HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
most recent 18 MAR 22 SHOW ALL
Initial post 25 NOV 14 by true-blue
Pétales de roses, the online shop of Chemins de la rose in France, say that their Francis Dubreuil is the real one and not Barcelona.

Here is the link to their Francis Dubreuil page:
Reply #1 of 9 posted 11 MAY 15 by MichaelG

They give the height as 100 cm and the fragrance as "legér" (light), so maybe theirs is not 'Barcelona'.
Reply #2 of 9 posted 11 MAY 15 by true-blue
Maybe that's the Australian "not" FD!
Reply #3 of 9 posted 12 MAY 15 by Tessie
What is the provenance of the Barcelona at The Huntington? It is said by multiple people to be extremely fragrant. One of them was a staff member (Judy something I think) who makes rose desserts from some varieties with the best fragrance for that purpose, and Huntington's Barcelona was one. But since there are such questions with the identify of Francis Dubreuil, how certain is it that The Huntington has the real Barcelona???? Did they get it from Sangerhausen? Because if so, this from the reference section presents a problem:

Book (1936) Page(s) 52.

Barcelona (HT) Kordes 1932; (Sensation X Templar) X L. Charlemont; deep crimson, shaded velvety blackish red, very large, double, fine form, cupped, lasting, fragrance 6/10, floriferous, blooms continuosly with interruptions, elongated buds, long stems, upright, growth 7/10, 70cm. Sangerhausen"

Fragrance is only 6/10? What people are growing in the US now as Barcelona is a very, very fragrant rose. So is it really Barcelona? Did Sangerhausen evaluate the correct rose, or not, per above? Or maybe The Huntington got their plant direct from Kordes????
Reply #4 of 9 posted 12 MAY 15 by Patricia Routley
Tessie - have you had a look at the Notes on the main page?
Reply #5 of 9 posted 12 MAY 15 by true-blue
Tessies, Kim responded your question on the sprawling Francis Dubreuil thread:
Just scroll to the end :-)
Reply #6 of 9 posted 12 MAY 15 by Tessie
Yes, I've looked at both the notes and the Houzz thread. No provenance stated. Kim indicates he didn't check the records at the huntington, so he doesn't know the details on this rose. Although he mentioned a number of possible sources, we don't know from which one the Huntington acquired theirs. There are so many plants in commerce incorrectly identified as well as named varieties where there are multiple different roses being sold with the same name. And so much effort seems to be going into tracking down the real Francis Dubreuil, it seems reasonable to do a little verifying on Barcelona too.
Reply #7 of 9 posted 12 MAY 15 by true-blue
Why don't you contact them directly, they might be able to help you :-)
Reply #8 of 9 posted 30 MAY 18 by Aussie rose lover
Kim is quite correct in what he says about Francis Dubrueil and Barcelona. Francis has the much STR get scent of the two.It is as he says much like Oklaholma in style except that it is much darker bel g the shade of very dark amaranth and Black mulberry with blackberry overtones. Towards to middle and lower parts of the petals it lightens and becomes crimson scarlet and purple/pink.Even after 100 years it rarely exceeds more than a metre in height being very erect rather than loose and spreading. Barcelona is quite different for instance it is a shiny red with out being velvety like Francis D. IT IS ALSO more cupped once it has expands.
Reply #9 of 9 posted 18 MAR 22 by Ambroise Paré
I would not consider what n’ Chemins de la Rose ’ states, since they write about roses they have just acquired bare root one month earlier..
most recent 17 DEC 20 SHOW ALL
Initial post 5 SEP 13 by Tessie
I have a rose purchased as Marquesa Boccellla from the Antique Rose Emporium in Texas. It is a very small grower, really like a dwarf (2 1/2 feet afer almost 3 years, and arriving already as a big plant in a 2 gallon container) but very healthy and with plenty of clean foliage. Flowers are very fragrant and flat. The flowers do not fit the description of Jacques Cartier as they are pale pink all over, not darker in the center at all, nor could they be described as "deep pink" (per "Le Rose", 1890 page 149) no matter in which month they've been blooming in my garden. The early descriptions (note HMF references from the 1800s) describe the flowers as globular and the growth as vigorous. According to "The Ultimate Rose Book" (1993, an HMF-listed reference) Jacques Cartier is said to be the offspring of Baronne Prevost, and that rose is very, very tall around here, and with a similar growth habit.

The problem here is that HMF has the 2 roses, Marquesa Boccella and Jacques Cartier, listed as synonyms of one another, as if to say they are the same rose. Certainly there may be roses in commerce mistakenly sold as the other, but how does it help matters to say 2 different roses, bred more than 20 years apart by 2 different breeders (Bred by Jean Desprez (France, 1842). Bred by Robert and Moreau (France, 1868.), are one and the same? Even if many of the roses in commerce as Jacques Cartier are really Marqusa Boccella, what happens if someone has the real Jacques Cartier? Must they list it on HMF as Marquesa Boccella and extend another id problem into the future?

I really have to wonder if they don't have the correct Jacques Cartier in some places in Europe. Whether they do or not, the real Marquesa Boccellas should not be called by the wrong name, especially knowingly. Perhaps HMF could just put a note at the bottom of the Jacques Cartier description page and note that many in commerce *in the US* are incorrectly being sold as Jacques Cartier.

Reply #1 of 14 posted 6 SEP 13 by jedmar
I agree that the current solution is unsatisfactory. The reason seems to have been that ARS has decided that all Jacques Cartier are actually Marchese Boccella. In Europe, this rose is sold mostly as Jacques Cartier. We also have indications that there are different clones in commerce, some more compact, some sturdy-growers.
For historic clarity, the two roses should be separated on HMF. The negative aspect will be that assigning photos, gardens, nurseries to one or the other will be a mess and will indicate a differentiation which is impossible to make without seeing the roses in situ.
Other comments on this subject are very welcome.
Reply #2 of 14 posted 6 SEP 13 by Kim Rupert
That will likely be the problem here, too, Jedmar. I first became aware of this confusion somewhere around 1984-85. As with many other confused rose identification issues, there were those who were positive theirs was the one, true "real one". However, I've never encountered a rose sold as either name which wasn't the SAME rose. Whether they are actually one or the other, who can ever really know? But, the same rose has always been supplied as both names in commerce here in the US, except when the one supplied has been an obvious mistake, such as the once flowering type distributed as the "continual flowering" plant. Otherwise, what we have in commerce in the US is all the same. I wish someone could discover the "real" version of each, but after all these decades, I seriously doubt it will happen.
Reply #3 of 14 posted 7 MAR 15 by flodur
1. The ARS is not god
2. The rose was bred in France, so the name has to be 'Marquise Boccella', allthough the correct name of the Marquis is Marchese Cesare Boccella.
3. 'Marquise Boccella' and 'Jacques Cartier' are two different roses, you just have to look at them and compare ALL DETAILS!
4. I didn't know. that HMF is now an organisation working for the rose nurseries and no longer dedicated to roses, as it was said on your page in the very beginning.
Reply #4 of 14 posted 7 MAR 15 by Kim Rupert
HMF is not working for the ARS, rose nurseries or anyone else. It is a database which provides historic, "official" information from published references AND the personal experience of those generous enough to share it. What has been experienced here in the US has been shared. What would be wonderful, should you have the ability and desire to do it, since you appear to have access to what may be the original Marchese, is for you to write an article with accompanying photographs of the details, comparing what should be the original and the impostor for the HMF EZine.
Reply #5 of 14 posted 7 MAR 15 by flodur
If that is the case - and I am happy about it - than you should make two roses out of it: 'Marquise Boccella' with the synonyme 'Marchesa Boccella' and 'Jacques Cartier'. It is not necessary to write an article about it. What grows in some gardens in USA is different from what is growing in some gardens in Germany and that is already documented.
Reply #6 of 14 posted 7 MAR 15 by HMF Admin
"HMF is an organization working for rose nurseries" ? And you arrived at this ridiculous and insulting statement based on what exactly?

HMF has been a labor of love for more than a decade with many wonderful people freely giving of their time and energy to help maintain it.
Reply #9 of 14 posted 8 MAR 15 by flodur
Honi soit qui mal y pense!
Reply #7 of 14 posted 7 MAR 15 by Nastarana
It was my understanding, I do not at the moment remember from where, that one of the two had been lost from commerce, and its' name applied to the other.

It would seem that one rose is using both names in North America. If you or someone else in Europe grows or has access to both cultivars, perhaps someone could post pictures of each and give details of provenance?
Reply #10 of 14 posted 1 MAR 16 by true-blue
L'Haÿ (Val de Marne) lists 4 different varieties of Jacques Cartier and one "MARQUISE BOCCELLA".
If you do a search with Jacques Cartier and then click on images you can see all 4.
I'll add a screen capture.

Difference between the two according to them:
JC: Bush size medium, strong fragrance, blooms in flushes, very floriferous
MB-Bush size: big, medium fragrance, always in flower,medium floriferousness
Reply #11 of 14 posted 16 MAR 17 by Andrew from Dolton
So, I've just planted a 'Jacques Cartier' grown by David Austin, do you think it will actually be this rose or 'Marquesa Boccellla'?
Reply #12 of 14 posted 16 MAR 17 by true-blue
It depends where they sourced it.
And it will take several years in order for you to be able establish, which is which, i.e. assuming that the "descriptions" correspond, and i.e. if the descriptions are accurate :-)

Bottom line, what matters most is that you enjoy the rose, regardless its name.
Reply #13 of 14 posted 16 MAR 17 by Andrew from Dolton
Yes that is so very true, they both are beautiful roses and I will post some pictures in a few months when it is in flower. It was grown by David Austin, Austin roses are quite ubiquitous in most garden centres
Reply #14 of 14 posted 17 DEC 20 by Duchesse
I know it's been awhile since your post, but this David Austin question has been on my mind. I see they sell alot of damask looking roses. They are getting a name as David Austin roses. But that company is merely selling some old roses and some of their own new breeding. Jacques Cartier is a very old rose, well before David Austin's time......sheesh.
Reply #15 of 14 posted 17 DEC 20 by Margaret Furness
I think that's a misinterpretation - the Auston nursery/ies sell old and new roses, but don't claim to have bred the old ones.
most recent 24 JUN 19 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 23 JUN 19 by true-blue
Clematis Listing Omission

Clematis Joe zany

You would might to add Clematis 'Joe Zary' bred by Stanley Zubrowski
Reply #1 of 1 posted 24 JUN 19 by jedmar
Added. Thank you for the heads up!
most recent 20 MAY 19 SHOW ALL
Initial post 14 JUL 15 by Patricia Routley
It is feasible that Nancy Lindsay brought back this rose from Persia between 1935-1939. Was she the person who named it 'Pompon des Princes' and did Graham Stuart Thomas rename it 'Ispahan'?
Reply #1 of 6 posted 23 JUL 16 by Hardy
I've read that the book, 'Rosen - die große Enzyklopädie,' states that it was brought to England by Norah Lindsay, but don't have that book, can't vouch for its alleged contents, and wonder about it giving credit to the wrong Lindsay. Google Books informs me that GST mentions it as Ispahan, Rose d'Isfahan, and Pompon des Princes on p. 157 of 'The Old Shrub Roses' (1955), but I gather that no origin is specified there. Since he credits Nancy Lindsay when mentioning Rose de Rescht, Gloire de Guilan, etc., I'd wonder at his not mentioning her in relation to Ispahan.
<edited to update>
Pages 143-8 of GST's 'Cuttings from My Garden Notebook' have much to say about Nancy Lindsay and her roses, and the relevant points I noticed were:
She felt at perfect liberty to name found roses which she could not identify, though all but a few were later identified by others as already known and named cultivars. (I just added a comment at 'Empress Josephine' giving GST's main quote on the subject.)

She was very jealous and protective of her roses, and flew into a rage when she discovered that GST had obtained budwood of them from Kew, as she had let Kew have them only because she had been unable to care for them for a while, and believed she had an agreement that Kew would not share them with anyone. While she didn't feel too strongly about garden cultivars she found in cities, like Rose de Rescht and Gloire de Guilan, she was livid that Rose d'Hivers had been shared. She said that she'd risked her life in the wilds of Persia to get it, and considered it her very personal baby. She also did not consider its name to be final; she said that before Kew shared it, "I ought to have had stock of it first, and had it named and shown it myself... I'd always hoped that my rose would be named after me..." In her rant against Kew, she says she'd agreed "that none would be passed on until they had been named, shown and recorded and I'd given my permission." (GST consequently removed Rose d'Hivers from commerce, and unless Kew still has Sharastanek, her jealous guarding of her roses may have resulted in its extinction.)

All this leads me to believe that the names attached to NL 292 'Ispahan,' NL 465 'Sharastanek,' NL 849 'Rose de Rescht,' NL 1001 'Gloire de Guilan,' and NL 1409 'Rose d'Hivers' were tentative working names. Apparently Rose d'Hivers was supposed to be named 'Nancy Lindsay,' so 'Pompon des Princes' may have been what she finally chose for NL 292. Other than 'Sharastanek,' whose etymology escapes me, all of the names first used are descriptive, i.e., named after the city or province where they were found, or from the fact that Rose d'Hivers was dried for use in winter. I suspect that what we now know as Ispahan may not have had that name (or Pompon des Princes) before the 1940s, and while 'Mogul Temple Rose of Persia' points to the country of origin, I'm left wondering what it was called in Farsi or Arabic before Lindsay collected it and stuck her tag on it. Alas that we seem to have no Iranian rosarians here.
Reply #2 of 6 posted 24 JUL 16 by Patricia Routley
Thank you so much Hardy.
It was Nancy, and not her mother, Norah, who bought back the roses.
We actually have that reference under 'Ispahan' centifolia. As the Ispahan' damask also has references to centifolia, I feel that perhaps these two files should be merged. But I would need to do more homework on this and take any advice.....
I actually found the 1967 and 1974 references (in the damask file) of interest. ....and the 1829 one as well.
Reply #3 of 6 posted 25 JUL 16 by Patricia Routley
No advice forthcoming from anyone, so despite the differences of class in the two files, I have moved any reference of a double rose to the damask 'Ispahan' file, leaving references to a single rose in the centifolia 'Ispahan' file. They are probably the same rose, but I am a little cautious.

Probably the reason that Mr. Thomas did not mention Nancy in relation to 'Ispahan', was that for once, she gave it a responsible name and one that it had been known by beforehand (as well as adding her study number N.L. 292).

Taking a shortcut here - Virginia, does the 1877 p84 reference belong in the single 'Ispahan' centifolia file?
Reply #4 of 6 posted 15 JUN 18 by Hamanasu
Hello, Norah Lindsay wrote of the moss rose of Ispahan as early as 1929. In her article ‘Roses of Long Ago’ she describes it very definitely as being mossed (3 times in a single line): ‘... the moss rose, ‘les roses d’Ispahan dans leurs gaines de mousse’. Those furry buds...’
Also, her daughter Nancy appears to have gone to Persia and brought back roses from there between 1935 and 1939. (This is all based on this source:,%20Allyson%20Hayward,%20Rosa%20Mundi,%20Vol.%2023,%20No.%202,%202009%20-%202010_djvu.txt)
Is it not possible, then, that the centifolia Ispahan was an old moss rose known in France (and to Norah), and different from the the damascena Ispahan known to us, which shows no mossing? And assuming Nancy introduced the damascena Ispahan from Persia, it seems unlikely it was she who named it Ispahan, knowing (as she must have done) that her mother’s favourite rose was a muscosa by the name of Ispahan (Norah described it as ‘the most lovable of all roses’).
As to Sharastanek, could this be Quatre Saisons (or Trigintipetala)? The source mentioned above quotes two descriptions by Nancy, one frome her own catalogue and one from a letter she wrote to Vita Sackville-West. The descriptions diverge in the flower colour they give, but the inconsistency disappears if the catalogue refers to the bud (which can approximate red in quatre saisons) and the letter to the fully open flower (which can fade to pale pink). Otherwise the descriptions seem consistent with Quatre Saisons (grey-green leaves, small clusters of double flowers, delicious and intoxicating scent, etc). The main feature that may give Sharastanek away as Quatre Saisons, though, is the description, in the letter to Vita, of the “lovely pointed buds with long ferny sepals”. (Intriguingly, Nancy also reported to Vita that she found the rose in an area now completely deserted, famed to have once been the place where one of Alexander the Great’s generals settled and built his residence, so that the rose might have been introduced by him; which tallies with the idea that Quatre Saisons has been known since Graeco-Roman times). Also, if Sharastanek is Quatre Saisons, it would explain why Sharastanek has, unlike Lindsay’s other introductions, disappeared from commerce as a distinct variety in its own right. Yes, a lot of speculation, but...
Reply #5 of 6 posted 15 JUN 18 by Andrew from Dolton
Whatever Ms (Nancy) Lindsay says should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Reply #6 of 6 posted 20 MAY 19 by true-blue

According to reference page, it's a name of a valley in Guilan province...

“Another rare and distinct rose is the Persian I found at over 9,000 feet in the boulder-strewn wastes of the Elburz beyond the Sharastanek Valley towards Quilan."
© 2023