|
|
One or more site guests believe this photo is incorrectly labeled or inaccurate !
-
-
Initial post
5 JUN 20 by
petera
|
This photo is a cropped section of one on HMF labelled 'Mrs Taft' syn. 'Antoine Rivoire'. Both are from publications dated 1911 so confusion of rose varieties is clearly not a new thing!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 5 posted
5 JUN 20 by
 jedmar
|
What we have seen in several cases, (mostly US) publications have just used an available rose photo for illustrating another - with black/white, their readers wouldn't have noticed the difference.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, it was a fairly common practice. Photographs were expensive to produce, and if two (or more) roses have similar shapes, why not use a b&w photo for both. I think HubertG found a photo that was used for 3 different roses, but I may be misremembering.
I don't think I'd mark them as incorrect, though.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
5 JUN 20 by
HubertG
|
I've found a photo of a bloom that was used for 'W. R. Smith', 'Alexander Hill Gray', 'Ophelia' and another variety that I can't remember offhand. Some companies seem to be rather notorious for reusing photos in this way although it can seem to be just within a period of of a few years. I've even seen the same photo used for two different roses in the same catalogue only a few pages apart! There's another photo that I can think of that kept getting rehashed for a number of red roses, including 'Papa Gontier' and others. Generally, I'll avoid adding a photo from a company that I know is suspicious in this manner, but if the same photo is used for a rose consistently over a number of catalogue years, it's probably OK.
Sometimes you'll see catalogue photos marked with the company's insignia, I guess as a type of copyright to avoid this practice.
|
REPLY
|
|
From a distance of 100 years , we are frustrated not to have an accurate representation, but at the time, buyers were expected to read the description, then take their chances. I think the illustrations were just to give a general idea of what the flower looked like, and they probably were all of the same general bloom shape.
Not accurate by our standards, but probably not meant to mislead.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
6 JUN 20 by
petera
|
I think the doubtful pictures need be retained but marked as dubious as people compare their plants to them to check IDs. I found this problem as I was checking my plant obtained as 'Prince de Bulgarie' against all the old illustrations and noted it had far more prickles than shown in that photo. I had naively presumed that the older the photograph then the more likely it was to be correctly identified, and not considered that some publications were far less reliable than others.
|
REPLY
|
|
