|
|
HubertG 
-
-
|
Very Interesting. The names I can read with certainly are A. Rivoire, Gigantea, Fragrant Pillar, John Cronin, Mrs F Guthrie, City of L. Rock, McGredy's Sunset, Pink Dawn, S de G Prat and G. Nabonnand. I might be able to make out some more with time.
|
REPLY
|
|
Would 'Pink Dawn' be the Howard & Smith introduction from 1949 or another rose of Clark's breeding?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
8 APR by
HubertG
|
The Howard & Smith 'Pink Dawn' has an introduction date of 1935. The photo is from the 1940 Australian Rose Annual so it looks like Clark was experimenting with a fairly new introduction.
Some of those entries look tantalisingly solvable but still have me stumped.
What I thought was McGredy's Sunset might be McGredy's Scarlet - it's hard to tell.
I think there's a Chatenay as well.
|
REPLY
|
|
I had a go too and came up with
6531
6532 Antoine Rivoire (1895)
6533. 2229 x ?Duchesse d'Auerstadt [Billy’s suggestion]
6534 39_5 x ?Duchesse d'Auerstadt
6535 Elegante (1882 or 1918)
6536 Fragrant Pillar (1931) x d___
6537 John Cronin (1935)
6531b John Cronin
6532b Antoine Rivoire (1895) x
6533b Mrs Frank Guthrie (1923).
6534b Mrs Frank Guthrie (1923) x
6535b vs from veg gdn
6536b good red veg gdn [HubertG’s comment below]
6537b Walter ....... ?Bentley?
6545 City of Little Rock (1924)
6551 McGredy's Scarlet (1928)
6552 Mme Abel Chatenay (1894)
6553 Mrs Edouard Powell (1910)
6554 Bohm's Triumph (1934)
6555
6561 striped sport…. [HubertG’s comment below]
6562 3675 sported…..[HubertG’s comment below]
6565 Crusader? (1919) [HubertG’s comment below]
6569 Souvenir de Gustave Prat (1910)
6573 G. Nabonnand (1888)
6574 Stella. (1905)
But this was only one page, probably between 1935 (John Cronin) and 1940. Just look at all the pages under the left hand.
The numbering is of mild interest. Look at how he went back to insert some b’s.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 4 posted
9 APR by
HubertG
|
Patricia, I believe 6565 is Crusader.
6561 might say "striped sport" etc, and 6562 might be "3675 sported" but I'm not certain.
Vegetable garden looks right (that had me stumped because I was thinking of a name) but I think it says "good red veg gdn".
The entries where he has put something which you thought might be 'Duchesse d'Auerstadt' I notice are the numbers he has repeated a little further down the list and I think it is more likely to be some sort of abbreviated annotation to indicate such an additional entry, but I can't discern exactly what.
I believe you are right with 'Stella'. It's interesting that was the parent of one of his very first roses 'Ruby Ring' and that he was still using it decades later.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I am wondering if anyone recognizes this beautiful, lightly fragranced rose grown from a cutting taken from a 1920's house in Melbourne, Australia? It has smooth pedicels, dull, narrow leaves and has few thorns.
|
REPLY
|
|
If you re-open your post you'll find it has grown an Add Photos button.
Does the plant repeat-flower? Does it set hips? Does it sucker when grown from a cutting? Is it a bush or a climber?
|
REPLY
|
|
Apologies for the late uploading of photos. The plant in question is a bush and does not sucker. It has round hips and does repeat flower.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
6 APR by
HubertG
|
For some reason it made me think of Dickson's 'Dean Hole' of 1904, but I don't know how likely it would be for that to have survived.
Rebedina, when you say a cutting taken from a 1920s house, do you have good reason to think it might be of the same era of the house? It could be something from much later.
|
REPLY
|
|
It certainly could be a much later rose, you're right.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
If I was told this was a 19th century French Tea Rose I wouldn't doubt it, that is, just going by the photos here.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
28 MAR by
jedmar
|
The volatile components are closest to Comtesse de Labarthe and Gloire de Dijon.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
29 MAR by
HubertG
|
That's interesting. A lot of the other Chinese roses in that fragrance analysis contain geraniol, nerol and citronellol, which this rose lacks. I do think that at least some of the rediscovered Chinese roses are likely to be old European cultivars which simply lost their name and identity over time.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I assume 1789 is just a typo for either 1879 or 1889, but in either case it's interesting in that if the 'Yellow Tea' depicted is 'Parks' Yellow' it was still available at that time. Maybe it was just some other yellow Tea Rose.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
16 MAR by
Lee H.
|
It certainly could be Parks, but I looked at several of their catalogs from ca. 1880-1900, and they were listing a generic yellow tea. As they also had many, many named tea varieties, I too find this unusual.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
16 MAR by
HubertG
|
Ellwanger, around the same time, refers to Parks' Yellow simply as 'Yellow Tea' but in the Nanz & Neuner it draws comparison to a 'White Tea' and I can't think of any earlier counterpart for that. Perhaps they were both home-grown US Teas.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
16 MAR by
jedmar
|
A White Tea or White China was described by Andrews in his Monograph of 1826. This was a side remark to the Yellow China, supposedly bred by Knights from 'Old Blush'. The history of this Yellow vs Park's Yellow is quite a mess.
|
REPLY
|
|
