|
|
-
-
|
Is the identity of the rose(s) shown in the various photos certain? This is not what I would anticipate for a rose which was described early on as "deep cerise," "light red," "bright purplish red," or even just "cerise pink."
|
REPLY
|
|
Interesting that none of the references mention a white eye.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
today by
 HubertG
|
I don't know it's provenance but if it's described as lighter than 'Nancy Hayward' and darker than 'Jessie Clark', and is clearly a Gigantea hybrid, it's probably right. I suspect that the earliest flowers in August/winter are more saturated in colour than the later ones. I haven't grown it but I have grown 'Jessie Clark' and its blooms faded quite quickly on the plant, so perhaps this is also what is showing up in the photos here.
The photo of 'Flying Colours' in the 2014 Mistydowns catalogue shows what could be described as a dark pink/cerise/light red flower and the photo in Peter Cox's book 'Australian Roses' is also a similar shade.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The introduction date for 'Gainsborough' is 1902. Its introductory appearance is in both the regular and the wholesale catalogs of the Good & Reese Co. for that year.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
yesterday by
jedmar
-
-
|
Where do the various permutations of the parentage of this rose not being directly from a cross of 'Paul's Carmine Pillar' and 'General MacArthur' but rather with an unnamed seedling being involved come from originally? Hobbies itself in its introductory advertisement states plainly, "This is a result of a cross between Carmine Pillar and General McArthur" (sic), from The Rose Annual, 1913, p. 213.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
3 days ago by
jedmar
|
This is a tough one to answer. This listing seems to be part of the original ones, almost twenty years ago. These were based mostly on American sources, e.g. Modern Roses. This has the parentage as "seedling of 'General MacArthur' x 'Paul's Carmine Pillar'. Where their editors got it from is unknown. You realize that the ad from Hobbies has the parents juxtaposed?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
3 days ago by
odinthor
|
--Or does the breeder ad get it right about the parentage?
I suspect that, with the "seedling" confusion, it's just that someone misconstrued some note stating that it was "a seedling of A x B" as "(a seedling of A) x B" rather than "a seedling of (A x B)." I seem to recall running across that kind of confusion earlier (I forget with what varieties).
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
"Etienne Veyrat, à Valence," in Lyon-Horticole, vol. 26, 1904, p. 311. The remarks on the honoree in Description need to be fine-tuned: I'm guessing that the year of death should be 1919 rather than 1819...?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
4 days ago by
jedmar
|
It was transposed digits - corrected to 1891, thank you!
|
REPLY
|
|
