HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
-
-
|
Palatine calls this rose a climber growing 6' to 8' tall. Sounds like a shrub that can be trained as a climber in some climates.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
7 DEC 21 by
 Chris
|
just saw a photo of one a friend grows and heck no, it's really a climber.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Is there anyone else who has trouble with believing that this is progeny of R. gigantea? Are there any other R. gigantea seedlings that stay to only one meter tall?? Sorry to appear skeptical, if not poorly informed, but it just doesn't seem to me to be very likely. That said, since there is no comment posted here raising any doubts about the stated parents, I guess no one else shares my skepticism.
|
REPLY
|
|
It was not uncommon for older hybridizers to simplify lineages or leave out a generation or two. Ralph Moore has been known to do this. My guess is there is a generation missing and that this cultivar is a self pollinated seedling of the cross as stated.
Remontant gigantea hybrids can stay in the 3' range as demonstrated by some of the early Teas. Mine is several years old, 4' tall and 3' wide with just a bit of shaping. FWIW
Robert
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 9 posted
6 DEC 15 by
CybeRose
|
According to the patent application:
"It originated from a cross between Dainty Bess and the hybrid seedling Rosa gigantea, with Mme. Cecile Brunner as one of its earlier progenitors."
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Karl. We've added that sentence to the patent section on the main page.
|
REPLY
|
|
Could we take another look at the parentage given for this rose please?
Some references do give the parentage as Dainty Bess x R. gigantea but the breeder said otherwise on the patent application when he wrote: "It originated from a cross between Dainty Bess and the HYBRID SEEDLING [my emphasis] Rosa gigantea, with Mme Cécile Brunner as one of its earlier progenitors."
I understand this to mean that the pollen parent was a hybrid seedling with a lineage that included both R. gigantea and Cécile Brunner but was more complex than a simple cross of those two roses.
At the moment, the parentage given on HMF is Dainty Bess x R. gigantea. It seems that it should be Dainty Bess x R. gigantea seedling or Dainty Bess x hybrid seedling with both R. gigantea and Mlle Cécile Brunner in its lineage.
|
REPLY
|
|
Billy - I have added references and changed the parentage. Please take a look at the Note on the main page.
......and thank you for my own root plant. It is doing well and flowering now. I have planted it, just for fun, fairly near 'Mlle. Cecile Brunner' and, coincidentally, close to 'Mme. Abel Chatenay' whose colour it was said to be similar to.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks very much Patricia - that is much closer. Duehrsen didn't say the pollen parent was a simple cross of the two roses but rather, a hybrid seedling with both R. gigantea and Cecile Brunner included in the gene pool. He said Cecile Brunner was 'one of its earlier progenitors' so we know there were additional un-named roses in its lineage.
The notes you have added make this clear.
I am unsure of what the system allows you to put in the parentage field, and how you get around these instances when you know some, but not all, of the roses that have gone into making a new variety.
I'm so glad the rose is doing well for you. The ones here are too. I've found it a quietly determined rose for its first years - more and more exuberant as it becomes established.
I noticed that the date of introduction in the earliest references is given as 1947 and in later ones as 1948.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
Rockhill
|
I have tried to view the patent for Improved Cecile Brunner, with no luck. Is the patent number given on the main page correct.?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
CybeRose
|
Try this link:
https://patents.google.com/patent/USPP851
Karl
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 9 posted
18 JUN 19 by
Rockhill
|
Very many thanks, Karl. It worked. I had tried all sorts of approaches before but did not get the result I wanted.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
13 JAN 06 by
Cass
|
Stiff, awkward, horizontal grower. This is not a shrub, as it requires support to get off the ground. An odd clone of this rose or perhaps oddly budded. Scent carries on the air. Fall flush really is good. Lovely in the Historic Rose Garden of the Old Sacramento City Cemetery.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have to second this post. Buff Beauty has been a rather troubled plant for me. It started out well and sent out two big new canes in its second year, but since then has only produced new growth from on top the existing canes. These canes have grown heavy and are as flexible as rebar, but are very productive with flowers. I wish it would produce new growth from the base without my having to whack back the existing canes to induce it. That said, I love the flowers, especially in the cool spring and fall weather when the colors are a rich orange-apricot. Definitely one of my favorite roses.
|
REPLY
|
|
I have to amend my comment from May of this year. I decided to lavish my Buff Beauty with more water and fertilizer this year and the results quite startled me. The first flush of bloom was as usual, starting around April 20 and carrying on for about five weeks. I dead-headed the flowers, fertilized and watered heavily and BOOM! The plant has thrown out new growth all over the place and sent out a several whopping new canes. Its second flush of blooms started to open this week and there are probably twice as many buds this time as in April/May. There are a couple of huge panicles of buds (probably 20 - 30) and scores of the regular clusters (of about 5 - 9 buds), and the flowers are bigger, too. I am really surprised and delighted. At this rate, the fall flush of bloom should be beyond spectacular.
I guess I've learned that BB likes a bit more water and food than some other roses. I have Radox Bouquet planted nearby and it has received the same treatment. RB has been very productive this year, but hardly the transformed rose BB is. All I can say is WOW!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 7 posted
14 JUL 09 by
Cass
|
You've confirmed my impression of many roses raised in the UK: they love water.
|
REPLY
|
|
Late comer to this thread. Here, in Australia, my 'Buff Beauty' grows as a shrub. Its habit is typically hybrid musk-like in that it sends up canes from basal growth that grows up and then arches over. It doesn't get much water where it is either and needs to compete with a small tree adjacent to it for what water it gets. Terrfic health. Mine is grafted onto multiflora.
|
REPLY
|
|
thank you for that review. The new canes that you speak of, are they rigid, can they be trained to an incline to encourage lateral breaks or does this rose just produce flowers at the end of rigid canes. And can you speak of the fragrance, I'm afraid I don't know what a 'musk' frangrance is. If it's a funky fragrance I might get a revolt from my operations manager indoors :-)
Peter
|
REPLY
|
|
Flexible. I just let mine grow and arch as it chose - see photo 351278 of it hiding a tank 4 November. There are a few horizontal wires but mostly it is self-supporting. In good conditions it can use a lot of space.
The hybrid musks were bred to be good garden roses. The group name isn't a good indicator because they weren't bred from the musk rose. The scent isn't one anyone is likely to object to.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you for that reply, it's very helpful
Peter
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Is Cesar a small shrub rose or a climber? It is not clear from the description and photos what we have here. Can anyone say definitively?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
8 JAN 08 by
jedmar
|
The Césars I have seen were definitely climbers, about 6-7' high. I will see if I can find some pictures.
|
REPLY
|
|
´César´ is a rose from Meilland series Fleur Romantica® (shrub roses); something like Austin's English roses in France.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
