|
|
'Madame Bravy' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
It's odd that this rose is only listed as being in one garden in Australia, when it is suppposedly one of the best Teas. No reference from the Tea Rose book either.
Ross Roses list it as 'In Collection', so presumably at least one stock plant still survives at T4R. I'm thinking a few of us should try to get it propogated. I'd be up for one or two.
|
REPLY
|
|
In the Renmark list there is a note ";possibly incorrect". It was one of only two roses from there that I dug up and put into a pot, as it was going backwards very fast. It is recovering but I haven't let a flower mature yet, and it's not big enough for cuttings.
The pedicel isn't prickly, unlike those of Mrs Foley-Hobbs (Patricia's photos), which has a similar flower.
|
REPLY
|
|
For the record, I grow:
173 ?Mme. Bravy. Provenance Ruth Jones came in 2001 as ‘Mme. Bravy’-> Plot-N-nw-17
543 “Not Comtesse Riza du Parc” Provenance N. Drage-> M. Dixon came in 1999 as ‘Comtesse Riza du Parc’ -> GS-O-NE-nw.
At this stage I have no photos of the rose no. 173, but I suspect it is the same as no. 543
|
REPLY
|
|
Mme Bravy is (in my opinion) fairly characteristic/distinct: it has most of the time three/four blooms adjacent to each other on a singlen stem and a very weak neck... In my climate she doesnt grow beyond my knee. The color is the purest white on the outer petals and the color change to the center of the bloom is very subtle...
|
REPLY
|
|
Mme Bravy is in the Tea book, pp 124-5. The suggestion that it might be incorrect applies to all in commerce, not just what we had at Renmark.
|
REPLY
|
|
