|
|
AquaEyes 
-
-
|
These have been growing very well at the Rudolf van der Goot Rose garden. It's one of the roses I don't need to spray with fungicide, and it stays nearly perfect and with no defoliation all season. And once it starts blooming, it doesn't pause. It's a great rose for easy color, and its color isn't often seen in such healthy roses. Highly recommended for the Mid-Atlantic area in the United States.
:-)
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
OK, trying again....
The 1824 Pronville reference does NOT classify it as once-blooming. The second quoted segment in the reference here does not refer to 'Var. Anemating' but instead is a sort of "side-note" about China roses -- though they were previously described under the header of "semperflorens" ("ever-blooming"), their seedlings bloom once per year. This probably refers to the time before controlled pollination, and the hips collected from the Chinas may thus be pollinated by once-blooming European roses, the resulting seedlings being once-blooming Hybrid Chinas. Please see link below, start at page 177 (where the header of LVII 'R. semperflorens' appears at line 277), then follow through the list of repeat-blooming Chinas. Then, on page 178, you'll see the next line quoted in the reference for this rose appearing as a sort of side-note: "N. B. Toutes les varietes de semis du bengal ne fleurissent qu'une fois l'anee" which translates to "All varieties of China seedlings bloom only once a year".
www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/52529#page/194/mode/1up
The 1826 Noisette reference (linked below) does list this rose among other known once-blooming Hybrid Chinas, and that is a bit of a mystery, considering the other references listed here. I wonder if perhaps a seedling of 'Animating' was passed off as 'Animating' and Noisette described that rose. The practice of giving parent-names to seedlings was not always known to be incorrect at that time -- surely the subtle variations of the first Chinas in Europe as depicted in paintings and descriptions result from, for example, seedlings of 'Slater's Crimson' being raised as 'Slater's Crimson'. Another possibility is that Noisette simply made an error.
Considering that Noisette's is the only reference calling the rose once-blooming, and that other references list this rose as among those imported directly from China (thus not a "classic Hybrid China" with a European rose parent), is it not more likely that one reference was incorrect about this characteristic rather than that all the others were?
www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/95904#page/531/mode/1up
:-)
~Christopher
|
REPLY
|
|
LeRouge (1819) says, "There aren’t any fanciers who can make it bloom all year."
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
22 APR by
jedmar
|
Could it be that there were different roses propagated under this name? The 1823 reference states it was blooming end of September in Boursault's garden.
|
REPLY
|
|
While it's intellectually conceivable that there could be different China roses under one name, the rose folks of that time (and of all times!) were pretty sharp-eyed for (a) new roses on the scene, and (b) shenanigans by competitors and rivals. It would be most odd if someone wouldn't have published something warning people not to get two same-named roses mixed up, especially as one was a sparse bloomer, indeed perhaps a once-bloomer. That, and 'Animating' (in whatever form) is a most odd name for a rose (could the Chinese equivalent, with different naming traditions, have been the original name back in its place of origin?). That two roses at the same time would manage independently to have the same weird name seems unlikely; that someone would attempt a rip-off by knowingly naming another rose the same would be lunacy, given what I stated above, that the rose folks of that time were pretty sharp-eyed (especially when dealing with a comparatively new, exciting, and so closely-watched category like Chinas which had quite a limited number of varieties at that time to deal with)--the fraud would be detected without much delay, and the fraudster denounced. I tend to think that the range of differences found would more likely be due to cultural factors--own-root/grafted, grown outdoors/grown in a glass-house, weather here/weather there, even perhaps just the simple amount of skill or lack of it for particular growers.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Available from - The Antique Rose Emporium
http://www.antiqueroseemporium.com/roses/2224/winecup
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
3 JAN by
Claire
|
I got mine from ARE - one of the best plants I ever bought - and I just went looking for it again just now and was disturbed to find they no longer offer it. And now it seems rather difficult to find, though I see RPN selling it as "Winecup." But what happened I wonder...?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I was browsing Rose Petals Nursery's offerings and saw this one. I think it may be 'Rose Edouard'. Thoughts?
:-)
~Christopher
|
REPLY
|
|
I think it may be ‘Rose Edouard’ too. The receptacle is the same shape, the pedicel is as glandular and seems thinning out at the top, the leaves seem to have the same blue tinge, the prickles seem the same.
|
REPLY
|
|
