|
|
'Agnes Barclay' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
6 MAR 23 by
Tassie Daz
|
In the Argus 3rd April 1925, page 9
AGNES BARCLAY is described thus:
"On the right is,Agnes Barclay a fine decorative bush rose perpetual flowering and like Sunny South in colouring THOUGH A PALER PINK.
It mentions nothing of a yellow or cream so I'm suggesting the description is wrong. The photo used is the photo in this article. 2 roses are side by side, Daydream on the left and AB on the right
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
21 FEB 14 by
 Patricia Routley
|
It would be valuable if someone could find the 1927 advertisement with colour photograph of 'Agnes Barclay' mentioned in the 1997 reference.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
27 FEB 14 by
billy teabag
|
Yes! Thinking about where this advertisement might have been - and which nurseries were offering Alister Clark roses in 1927.
It would be good to find a copy of the 1927 Law, Somner Pty. Ltd. catalogue.
We have a B&W photocopy of the 1928 catalogue where they have a page (probably colour) devoted to a new Australian-raised rose (Montuna).
The 1928 Law Somner catalogue lists 'Agnes Barclay' in its general collection of dwarf or bush roses (have added entry to refs).
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
27 FEB 14 by
Patricia Routley
|
Perhaps if anyone (Di Durston?] keeps in touch with Susan Irvine? It was Susan in 1997 who mentioned the colour advertisement.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
21 FEB 14 by
Eric Timewell
|
A rose listed as 'Agnes Barklay' is growing in the rose garden of Carrick Hill, 46 Carrick Hill Drive,
Springfield, South Australia 5062.
http://www.carrickhill.sa.gov.au/garden_views.html
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
21 FEB 14 by
Margaret Furness
|
Or possibly "A rose listed as 'Agnes Barclay' is growing at..."
The found rose that was circulated under that name in the 1980s would do for the early descriptions, but not for the stated parentage (Tea x Tea-Noisette). Maybe it was one of the 15% of roses where the stated parentage is incorrect. An errant bee, perhaps. I'll attach photos of that rose (at Renmark) under its study name of "Upper Beaconsfield".
I'll see if I can find the AB label at Carrick Hill during the next flush of flowers.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
21 FEB 14 by
Eric Timewell
|
Oh, thank you, Margaret. Fools rush in … I'll change my post from "this rose" to "a rose".
At the same time, I'm finding Not-Alister-Clark to be a very interesting breeder.
Good to see you back in the saddle. I thought you might have been ploughing stony ground in Tasmania.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
21 FEB 14 by
Margaret Furness
|
No, dancing in the rain in SA, with the bushfire risk decreasing.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
22 MAY 13 by
cafeaulait
|
I don't know anything about this rose, but I came to HMF after seeing her for sale on this website:
http://mistydowns.com.au/plant_display/display/1787-agnes-barclay
I wouldn't know whether this is an imposter rose or not, but the link may be of use to someone :)
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
22 MAY 13 by
Margaret Furness
|
Thank you. The rose being sold under this name is a foundling from Victoria; I think it was collected in the 1980s. It doesn't look like the parentage of Agnes Barclay would suggest (you were right to doubt it). It looks like a polyantha, and until its true ID is known, we're using the study name "Upper Beaconsfield", for one of the places it was found. It was also collected from Alexandra, across the road from the Post Office.
|
REPLY
|
|
