The entry for 'Henry Fonda' says parents are 'Baron Girod de l'Ain' x 'Sunbright,' although there's then a note underneath that says "The seed parent of 'Baron Girod de l'Ain' is doubtful. Refer Patent and comments."
I'm a volunteer at the Huntington Library's Rose Garden, so I asked Tom Carruth about this (because he knows I love 'Baron Girod de l'Ain'). He says he was Jack Christensen's assistant at the time this rose was developed and that Jack never used 'Baron Girod de l'Ain' as a parent. As the patent says, the parentage is seedling x seedling. Feel free to verify this with Tom at tcarruth@huntington.org
Anyway, I thought you might like to know so that you can correct the entry for 'Henry Fonda'
Thanks Benaminh. Parentage added, although the seed parent of 'Baron Girod de l'Ain' is niggling at me. In the Patent for 'Henry Fonda' the seed patent was said to be a "seedling".
Doesn't make sense does it? But it might explain the weak stems and blackspot issues passed on from the Hybrid Perpetual seed parent. Besides, whatever's listed on patents is never set in stone, plenty of examples when patents in different countries for the same rose list conflicting parentage.
I believe the Sunbright part. It has the identical faults and architecture issues.
Sunbright is equally disease prone. Actually, it is a pretty horrible rose. Worse vigor, more prickles, and nasty black spot, compared to its parent, New Day. New Day has worse mildew and lighter color, however.
I do not believe Baron was a parent, however. It may have been a typo. I still see catalog typos to this day, and even incorrect pictures.
"The primary objective of this breeding was to produce a new rose variety having the excellent vigor and dark green foliage of the female seedling, combined with the bright yellow, broad petals and vigor of the male parent. "
This seems to partially contradict the catalog text. It implies that the seed parent does not have strong vigor, and that it may be a seedling and not a known variety. Or, the whole patent could just be really sloppy. Who knows!
This is a pretty yellow rose, but I would not recommend it for a no-spray garden. It has more blackspot than any of the other roses in my garden (mostly antiques and teas).
This rose has been growing in my mother's garden in a pot for about 10 years now. Despite never having been repotted, it continues to do well, and this year has put on a lot of new growth and many more flowers that years past. The flowers aren't particularly well formed and have just enough petals to make them look "double", but the fragrance isn't bad. It does have a bit of the foetida acridity about it, but it has more smell than most yellow roses.
If you're looking for a super-saturated yellow rose, this is it. I don't particularly like the color -- it's almost too yellow and makes your eyes smart if you look at a flower too long in bright sun. The flowers fade only very slightly as they age maintaining their saturation until they drop. The blooms hold exceptionally long on the bush and they deal with heat very well. Rebloom is a perhaps a bit slower than the average HT.
