|
|
"Florence Bowers' Pink Tea" rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Lots of information here, and it looks to be a very nice (if terribly spiky) rose. However, there is no mention of scent anywhere.
Scent is always the first thing I check for with roses, or almost any other plant for that matter. I find it odd that it seems to be ignored in this case. Does it have any scent?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Can this rose be grown as a free-standing shrub?
|
REPLY
|
|
No way to know for sure, having not tried it myself or heard of anyone who has, but I think it wouldn't be too easy to deal with, growing that way. A mature plant throws out long, relatively lax canes (10'+), which readily take advantage of any upward support they find (I have to spend time keeping it out of surrounding small trees and keeping it on its own support), while the main trunk is still not that substantial, even after some years (unlike Mme. Alfred Carriere, which has hefty main trunks and can be trained to be freestanding). It would be a sprawling, very thorny thing with massive amounts of biomass, I think (maybe cascading down a hill would work?). Its response to pruning is vigorous production of more long canes so I tend to cut a cane off entirely if I want to stop it from going some direction.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I was curious enough to contact Florence Bowers regarding this rose, as it was she who passed it on to Ruth Knopf.
Mrs. Bowers told me that the rose was given to her many years ago by a much older lady, who had either found it or received it in turn. It is her recollection that it came from the site of a historic stage stop. What ever it is, this is clearly a rose of remarkable vigor and great beauty, with excellent resistance to disease in my conditions.
-- Jeri Jennings 9-14-15
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Jeri. Any idea of what decade? (Like Billy, I am getting the impression of Mme. Lambard x Banshee).
I have updated the main page a little. Keep the info coming. This is a fascinating rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
No idea on age, but if it came from an old stage stop . . .
WAY different from Mme. Lambard. It can't be that. I don't grow Banshee . . . I need to ask Gregg if he has any thoughts on it. Ruth Knopf must not have had. Florence just seems to have accepted it for what it is, which is what I incline to do myself.
|
REPLY
|
|
I know it is not Mme. Lambard. It was my impression on what the parentage may have been.
Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean by "Ruth Knopf must not have had."
|
REPLY
|
|
Well, it went from Florence Bowers, to Ruth Knopf, to Gregg. It sounds like Ruth had no suggestions as to identity. But I'm going to ask him, just for drill.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
It seems as the name of the lady after whom it is named is Florence Bowers; so it would seem that the name of the rose should be either the 'Florence Bowers Tea', or 'Florence Bowers' Tea' (with the middle apostrophe signifying the possessive), or forsooth 'Florence Bowers's Tea' (which lattermost would make clear the intention). But what it evidently should not be called is 'Florence Bower's Tea', as, it seems, no Florence Bower, if there be any such person, has anything to do with this rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you odinthor. Fixed.
|
REPLY
|
|
