HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Gaspard Monge' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 91-047
most recent 18 MAR 16 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 22 FEB 16 by Hardy
Since there's been discussion of Gaspard Monge's apparent affinity to "Dr. Peck's," and my yard is the only place where they can be seen side by side, I thought I'd post this garden pic I took a while back. GM is in the foreground, "Dr. Peck's" behind it.

Both look quite a bit like Rose de la Maitre-Ecole, too, but I don't grow that one at the moment.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 2 posted 22 FEB 16 by Patricia Routley
Thank you Scott. One day when you can fit it in, perhaps people might appreciate good comparison photos (with provenances) of the two leaves, receptacles, thorns, etc. etc. Well done for growing the two. Side-by-side is the only (almost) sure way to tell.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 2 posted 18 MAR 16 by Hardy
Provenance on those roses is:
Gaspard Monge - Sangerhausen->Mottisfont (identity accepted by GST)->SJHRG->me.
"Dr. Peck's" - Dr. Peck's site in Oakland->SJHRG->me.
REPLY
Discussion id : 54-223
most recent 18 JUN 11 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 16 MAY 11 by Patricia Routley
Re: 'Gaspard Monge'. I note from the Roses of the San Jose Heritage Rose Garden 2005 catalogue that the provenance of ‘Gaspard Monge’ at bed No. O-17-3 came from Mtt (Mottisfont Abbey, Hampshire, England). Does anyone know how this rose came to Mottisfont? There is no mention of it in the <I>Graham Stuart Thomas Rose Book</I>, nor in any of the Constance Spry books that I can see.

And for the record - I have not been able to find the name 'Gaspard Monge' in any of my Australian literature.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 30 posted 16 MAY 11 by Hardy
I do not know how the rose came to Mottisfont, and can do no more than to offer some semi-lame observations:
1) Mottisfont doesn't have a bad rep for mixing up labels on roses, as some sources do.
2) Mottisfont's rose garden was set up by Graham Stuart Thomas, so if their alleged Gaspard Monge isn't the real article, one would hope it was at least misidentified by someone pretty good.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 30 posted 16 MAY 11 by Patricia Routley
Thanks Hardy.
We know that many roses came to Graham Stuart Thomas from Constance Spry, Edward Bunyard and the Beckwith Nurseries, and later from L'Hay-les-Roses. I have a bit of an obsession about knowing as much as I can about the provenance of a rose.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 30 posted 19 MAY 11 by billy teabag
A friend has forwarded this:
"Mr Monge came in with the first Sangerhausen roses, back in the early 1980’s. It was one of the few, along with Bouquet tout fait, that proved true to name, at least from the descriptions that we had at the time. The final word, as ever, rested with Graham. Hope that this is of some value.
D G Stone
Curator
Mottisfont Rose Collection."
REPLY
Reply #4 of 30 posted 19 MAY 11 by Patricia Routley
Oh that's wonderful Billy. Please thank Mr. Stone, and your friend, and we thank you too.
Patricia
REPLY
Reply #5 of 30 posted 21 MAY 11 by jedmar
I am afraid I have to add a grain of salt: This rose is found in Sangerhausen, other gardens, and in commerce as 'Gaspard Monge'. However some eminent German rosarians doubt that it is a centifolia at all, as it has no prickles, the canes are reddish and smooth, and does not become thin as a lot of centifolias do.
See:
http://www.stauden-und-rosen.de/index.php?seite=rosen&id=522
REPLY
Reply #6 of 30 posted 21 MAY 11 by Margaret Furness
Drat. We were hoping it was the true name of one of our most widespread foundlings ("sold as Charles Lawson", probably also found in the US, see "Dr Peck's 12th Avenue Smoothie" (called Hybrid China) and South Africa , "Ralph Moore's South African OGR" (called Bourbon). Etc etc.). Perhaps the Sangerhausen plant had been overwhelmed by its understock?
I wish I could read German.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 30 posted 22 MAY 11 by Patricia Routley
Thanks Jedmar. A rose stew needs a bit of salt in addition to the spice and pepper.
I'll go and mull over 'De la Grifferaie' to see what I can see.
REPLY
Reply #8 of 30 posted 3 JUN 11 by Hardy
Thanks, that's a wonderful page!

I really don't know what he's talking about with regard to "red branches," however, unless it's in reference to petioles showing some reddish glands, a trait that's quite common among centifolias and mosses. Stipules will also redden down the middle a bit when near to blooms, but that's also unremarkable in those classes. The rose in the pictures looks very much like the Gaspard Monge we have at SJHRG.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that discussion of classes will resolve the identity of any similar found rose, since neither Gaspard Monge nor the found rose(s) fit very comfortably into any class which is much narrower than "hybrid gallicanae." They're good examples of how thoroughly subjective garden rose classification can be, particularly when ancestry is unknown.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 30 posted 5 JUN 11 by Cà Berta
I just uploaded four photos of the Gaspard Monge of Roseto Botanico "Carla Fineschi": the young canes are green and smooth whereas there are pointed prickles in the older ones. However the styles look to me rather strange for a gallicana (so high!)
REPLY
Reply #10 of 30 posted 5 JUN 11 by Patricia Routley
Wow - there are a few prickles there.
Ca Berta, are those things the female styles, or the male filaments?
I've been looking at the "Brooks Rose" sexual parts here and cannot see any anthers in the dried up mummies. I think the things remaining are the male filaments. They are very high (like yours) and I am longing for spring to get the razor blade out and see what they might be. I'll have to wait a while because winter has just started.
REPLY
Reply #11 of 30 posted 5 JUN 11 by Cà Berta
Hello Patricia.
In Cavriglia I took photos of Gaspard Monge to compare with a found rose. I particularly checked the styla as my rose has this rather "unfitting" characterstic. Zooming the photo of Gaspard Monge from Cavriglia I think that you are right: there are stamens and it is difficult to understand how much the exceed the styla. I dissected a flower of my found rose and, without stamens, the styla are still very high. I took a few photos and I am going to upload one in HMF. Not being a "certified" Gaspard Monge but a found rose "maybe Gaspard Monge" (although I am 99% sure of the attribution) I will remove it after you have seen it. We have to wait the next bloom to get better evidences!
Bruna
REPLY
Reply #12 of 30 posted 5 JUN 11 by Hardy
(By the way, by "gallicanae" I meant to refer to gallicas, damasks, centifolias, mosses, early gallica x francofurtana hybrids, probable gallica x pendulina, crosses of any of the above with each other, etc. I don't want to call Charles Lawson (of American commerce) a Bourbon or HC, because I don't know it to contain any chinensis, but I am entirely sure that both it and Gaspard Monge fit into the extended gallica complex, whatever else they may or may not contain.)

I'm appending a picture I took this morning of the styles on the ancient centifolia, Rose des Peintres, for comparison purposes.

In my experience with collecting pollen from roses, I had noticed this (long styles, short stamens trapped among the inner petals) in a number of centifolic sorts of blooms, of various classes, and never considered it a trait of any class in particular. Is it supposed to be?
REPLY
Reply #13 of 30 posted 6 JUN 11 by Patricia Routley
Hi Bruna
Your photo looks to me like the female part is a central branching mass of styles, topped with stigmas; and the male part surrounds with its shorter stamens which don't appear to have any anthers. But then it only takes one grain doesn't it.

I do know the female part comes from the middle, and the male part comes from near the outer circle of the rim. So the ladies are surrounded by the fellas. I think usually the male parts are higher than the female parts so they can drop their seed on to the sticky female stigmas, but Hardy, I honestly don't know if this trait is for any particular class. By their names, these parts almost give their sex away. Just look at the female stig<b>ma</b>, sitting on top of the slender <b>style</b> [all women have style]. And then compare the male <B>anthers</b> [think of a big male moose]; on top of its fila<b>men</b>t and these two make up the sta<b>men</b>.

I'll include here a paragraph from Roy E. Shepherd <i>History of the Rose</i> 1954, page107:
"The fact that R. centifolia is a poor seed producer does not help to solve the problem of its origin, as the usual paucity of seeds is caused by the structure of the blossom and not by lack of fertility. Blooms with the central mass of petals removed have exceptionally fertile pollen and produce good seed."

Bruna - your rose is certainly a lot more prickly than the Australian "Brooks Rose" (which is in Helpmefind). But these darn roses can produce these darn prickles at will, I am sure.
Patricia
REPLY
Reply #14 of 30 posted 6 JUN 11 by Cà Berta
Hi Patricia,
although the general aspect of the Gaspard Monge from Cavriglia is smooth it has prickles on the lower part of the old stems, buried in the middle of the bush, and more rarely on the branches. As you said there is such a variability in the apparence of a rose that, for comparative porposes, it is useful to say how it might look, besides how it looks. The exception confirms the role! By the way, my found rose (let's call it Vergato's Rose) prickles are very similar to the Brooks rose ones. Is the flower of Brooks rose quartered and, for this reason, very often is asymmetric?
As for the styla, in my experience (very limited) the gallica have a central low pad of styla somehow stuck together and I was surprised to see that Vergato Rose had higher less sticky styla. Some indica blood in it? Great-great-grand parents'sins .... make the world what it is! For a while I thought it was the bourbon Madame Nobecourt (checked, no way!!).
REPLY
Reply #15 of 30 posted 6 JUN 11 by Patricia Routley
Hello Bruna,
I would have thought my rose was symmetrical, but looking further at my photos, I see that some photos are not symmetrical. (sorry to mislead you there Hardy). I've been thinking that it might be 'Shailer's Provence' and there was also a rose called '(La) Reine de Provence' that should be considered.
REPLY
Reply #16 of 30 posted 6 JUN 11 by Cà Berta
Hello Patricia,
As far as I can judge from the photos, the shape of the ovary of Shailer's Provence looks different (sferic versus conic). What do you think? The information given by the references about La Reine de Provence are so generic that are hardly useful to identify a rose. Expecially if we think that up to now, to identify-characterize our roses, we had to take into consideration very detailed and specific aspects. Our roses might well be La Reine de Provence but, rebus sic stantibus, we do not have instruments to prove it!!
REPLY
Reply #17 of 30 posted 6 JUN 11 by Sandie Maclean
Hi all-I am interested in this thread because I have the same found rose "Charles Lawson".One thing I noted from the uploaded photos was the dried aborted buds.I have several bushes and they all have the same trait-a percentage of
buds fail to develop but they don't drop off-they stay on the bush.
Also the assymetrical flowers-whilst many blooms are perfect many are deformed
I am very fond of this rose-it is so tough it will grow anywhere,doesn't require watering and will train as a climber to
3 or 4 metres.It doesn't sucker-rather it sends canes up from the central base-these arch out a little and take root below ground therefore expanding the base of the plant.
According to old rose literature 'Charles Lawson' was a good exhibition rose but I can't see the blooms on this found rose being particularly showy even by the standards of the day.
Keep the information coming-a fascinating subject..
REPLY
Reply #18 of 30 posted 7 JUN 11 by Cà Berta
Hello Sandie,
most of the characteristic of your rose depict the behaviour of my Vergato Rose (high percentage of bud fail, dried buds, many deformed flowers, no water required, expansion of the base of the plant, thin stems with an arching behaviour becouse of the weight of the flowers). My clones and the mother plant are shorter (1.5 m) but if they could lean on a support they may well become a small climber.
What I find very interesting is that the found roses we are talking about were considered close to bourbon roses. Others bet on Charles Lowson whereas I bet on Madame Nobecourt. Probably the reason is the flower. Still now, if I consider only the bud and the flower, Vergato rose and Madame Nobecourt have a lot in common but, having seen a true Madame Nobecourt, as I said, no way that they are the same plant! You can judge yourself looking at the photos I loaded a few days ago. And having seen the Charles Lowson's photo posted by Hardy (if it is the true bourbon Charles Lowson!), showing the general apparence, the stems, the prickles ... no way that it can be the rose you are describing!
At this point, the only thing that looks likely to me is that our roses are all the same (Erichtonius rose as well) and are not bourbon. Are they Gaspard Monge? Do we have a true Gaspard Monge to use as a touchstone? The references relative to this rose are generic enough not to allow the identification of any rose. As far as the referencs go, our roses could well be la Reine de Provence as Patricia was saying.. I bet on Gaspard Monge, I prefer at large a mathematician to a queen!
But I bet on Gaspard Monge mainly on the similarity with the Fineschi's rose. It would be interesting to know where it comes from.
REPLY
Reply #19 of 30 posted 7 JUN 11 by Hardy
You make some excellent points. I'd respond to some of them here, but I've already done so elsewhere, so I'll post a URL instead: http://roses.netpixies.net

I've held back on showing it to anyone (Patricia excepted), because I haven't been finding the time to make a decent article of it. Hopefully others will post comments adding new information and correcting misstatements I may have made, and it will eventually become a good little monograph. I intend to add information on the Australian found rose shortly.
REPLY
Reply #20 of 30 posted 8 JUN 11 by Cà Berta
Hello Hardy,
thank you for sharing with us your very documented and competent study. It is interesting and fascineting to try and put some order in these little rosy misteries! Let's summarize the data! The roses we are talking about are bourbon (Charles Lowson), hybrid china (Dr. Peck's ..), centifolia (Gaspard Monge). To me (very, very ignorant about roses) all this sounds really shocking becouse it means that, in general, roses are so mixed up that their appareance is a sort of "continuum" and this makes almost impossible the definition of sensible "classes". May be that if we, at least, agree (on the basis of parameters that unfourtunatly I do not know) on the most likely "class" of appartenence of the found roses, we can get closer to give a reasonable answer to our question (what is your name?). I ask you experts: becouse of their characteristics are they mainly bourbon-hybrid china or centifolia? The only contribution I can give on this point is that Vergato rose looks like the centifolia Gaspard Monge and not like the boubon Madame Nobecourt present in Roseto Botanico "Carla Fineschi". Unfourtunatly I did not check the Charles Lowson classified as bourbon in the catalogue of the Roseto. I wish I read these comments before going there ...
I can also send you photos of the Vergato rose if you send me your email address with a private message, or eventually I might start a new Missing rose where to post them.
REPLY
Reply #21 of 30 posted 8 JUN 11 by Hardy
Thanks for the kind words! Please don't consider me an expert, though! An overenthusiastic amateur would be far closer to the mark.

The whole "garden class" thing does make me crazy when dealing with distinctly odd roses. Like, say, my beloved and ancient Chloris, a thornless, tree-like rose with blooms that are kind of like Maiden's Blush or Felicite Parmentier. Once-bloomer. We've called it an alba for 185 years, and it's a peculiar sort of alba, but what else would one call such a rose? Then DNA analysis is done, and its two closest relatives are red gallicas. Now what do we call it? And if my Chloris sports a thorny, dark red reversion, what class does the sport belong to?

A newer instance: "Sophie's Perpetual" was a fine example of a china/bengale type (denying any clear sign of European ancestry, or it would be an HP), then analysis of fragrance chemicals suggested that it has damask in its background, but no sign of any chinensis. What's up with that? Did genes combine in bizarre ways, or did it spontaneously mutate? If neither, then it would seem to have had no chinensis in it from the beginning, making us like wine tasters that can't tell Port from Chablis! A reasonable wild guess might be that it's got chinensis in it, but is some sort of freak, yet if that is so, then we have to concede that there may be no rule we can invent that roses could never break. I used to accept Ralph Moore's statement that "the rose will find a way," as the opinion of an incredibly experienced breeder, but now I am starting to think of it as fact.

I guess the whole Banshee complex is another good example of roses fooling people with unexpected behavior. Until a few days ago, I wouldn't have guessed that might apply to the roses we're discussing, since Gaspard Monge has a number of subtle differences from what often passes for Charles Lawson. But then the "Vacaville Clone" strain showed a thorny sport with 7 leaflets instead of 5, and now I just don't know what to think. I find myself wondering things like whether Charles Lawson and Gaspard Monge could be the triploid and tetraploid forms of the same rose, which only serves to remind me how utterly clueless I am.

Patricia and I feel that our found Australian and American roses have strong affinities to mosses. The idea of a smooth moss is an odd one, but I know that the offspring of mosses aren't automatically going to be very mossy, some will and some won't. We already know that mosses have a little genetic instability to them, since the entire class is derived from a sport. If one of the arching, cluster blooming mosses, which had some prickles on the lower parts of the plant, but just tons of bristles above that, were to suddenly be left naked, how many of us would recognize it for what it was? I could imagine that happening through crossing, sporting, or both. Maybe some of our odder centifolia types fall into this category. Or maybe I'm just way out of my depth.
REPLY
Reply #22 of 30 posted 9 JUN 11 by Patricia Routley
In this world of old roses, nobody is an expert. We are all out of our depth here, but the combined sum of our knowledge on Helpmefind.com makes us more knowledgeable than we dreamed we could be.

What makes me wonder is that because it is an old rose, and it appears to have been found all over the world, surely people have wondered, and written about it before? Why can’t we find these references that stand out like a sore thumb? The rose has such distinguishing features: Highly fragrant, blooms ball in wet, flat blooms, soft-to-the-touch foliage, spring only, arching canes.

I’ve been ploughing through some old 1800 magazines and have only come up with the fact that (Laffay’s or Guillot’s?) ‘Monsieur Noman’ balls. I’ll keep ploughing.
(Hardy - it was the abrupt changeover in the stalk to a prickly pedicel that made me think there may be moss in its background. But it was really just a throw-away thought - as many of mine are. )
REPLY
Reply #23 of 30 posted 9 JUN 11 by Margaret Furness
Rose classes. As someone said, if you didn't know Souvenir de St Anne's was a sport of Souvenir de la Malmaison, would you call it a Bourbon?
REPLY
Reply #24 of 30 posted 9 JUN 11 by Cà Berta
I must say that this declaration of impotence does not make me feel better! Well if a magic recognition "stick" does not exist, this only means that we will have to work harder to get results.
In this case we have photos from two well known gardens (San Jose Heritage Rose Garden and Roseto Botanico "Carla Fineschi") depicting an apparently similar rose. In both places the rose is named Gaspard Monge. Around the world there are found roses very similar to this "standard". This might mean nothing but it may mean that the rose was bred by someone who was part of an organization able to efficiently commercialize and distribute it. Gaspard Monge was bred by M. Robert, a Vibert's gardener who bred many other roses wide spread in the world. Two points in favour of Gaspard Monge.
Although well spread, the rose is not mentioned very much in the literature. In my experience a rose can become well spread for two not mutually exclusive reasons: it is an immortal highlander and/or it is an outstanding beauty. An example of the first reason. Around here there are a couple of still unidentified roses (one pink and the other red) not particularly interesting but ....you can not kill them! I do not know the other found roses similar to Gaspard Monge, but my Vergato Rose has a lot of defects: young stems hardly can stand up, balls, most buds die, the flowers very often are asymmetric .... but, although it is in one of the shadiest corner of the garden, the first plant I got is still alive and kicking after 20 years (actually the bush looks great). I did not care much about it because it was almost impossible to have decent flowers ... and I forgot it. I started being interested in it again when I planted, in a sunny spot, a rooted cutting from a Vergato rose I had been saying for ages. Only then I realized that they were the same rose that I got from the same mother 20 years apart. So it does not surprise me if Gaspard Monge passed through the time alive but almost unnoticed!
These are certainly not conclusive evidences but, with the elements we have, this can be a hypothesis. I look forwards to seeing Charles Lowson in Cavriglia! Did anybody make a punctual comparison between the San Jose’s Charles Lowson versus the San Jose’s Gaspard Monge? Hardy, where - which plant is the Charles Lowson with “.. imposing thorns ..”?
REPLY
Reply #25 of 30 posted 9 JUN 11 by Cà Berta
I just saw the photos of Charles Lowson in the garden of the Kostanjevica Monastry in Nova Gorica. As far as I understood, in this monastry there is the second large collection of bourbon roses in the world. This selection of roses is related to the fact that in the monastry there are the tombs of the last members of the royal family of the Bourbons. For these reasons I imagine that their bourbon roses are "true" ones, and among them also Charles Lowson. As far as I can judge from the photos of Charles Lowson posted in HMF this "true" rose is very similar to that described in the literature and very different from the other photos posted under the same name.
REPLY
Reply #26 of 30 posted 9 JUN 11 by billy teabag
Thank you - This is such an interesting and enjoyable discussion.
I really like the term 'immortal highlander' - and your description.
It is fascinating that we do see the same varieties surviving in different countries and different climates. We can assume that they survive because they were popular varieties or had some particular charms, but I suspect you have hit the nail on the head - in many cases, these are the roses that refuse to die.
REPLY
Reply #27 of 30 posted 9 JUN 11 by Hardy
The Charles Lawson with imposing thorns (that I took pictures of) is at SJHRG. It was sourced from Deutsches Rosarium in Dortmund, some years ago. Like most rose gardens (or retailers, for that matter), their record for shipping correctly labeled roses is not 100%, so we can think of it as a *likely* example of Charles Lawson, but definitely not a proven one. It has very limited growing space (maybe 5' x 5' or so), so it has been pruned much too closely to let it turn into a big beautiful sprawl, like the Slovenian example. From the Slovenian pictures, I can't be sure that it's the same rose that was shipped by Deutsches Rosarium, but it could be. Those two bear much more resemblance to each other than either of them bear to Gaspard Monge or "Dr. Peck's."

And as for what class to put your rose in, I am leaning towards the idea that Gaspard Monge has probably been correctly identified, it's always been considered a centifolia (although I admit that it's an odd one), and I know of no reason to challenge that. It, and/or Charles Lawson of Commerce, could conceivably have some francofurtana, chinensis, multiflora, pendulina, or even setigera in them, but I haven't found anything which would persuade anyone that GM/CLoC must contain any of those. Yesterday, as I was dissecting fresh (but terminally balling) blooms from those roses, and looking at the big, reddened stipules, I noticed that the upper parts of the plants looked an awful lot like Perle von Weissenstein, a presumed damask-gallica hybrid from the late 1700s. So while I can't rule out that it's a strange hybrid, I also can't swear that it isn't 100% European.

I really, really hope that at least one of these roses has its DNA analysed before too long. Until then, I expect that these discussions will always seem a little like talking about what ethnic group Tiger Woods should be considered a member of. Worse, really, since we know who Tiger's parents and grandparents were.

Oh, one last thought. As the son of a registered member of Clan McLeod, I completely approve of the Highlander comparison. They survive, whether in Italy, Bavaria, Normandy, Oregon, or New South Wales. And for a couple of weeks a year, I don't know of any rose in the world which is more breathtaking.
REPLY
Reply #28 of 30 posted 10 JUN 11 by Margaret Furness
Repeating myself here, but another reason for a rose to turn up in many places under many names is that it was used as an understock, and had a habit of overwhelming the scions.
REPLY
Reply #29 of 30 posted 17 JUN 11 by Hardy
Okay, I'll bite.

I'm sure that this theory cropped up as a result of people thinking that all of these found roses might be either the exact same plant, or various sports of the same plant. It would be very easily imagined in that context.

Instead, I think they (US, AU and EU found roses) are three or more closely related strains, and that, if Ashdown's labeling of the rose was accurate, the South African is unrelated.

But let's imagine a scenario where they're used as rootstock. In 1851-53, Mssr. Robert would have been propagating Gaspard Monge to sell. He would have left over breeding stock, and, due to the white worms that devoured much of the Vibert collection, he might be sorely short of rootstock plants. He might also be struggling with debts incurred as part of the Vibert buyout. Perhaps he would have considered allowing some of the left over breeding stock to be used as rootstocks, so long as they were sent very far away, to customers that were held in low esteem. How about the unwashed masses in the goldfields of California and Australia? One plant chopped up for an order in San Francisco, followed by a second used for the Aussies? (If you like the idea that Charles Lawson of commerce is the actual Charles Lawson, I suppose you could have a few leftovers from the SF order that went to Scotland.)

The stuff might be great rootstock if it didn't sucker badly, but it does. That, along with the funny distribution, make me think that it couldn't have been used as rootstock by many, or for very long.

The ones in Normandy, Germany and Italy can be thought of as surviving instances of Gaspard Monge, or sports thereof, without overexerting our imaginations.

There are many pieces of plausible historical fiction that could be written about these roses. I've laid out one possible example, and while I tried to come up with something which sounded reasonable, I know of no evidence whatsoever to support it. It's just daydreaming about what might have happened. Any rose on such a rootstock would be likely to have suffocated inside a wall of smooth canes more than a century ago, leaving no evidence in living memory.

That's why I'd love to have these roses DNA tested, I think that it may provide the only authoritative answers we'll ever get.
REPLY
Reply #30 of 30 posted 18 JUN 11 by Margaret Furness
Thank you, there are interesting ideas in that. One comment though - growers learnt the hard way about what not to use as rootstocks. There was a stage when rugosas were used as understocks for standard (tree) roses!
REPLY
Discussion id : 53-051
most recent 24 MAR 11 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 24 MAR 11 by Erichtonius
I discovered an old rose, most probably an hybrid of centifolia, under an old yew in my garden in Normandy, about 17 years ago. I called it Rose de Barneville. After a long search among gallicas and centifolias, Gaspard Monge appeared to be the closest to mine. In fact, it looks very similar.
As Gaspard Monge, Rose de Barneville forms an open bush, up to 1,30 m, with long and flexible branches, quite thornless, with bright green foliage, of medium to large size, and numerous buds of globular form, which bloom one month long between may and june, in a very double cup form of deep pink, with silver shading on the outside and lilac inside, with a strong typical fragrance of Centifolia. It is very vigorous and has a great tendency to produce suckers. It may be subject to rust, and a part of its buds often rot before opening, as it seems to be for "Gaspard Monge", probably damaged by rain or wet weather ; it may be different in a Mediterranean climate. If a botanist is interested, I have several specimens of Rose de Barneville.
It is a wonderful rose, with a perfect yet generous shape and rich color, an ideal model for 18th c. painting, and its fragrance, fresher than the damascena, is like a true Provence rose water.
REPLY
© 2024 HelpMeFind.com