "were it perpetual it would rank as one of the best." (Roses for English Gardens, 1902, p. 83). Since even Maiden's Blush had no scent from the 1300s until 1628, then (1629) had "small" fragrance, was merely "musky" in 1768, and did not become "fragrant" until 1959, I really can't consider old authors silence on scent to mean much.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Hardy. You have opened my eyes on the fragrance of ‘De la Grifferaie’.
I wonder if you could add those missing 1899, 1948, 1958 and 1963, references.
|
REPLY
|
|
