|
|
'Böhmova Popelka' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
12 NOV 15 by
Vladimír Ježovič
|
Jiří Sekera: Böhm růže Blatná, 2013, Vydalo město Blatná, page 136: sport from HT ´Edith Cawell´´with variegated leaves.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
14 NOV 15 by
 Patricia Routley
|
Thanks Vladimir. That reference must be incorrect. If 'Bohmova Popelka' is a poly, then it must be a sport from the poly 'Miss Edith Cavell', not the white hybrid tea 'Edith Cavell'
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
18 NOV 15 by
Vladimír Ježovič
|
That´s right! Thanks! :-)
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
1 NOV 11 by
Grntrz5
|
It might be like many roses that show more color in cooler temperatures-just looking at the one photo. Cliff Orent has this pink version for sale.
Looking at online sources, there is a cerise-red version, also by Bohm, called "The Red Cross", maybe this is where the confusion is coming from.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
16 FEB 09 by
Jeff Britt
|
The photo here and the description don't match very well. Which is correct, the photo or the description? I hope there is someone who can shed some light on this. It's a shame to see plant entries on HMF where something is so obviously out of whack.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
16 FEB 09 by
Cass
|
Jeff, this is an obscure rose in North America. If you take a look at the References, you will see that the published descriptions also conflict: two report blood red, one reports light pink. I agree it's a shame, but in this case, there's a matter of identity that requires resolution.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
17 FEB 09 by
Jeff Britt
|
I agree with you completely. I guess I would wish that when someone posts a picture that is at odds with the description of the plant, that they might make some comment to the effect that there is some problem with the identity of this rose. Posting the picture without comment only furthers the confusion rather than making an effort to resolve it.
|
REPLY
|
|
