HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Danzille' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 129-685
most recent 16 NOV HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 15 NOV by Margaret Furness
The Journal of Horticulture in Australia, 1909, gives Mme de Serbot (sic), Josephine Malton and Alba Rosea as synonyms. HMF lists the latter two as different roses. Sounds like the catalogues of the time weren't accurate.
I tried to delete this post.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 15 NOV by jedmar
These names used to be all considered as synonyms.There is actually a "ruling" by the National Rose Society of England that they are so. Similar rulings where made by the French Rose Society for other roses. However, it seems that these rulings were made because the respective roses became hopelessly mixed up in commerce. Those which were very similar were "given" one name. Research into earlier publications shows that these were not synonyms in the sense we understand today. They were very similar, but distinctly bred roses.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 16 NOV by billy teabag
This is exactly right.
One of the first refs I found to the synonymy issue is in Ellwanger. Don't know whether this is derived from earlier work of others, or whether it originated with Ellwanger:
“Ellwanger [1893] - Synonymous, or too-much-alike roses. A drawback to the purchase of new varieties is the knowledge, gained from past experience, that a large number of those sent out as new sorts are not sufficiently distinct from known varieties to prove of any value.…Before enlarging our already cumbersome list of varieties, we think it of great importance to thoroughly sift the sorts now commonly grown, and where two or more varieties bear a strong resemblance to each other in the appearance of the flowers, to reject the inferior kinds. As roses which are synonymous, or too much alike, as regards the form and colour of the flowers, we note the following kinds:…
Many of these roses are identical in all respects save name; the others are certainly too much alike to be grown, even in the largest collections; for though there may exist some considerable difference in the habit of growth of a few of those coupled together, the distinction between the flowers is exceedingly slight, such as can be observed by experts only. I have in every case placed first the variety which seems on the whole., the most worthy of being retained; in a few instances I have found it difficult to make a decision, this is where an asterisk (*) is prefixed to the name. In all these cases (*) we shall make further study of the slight differences which exist between the varieties so as to determine the best; we hope to have the aid of others in this matter.”
Ellwanger doesn't suggest that the roses are necessarily identical, just that the flowers are difficult to tell apart – he makes the point that some are very dissimilar in habit. But a few years down the track it's been taken a bit further and is now part of the NRS rule book. – This from William Robinson's The Flower Garden 1903 edition:
"Synonyms of garden roses. - The following roses bracketed together have been regarded as synonymous, according to the rule adopted by the National Rose Society; and the name standing first in each case, being believed to be the original one, is considered as the true name of the rose, and the one that should stand."

In 1909 Sanders has this to say:
“Synonymous Roses – Following are the varieties of roses which are known by more names than one. On the left hand side we give the correct name, and on the right the synonyms. An intending exhibitor should be careful to read this list before staging his blooms, as should he, for example, stage Mrs Harkness and Paul’s Early Blush [included in list as synonymous] in a stand of six or a dozen distinct varieties, he would be disqualified.”
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 16 NOV by jedmar
Indeed, the past approach of the nurseries and of NRS/ARS is quite different than what HMF is trying to do: identifying distinct cultivars, even they may be alike. This becomes more and more difficult, the older the roses are.
Another fact which created all the mess is what I learned from a nurseryman: If they get an order for say 10 examples of a rose, and have only 8 on stock - then they just add 2 similar ones. I am definite that this practice was also rampant in the 19th century!
REPLY
Discussion id : 129-404
most recent 22 OCT SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 16 OCT by Give me caffeine
It's odd that this rose is only listed as being in one garden in Australia, when it is suppposedly one of the best Teas. No reference from the Tea Rose book either.

Ross Roses list it as 'In Collection', so presumably at least one stock plant still survives at T4R. I'm thinking a few of us should try to get it propogated. I'd be up for one or two.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 4 posted 16 OCT by Margaret Furness
In the Renmark list there is a note ";possibly incorrect". It was one of only two roses from there that I dug up and put into a pot, as it was going backwards very fast. It is recovering but I haven't let a flower mature yet, and it's not big enough for cuttings.
The pedicel isn't prickly, unlike those of Mrs Foley-Hobbs (Patricia's photos), which has a similar flower.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 4 posted 17 OCT by Patricia Routley
For the record, I grow:
173 ?Mme. Bravy. Provenance Ruth Jones came in 2001 as ‘Mme. Bravy’-> Plot-N-nw-17
543 “Not Comtesse Riza du Parc” Provenance N. Drage-> M. Dixon came in 1999 as ‘Comtesse Riza du Parc’ -> GS-O-NE-nw.

At this stage I have no photos of the rose no. 173, but I suspect it is the same as no. 543
REPLY
Reply #3 of 4 posted 18 OCT by Mila & Jul
Mme Bravy is (in my opinion) fairly characteristic/distinct: it has most of the time three/four blooms adjacent to each other on a singlen stem and a very weak neck... In my climate she doesnt grow beyond my knee. The color is the purest white on the outer petals and the color change to the center of the bloom is very subtle...
REPLY
Reply #4 of 4 posted 22 OCT by Margaret Furness
Mme Bravy is in the Tea book, pp 124-5. The suggestion that it might be incorrect applies to all in commerce, not just what we had at Renmark.
REPLY
Discussion id : 129-402
most recent 16 OCT HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 16 OCT by Ericchn
This dame produces exquisitely delicate flowers singly or in small/large clusters, which give out a lovely complexe fragrance, a mix of tea, cream, citrus, cosmetics.

Very fast repeat. Good vigor.

Her flower lasts both on the plant and in vase.

However this dame is susceptible to mildew.
REPLY
Discussion id : 89-067
most recent 6 NOV 15 HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 6 NOV 15 by CybeRose
The Rose Annual (Royal National Rose Society) 38-53 (1975)
Tea-Scented Roses A Survey
L. ARTHUR WYATT

Although 'Niphetos' was also used for breeding, of even greater importance was 'Mme Bravy', sent out in 1846. This is an excellent grower, very free with its cupped cream blooms with pink overtones and a fragrance which has been likened to "expensive face-cream". In the days when honesty in the horticultural trade left much to be desired, unscrupulous nurserymen across the Channel found it financially expedient to cash-in on the high reputation of 'Mme Bravy' by re-introducing it at various intervals under no fewer than six names. English growers, caught by this deception, expressed their annoyance in the gardening press in no uncertain terms … and the annoying practice persists.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted 6 NOV 15 by Margaret Furness
It certainly does.
REPLY
© 2022 HelpMeFind.com