Conard & Jones 1907 has an interesting color-description: "A splendid new Hybrid Tea, very double and delightfully perfumed; clear china rose with lavender shading. A constant bloomer; very beautiful."

Needless to say about this much-discussed rose, there are divergences between what we grow today as 'Enchanter'/'Enchantress' and the original descriptions; and there are also divergences between original descriptions, most referring to it as pink, some essentially calling it a red 'Mme. Caroline Testout', neither of which would anyone looking at the rose we grow under this name today call it. Pierson in 1911 describes it as "very free blooming and a beautifully perfumed pink forcing Rose," which certainly doesn't match today's rose sold under this name. In 1915, Pierson says of it "Pure, clear pink in color; cup-shaped in form; a very beautiful Rose. It is one of the parents of My Maryland and resembles it very much." I don't think anyone would think for a moment that today's 'Enchanter' resembles 'My Maryland' in the least in any way; and it is certainly neither clear pink nor cup-shaped. Repeating much of Dingee & Conard 1905 (and so implying that Vestal after a few years of trial agrees), Vestal 1908 tells us that "Every shoot throws a flower, and the flowers are beautifully made, of remarkable size, and in color clear bright pink, which never fades," none of which fits today's 'Enchanter'. John Cook, the breeder, himself says of the rose that it was "another shell pink rose" (Gardener's Chronicle of America, vol. 19, 1915, p. 226).

Two questions occur: (1), which has been asked before here by jedmar, what was the original provenance of today's material?; (2) given the almost unique color of what we grow today as 'Enchanter'/'Enchantress', if it is NOT that rose, then . . . what is it?--because such a color, as unusual in the past as it is now, would certainly have been noted whenever it came on the market.

My plant is still young, but my observations so far are that it doesn't bloom at its best in hot weather, but really seems happiest in the fall, when it produces lovely purplish/dark pink blooms that smell- to me- of ripe pears.

The foliage is very beautiful and dense, with an unusual blue-gray tint to its medium-green leaves.

American Florist 22: 380 (March 26, 1904)

In the opinion of many good rose judges John Cook's two new varieties, Cardinal and Enchantress, give promise of taking place among the established commercial roses for cut flower production. The rarity of American seedlings of standard merit makes Mr. Cook's services to floriculture all the more conspicuous. It is interesting to learn that each of these roses is the product of twenty years' devotion to rose hybridizing, Cardinal being the product of Liberty hybridized with an unnamed carmine seedling in the third generation, and Enchantress being a third generation seedling also, its parents being Mme. Testout and an unnamed seedling. In the case of Enchantress, its best qualifications are its beautiful clear unfading pink color and its freedom from blind wood, flowers coming from every growth. It is a steady bloomer from October till April, and the flowers shown in Philadelphia on March 23 were as good as those shown in midwinter. Cardinal is a very strong grower with a heavy flower. Mr. Cook hopes to get one yet that will be brighter in color, however. Its fragrance is very strong and sweet. It is at its best in December, January and February, but in fall and spring it is liable to give rather short stems. It has proved practically hardy in Baltimore, excelling Testout in this respect. See pages 376, 377.