'Montecito' rose reviews and comments

	Description		Photos		Lineage		Awards		References		Member Ratings		Member Comments		Member Journals		Cuttings		Gardens		Buy From

'Montecito' rose Reviews & Comments

My HMF:

☐ POST COMMENT

Discussion id : 87-294 most recent 9 FEB 20 SHOW ALL

Initial post 13 AUG 15 by John Hook

Reply #1 of 5 posted 8 FEB 20 by Gene Jax

Re the rose known as 'Montecito'. Nearly 20 years ago I checked with Clair Martin at the Huntington regarding the plant they grow. He told me that, according to Huntington records, it was a name assigned by John MacGregor when he was a botanist at the Huntington to a big climber he found growing wild on the old Franceschi property. Thus, Montecito could be a different Franceschi seedling or have some other related derivation. I believe Greg Lowery told me that the appearance of the found rose is consistent with its being a R. brunonii x R. gigantea hybrid. My current plant in Florida is from Vintage Gardens some years ago.

Reply #2 of 5 posted 9 FEB 20 by HMF supporting member

Margaret Furness

So the name should be in double inverted commas, as a study name?	REPLY

Reply #3 of 5 posted 9 FEB 20 by Gene Jax

That's what I gathered from the information Clair could provide. No one really knows its specific identity Descriptions of Franceschi roses such as Montecito and Montariosa are sketchy in materials I've come across, so unless MacGregor came upon something substantial in his research that truly identifies it, I would think it should go in double quotes. It could be a named variety or just a seedling on the estate

Reply #4 of 5 posted 9 FEB 20 by John Hook

It's highly unlikely that this is a spontaneous seedling, I have been growing dozens of selfed seedlings from Montecito and Belle Portugaise for many years and they are all crap unlike Montecito which is incredible. I have never had a gigantea seedling spontaneously appear in the garden, they are notoriously finicky and die with the slightest excuse. John McGregor obviously thought this rose was reasonably Montecito and I'm happy with his view.. Virtually every old rose could be potentially misnamed if we want to be pedantic.

Reply #5 of 5 posted 9 FEB 20 by Gene Jax

John, you are probably right. It's hard to nail a lot of found roses with any high degree of certitude. (I am disappointed to hear self-Montecito seedlings are not good as I have one that will possibly bloom next year)

Recall, however, Rev. Schoener noted in the 1932 ARS Annual regarding both Montecito and Montariosa that

"Dr. Franchesci produced a few Gigantea hybrids. His Montecito and Montariosa are the two best known to me. Both are seedlings of R. moschata [brunonii] by R. gigantea, and both show very dominantly the musk character."

Musk character? On my Montecito the flower is definitely dominantly gigantea-like.

Discussion id : 114-364 most recent 8 DEC 18 HIDE POSTS

Initial post 8 DEC 18 by lbuzzell

I'm coming to appreciate the 'Montecito' climbing rose more and more. It is a Hybrid Gigantea bred by local horticulturalist Francesco Franceschi-Fenzi in the Riviera neighborhood of Santa Barbara near Franceschi Park before 1913. It's a once blooming climber with large yellow buds and lovely white/pale yellow single flowers in spring and if not pruned, large orange hips that I love to put in a vase and which hang like holiday baubles from the long canes in late fall and early winter. So all-season interest. It is super-vigorous, impervious to disease, with thorns to defend a property line fence. It is drought tolerant, a serious concern in our area. We never water it because if we did it would be 3x as large! Message me if you'd like cuttings.