|
|
'Belle Herminie' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
At Sangerhausen this rose is dated 1819. I would not describe it as "almost thornless". On the contrary, Belle Herminie is very thorny.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you for this update.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
8 JAN 11 by
 jedmar
|
The fact that 'Belle Herminie' in Sangerhausen is very prickly indicates that the attribution to Coquerel is incorrect, as early literature is quite clear on Coquerel's rose having glanular, unarmed branches. The date of 1819 has no corraboration. The first 'Belle Herminie' was by Descemet (before 1815), Vibert bred "a variety of Belle Herminie" in 1819, then 5 different Belle Herminie's from 1822-24, then another 10 until 1838. The rose in SGH might be one of these, but which?
|
REPLY
|
|
Very interesting info, thanks. I'm particularly interested in this rose, because I have found a rose in south-east Sweden ( where we have documented the areas rose heritage for the last seven years) that is identical to the one in Sangerhausen, its growth is very vigorous, and it's very prickly - but which rose is the one in Sangerhausen, then?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
9 JAN 11 by
jedmar
|
I am somewhat skeptical about the identity 'Belle Herminie'. In the large collection of Gravereaux in L'Haÿ in 1902, there was no 'Belle Herminie, nor 'Belle Hermine' nor 'Belle Hermione'. It did not exist in Sangerhausen in 1936, but in 1976. I believe the various 'Belle Herminie' were lost in the 1860s when Gallicas fell out of favour and that the plants we have today in rosaries and commerce are an "identification" from the 1950s, but I have not yet been able to trace the source.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
3 JUN 12 by
Naasra
|
This same rose which is labeled as Belle Herminie in Sangerhausen, I have seen as Duc de Cambridge, Damask, from several sources. As this rose clearly has a lot of damask influence, except maybe the shape of the calyx tube.I think that this could also be Duc de Cambridge and the original Belle Herminie is lost.
|
REPLY
|
|
