HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
-
-
|
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
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
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: https://archive.org/stream/TheRosesOfNorahNancyLindsayAllysonHaywardRosaMundiVol.23No.220092010/The%20Roses%20of%20Norah%20&%20Nancy%20Lindsay,%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
|
|
Whatever Ms (Nancy) Lindsay says should be taken with a pinch of salt.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hardy,
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."
https://www.helpmefind.com/gardening/l.php?l=2.65229&tab=7
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
2 DEC 15 by
Inde
|
Is anyone growing this rose in warm climates? I wish to grow it in Delhi( India). Our climate would be similar to zone 10 b of the US. The winter low is 2°C.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 9 posted
14 JAN 16 by
drcy1111
|
I have Rose De Rescht in my garden in Arizona. Our summers reach 113 deg. fahrenheit and our winters can fall below 32 deg. farhrenheit. It does very well. Its a small rounded bush with small flowers that seem to bloom in waves. I have not had problems with any diseases.
|
REPLY
|
|
I had what I believe was 'Rose de Rescht' in the CA Central Valley, zone 9 hot and dry. It was sold as 'Ville de Bruxelles', which it clearly was not. What I had was very like what is described above for Arizona, a compact, rounded bush which bloomed in waves all summer. It did need some irrigation during the dry months of July and August, but so do most HTs.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 9 posted
9 JAN 17 by
Inde
|
Thank you for beep lying Nastrana. It flowers for me throughout the mild months. It isn't a nervous bloomer. But I Thu no it needs tine to settle.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think your computer has been filling in what it thought you wanted to write, and that what you meant was "replying".
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 9 posted
1 MAY 17 by
Gdisaz10
|
My climate is really hot damp and it is sometimes subject to rust and blackspot
|
REPLY
|
|
It grows very well on acid loam flowering well in early summer then a few later on in September. In my damp cool climate it is healthy with only a smattering of blackspot.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 9 posted
1 MAY 17 by
 Jay-Jay
|
It grows well on alkaline loam too and repeats several times. But my climate isn't hot.
It seems to grow well/flourish in Turkey.
|
REPLY
|
|
Well if it actually did come from Iran as Ms Lindsay claimed then it must love hot and dry.
|
REPLY
|
|
Resht, or Rasht is actually not hot and dry but hot and humid :-)
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Soupert & Notting 1909-10 catalogue p.23
Francis Dubreuil (Dubreuil 1895) cramoisi pourpré velouté, reflets cerise et amarante, fl.tr.gr......vig.
(crimson, velvet purple, cherry and amaranth reflexes, very big flower, vigorous.)
|
REPLY
|
|
Bob, you wonderful Canadian...
Is there any possibility that you could get your hands (or eyes) on a copy of the 1914 Annual of the Rose Society of Ontario? There is a color photo of a bouquet containing 'Francis Dubreuil' along with four other roses.
There is an online scan at Biodiversity Heritage Library, but the photo is blurry and leaves much to be desired.
I hope you are well,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
Wow what a find!
Unfortunately I can't have any access to that.
But if it's any consolation, I doubt if the original copy would be any better.
I tried to extract the image but it's blurry as you said....
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks, Bob- I thought you might have a "magic source", so I delayed posted that photo until I knew you didn't. You're probably right that the photo's likely to be blurry in all of the annuals.
I think I've mentioned this before, but my favorite candidate for the real 'Francis Dubreuil' is the Aussie foundling, "Kombacy Elyena". A lot of similarities (at least I think so), including some controversy over fragrance.
Cheers,
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
|
No more magic source.
I checked Kombacy Elyena. Intriguing rose, though the size doesn't seem to correspond to the six feet or more height, if memory serves me right....
|
REPLY
|
|
I've added a comment under "K E".
|
REPLY
|
|
Which of these roses do you think is 'Francis Dubreuil', and which 'General MacArthur'?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 16 posted
14 JUN 18 by
HubertG
|
I think 'Francis Dubreuil' is the sole dark red rose at the bottom. The flower amongst the white ones could be General MacArthur, or perhaps a Chatenay which is a bit in shadow as it looks a bit dark pink and scrolled, but I don't think it's FD. It would be a hand coloured photo, so the value is in the form more so than the colour. What do others think?
|
REPLY
|
|
That's my opinion also. I think the only 'Francis Dubreuiul' bloom is the lower, deeper coloured one.
General MacArthur tends to open like the red rose on the right, with the central petals standing up while the outer petals reflex so that for a time there is this separation between the central and outer petals.
|
REPLY
|
|
from The 1914 Annual of the Rose Society of Ontario, p. 31:
"The Lumiere Plates
The heartiest thanks of the Society are due to Sir Edmund Osier, M.P., and to Mr. J. T. Moore of Moore Park, for their great kindness in allowing Mr. Freemantle, who prepared the slides, to show the lovely lumieres or sun-taken color photographs of flowers grown by Mr. Allan in Sir Edmund's conservatory at Craigleigh, and of roses grown by Mr. Bryson at Moore Park. They elicited the warmest admiration and were shown by request on more than one occasion. By the kindness and generosity of Mr. Moore, four of those in his possession appear in this Annual. This intricate and wonderful process was exemplified in its highest development by Mr. Freemantle's skill and the flowers were most realistic in the truth of their colors, painted by Nature herself. We have gone far in photographing in natural colors, and Mr. Freemantle has brought the art to something undreamed of only a few years ago."
About Lumieres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochrome_Lumière
These were color photographs, and it seems that the color reproduction was very good. There may have been some color "touch-ups" by the photo-engravers for the purpose of publication, however.
I agree that the dark red bloom near the bottom is 'Francis Dubreuil', and am on the fence about the bloom surrounded (and obscured) by the white roses.
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#11 of 16 posted
14 JUN 18 by
HubertG
|
That's fascinating about the Lumiere slides. Imagine if there were still more of those slides in the possession of one of the families of those mentioned, and there was a cache of Francis Dubreuil ones.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#12 of 16 posted
5 JUL 18 by
HubertG
|
I've found and posted a couple of illustrations of 'Francis Dubreuil' from the Dingee catalogues.
Here's the description from the 1898 'New Guide to Rose Culture' which accompanies the illustration.
"Novelties in Roses.
... Francois Dubreuil. This is a grand new variety of great merit. The flowers are unusually large, double and full, and in color are deep vivid crimson, with rich velvety shadings. The buds are large, long and pointed; splendid for cutting. It is a strong, vigorous grower and a free continuous bloomer. Fine for open-ground work."
|
REPLY
|
|
It's funny how the drawings are so different......
|
REPLY
|
|
Hubert, I enlarged your uploaded photos. Hope you don't mind. Great job!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#15 of 16 posted
6 JUL 18 by
HubertG
|
True-Blue, no not at all, looks good. Just looking at these Dingee catalogue illustrations the consistent characteristic is the slightly recurving petal edges; and they aren't as long-budded as the Rosen-Zeitung painting makes out. This recurving matches the Garden Illustrated 1906 photo, but less so the Betten engraving. I've come to appreciate these hokey little catalogue drawings more and more, because even if they aren't 'naturalistic', they are useful if you look at them in context and compare them to other illustrations of the same type.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I can finally see :-)
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Another one:
FRANK CANT & Co. 1897 - Colchester, UK
We devote our whole time and attention to the cultiva- tion of Roses, and therefore can give better value for money than any other firm. We make a special study of all kinds of stocks on which Roses are worked, and are prepared to give our customers the advantage of our experience.
The Summer of 1897 having been so exceedingly dry here, the new Roses of 1895 and 1896 have not been seen at their best, but we have seen fine flowers of the following sorts, and we strongly recommend them :
Charlotte Gillemot, H.T.
Francis Dubreuil, T.
Hellen Keller, H.P.
Mad.AbelChatenay,H.T.
Marjorie, H.T.
Mrs. W. J. Grant, H.T.
Princess Bonnie, H.T.
Tom Wood, H.P.
Souv. de Mad. Eugenie Verdier. H.T.
Souv. de President Carnot, H.T.
Sylph, T.
Same catalogue, page 14
Francis Dubreuil (T.), {Dubreuil, 1895), very vigorous; flowering abundantly; flowers large, beautiful in the bud ; colour velvety crimson; Habit of Growth, free.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks True Blue. Reference added.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
