I sent some detailed photos to Stephen Hoy, author of the Singularly Beautiful Roses magazine, to ask if he recognised "Vestey's Yellow Tea". He very kindly sent me a list of possibilities, based on references.
"I'm attempting to catalog a thorough listing of single and lightly petaled HT's & related cultivars. Here are a few names... My petal counts are approximations based on consulting numerous sources.
Aladdin - Wm Paul; 1916, chamois yellow 12-15+ petals Barbara Mason - Leslie Moss; 1947, light yellow, 10-15+petals, fragrant Beryl (Tea) - Dickson; 1898, light yellow to white, 15-20 petals Conqueror - Chaplin Bros; 1939, saffron yellow, 15+ petals Gustave Regis - Pernet-Ducher; 1890, pale yellow to white, 15+ petals Hilde Apelt - Leenders; 1927, pale yellow, 15-20 petals Magnolia -G. Paul; 1912, pale yellow to white, 12+ petals Margaret Molyneaux - Dickson; 1909, pale yellow to white,15-20 petals Tipperary - McGredy; 1916, pale yellow, 20 petals."
Not Aladdin (once-blooming, short). Not Barbara Mason, as I don't think Vestey's would be a good florists' rose. Not Beryl, as I don't see Vestey's as a buttonhole rose. Although some surprisingly big roses were worn in buttonholes. Alas that that fashion has gone. Conqueror fades to light yellow but our hot climate might make a difference. I've asked a garden that grows it to post photos. The orange reverse doesn't fit. Gustave Regis has been discussed before. The illustration of the receptacles doesn't fit, if accurate. Hilde Apelt looks promising in the photos, but one reference says it doesn't like hot weather, and is beautiful only in autumn. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not Margaret Molyneux: one reference says it fades to salmon pink. The one photo of Tipperary shows a rather delicate receptacle: I think not this one. Previously noted to have solitary flowers.
Magnolia is promising, though "semi-double to near full"' and "fine form" are disputable.
My Vestey's Yellow Tea never has any hint of pink as does some of the photos from hmfusr and Eric Timewell. It's just a plain light yellow and has never really shown any variance in colour all the years that I've grown it. I wouldn't say that it even approaches bordering on a Hybrid Tea. It's pure Tea for me. Large bush, rather sprawly.
When the synonyms 'Dr Russell's Yellow' and 'Mulvay Rose' are listed, is it certain that these are the same as Vestey's Yellow, because the photos here can look very different? Unless someone labels their photo as Mulvay Rose, for instance, it's hard to tell what's what.
Any updates on the possible identification of this rose?
I only grow the "Mulvay Rose" (from Western Australia) and which is plain yellow for me too. I have queried the rose with pink tinges from the Victorian members, hmfusr and Eric Timewell. Actually, in 2007 two Californian people thought "Dr. Russell's Yellow" (from South Australia) was different from "Vestey's Yellow" (Victoria). However, in the 1992 and 2011 references, they were thought to be the same. If you can find anything further on the Australian-bred rose 'Vanity' I know that would be welcome.
I have the Lockley book from 1906/7 and have a feeling Vanity is mentioned in it, but I could be wrong. It's packed away in a box somewhere, I'll have to dig for it on the weekend.
By the way, I was reading in the Rosen Zeitung about common rose name errors and it listed that the correct form for Mme Chedanne Guinoisseau is with the two n's. It also insisted Anna Ollivier is correct with two l's. I'll hunt for that again too, not that it's that important.
Also I have some new shoots coming up on my Vestey's Yellow, so will post some photos when in bloom.
We've mined the Lockley book. See the 1927 reference for 'Vanity'.
HelpMeFind works best if you post a comment about a rose in that rose's file. For example, 'Mme Chedanne Guinoisseau' has nothing to do with "Vestey's Yellow Tea".
The rose photographed by Eric T at Maddingley Park was supplied by John Nieuwesteeg, and would therefore be derived from the parent plant at Coombe Cottage (owned by Melba and then by her grand-daughter Lady Vestey). It's likely that other plants in Victoria have the same provenance; and probably yours too, if it came with that name. Renmark has "Vestey's Yellow" from John next to "Dr Russell's Yellow". I couldn't guarantee which of them features in photos taken at Renmark.
Maybe the pink tips and flush were an exceptionally unusual appearance. Mine never show that. I notice that photograph was taken in March, so I'll scrutinise the next flush. I did receive mine as Vestey's Yellow, but I'll need to look up from where (and when). Regarding the two Lady Vestey roses:- they are both evergreen (in Sydney at least) and good winter flowerers and I always had it in the back of my mind they could both have been Nabonnand roses, as the "Riviera" teas were so fashionable for landscaping at that time, and I imagine Melba would have only wanted the best and most fashionable. Does anyone know if the original bushes still grow there?
And I imagine too that Vestey's Yellow would be something that would possibly be described in the early catalogues as being a "buttonhole rose" - nice opening bud, not to full, but a bit messy after that.
The 1906 Lockley book is different to the other editions. I just thought that when no references to Vanity from that early edition appeared in the references, then perhaps it hadn't been searched. My memory that Vanity was mentioned in it must be wrong. Saves me digging it out lol.
I don't think it's considered to be Tea now- at most cuspy Tea-HT, and not all that shapely, but it's very generous with flowers. A survivor rose across the mainland southern states.
"Vestey's Yellow Cuspy" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
I assume by "not all that shapely" you're referring to the "informality" of the flowers. They are a bit shaggy on it, but they still give a good effect.
I assume the bush itself has a decent enough shape.
I don't mind 'Vestey's Yellow Cuspy'. It's nice to know that it probably doesn't mind what its name or category is... and that it probably doesn't mind that I'm about to mention that the bush hardly even qualifies as a 'bush'; more as a structure comprising several vigorously sprouting stark twigs. I think it's getting enough light in the warmer months. At this time of the year the sun's skating round below the top of a huge Lemon Scented Gum for part of the day.
Sounds a bit like Mr. Lincoln as far as bush form. I'm rather over that look. In future I want things that look like decent shrubs even when not in flower.
