HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Site ChangesPhotosPlant IntroductionsReviews & CommentsMember JournalsPlantsPlant References 
Recent Member Comments, Questions and Answers
most recent yesterday SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 31 DEC 12 by goncmg
Here's another one in my favorite color and from my favorite late mid-century time specialty.........as time pulls away from 1973 when this one took home an AARS, this one actually looks "better" now than it did then. In 1973, BIG BLOOMS and EXHIBITION FORM were the buzz words and on those terms Gypsy was a flop for the blooms are not huge and they sure are not formal. They are scalloped and the color is somewhere between Chinese Red and Oxblood Red and that color was already trending out/over-introduced by 1973. The plant is a little under-foliaged but the disease resistance is pretty good. Just so many of this color back in those days, this one, again came late and in my opinion, although "above average" should not have won the AARS in 1973 but had it been introduced even a few years earlier would have been much better received. Most assuredly is NOT the "joke" it was titled all those years ago...........and of interest to anyone who "likes" the color, or the era and/or the "sociological" aspect of rose marketing and how sometimes just being a little "ahead" gets a variety extremely far whereas being just a little "behind" deems the variety, well, a "joke" as per above............
REPLY
Reply #1 of 6 posted 15 MAR 14 by Michael Garhart
The rating is absurd, but most ratings are. This rose grows like a weed for an older large-flowered rose. And unlike Tropicana, it doesn't have white foliage. Go figure. It is virtually scentless here, but its so easy to grow and maintain that it really does not matter that much. Prune, water, grow, and cut for inside. A simple rose with a lot of color.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 6 posted 23 JUL 15 by Michael Garhart
Well, this oldie produced some nice seedlings. My friend LOVES this rose, and I told him I would germinate ANYTHING he tried. And, well, the seedlings are nice. This rose is sorely overlooked.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 6 posted 25 JUL 15 by goncmg
I still don't have it and will try harder in 2016. May end up getting wood from Davis as Roses Unlimited never stocks it and I truly DO prefer budded. I also adore the variety and miss it sorely. Heck, I finally grow Candy Apple and have Cancun but still not Gypsy. Not since 2004 when I pulled a sad one out of a bin at Lowe's and it turned out to be the real deal (and I ended up moving out of that city, that condo, and left it). Michael: what types of seedlings did it produce? With what other parents? As Mom or Dad? I would love to know, please share!!!
REPLY
Reply #4 of 6 posted 25 JUL 15 by Michael Garhart
He was using Impatient, even though I told him not to, lol. He likes it. I think its a BS birds nest of prickles.

Gypsy was highly dominant in color, form, substance, stems, and prickles.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 6 posted 25 JUL 15 by Michael Garhart
Part of Gypsy's appeal, other than good vigor, substance, and "general health", is that there are so few large-flowered roses in this color. Most of them are miniatures, floribundas, or "flora-tea" types.

Uwe Seeler comes to mind. Fragrant Cloud is this color, but only when it is very cool out, and only for one day. Then it turns all sorts of odd tones. And then there is a very short list of others. And many of them are really mildew-prone, such as Holsteinperle, Lady Rose, and so on.

I think Uwe Seeler is the best of these, but it never became popular, probably because of the awkward name. It is mesmerizing to look at. A plant like Queen Elizabeth, but with more aesthetic foliage and bloom form.

But Gypsy is highly available, easy to grow, and the blooms are huge, sometimes 7" in the spring.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 6 posted yesterday by Bug_girl
I rooted mine easily from a cutting I took last fall from an old rose garden that was being torn out and redone. I actually have 2. It looks like it will be a nice rose. Budwood seems rather complicated for what I am willing to do.
REPLY
most recent yesterday SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 10 days ago by Hamanasu
This rose has been in constant production for a month. We’ve been having unusually warm temperatures by British standards, so that may be the reason, but I’m impressed, much more so that, judging by the canes it’s been producing, with many buds per stem, the best is yet to come. I have been puzzling over how to describe the scent, which is sweet, deep, and vaguely fermented in the best possible way, without any tart notes at all. Charles Quest Ritson describes it as fruity and musky, but I don’t get the fruity notes and am not sure I have yet figured out what the musk scent exactly is (though I occasionally use the word myself to describe scents similar to Golden Jubilee’s!)... I think I finally found a way to pin down the fragrance of this rose: years ago I grew, for a single season, philadelphus delavayi melanocalyx, or it may have been p. purpurascens (closely allied). I had to get rid of it because it grew far too fast and too large for my patio. Golden Jubilee’s scent, though less intense, shares the same quality as the distinctive fragrance of this p. delavayi/purpurascens (which, by the by, smells nothing like other mock oranges)
REPLY
Reply #1 of 1 posted yesterday by Hamanasu
New basal shoots were produced during the first flush of flowers and are now starting to bloom themselves, with a large cluster of flowers at the end. The scent on these is more pronounced and has, mixed with the musk of philadelphus delavayii, a distinctive note of latex present in some other roses (such as Warrawee) and flowers (magnolia laevifolia). It smells much better than it sounds!
REPLY
most recent yesterday SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 15 MAR 10 by kev
again the picture here does not fit the rose described .the rose is a white/pale pink. the picture here is that of a bright rose pink type there are so many like this here. that i doubt the professional objectivity and research savy of those who built this site. to say the least i am disapointed.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 6 posted 15 MAR 10 by Jeff Britt
I believe that the photo is one of a plant sold as or labeled as Madame Dubost. You will note on the description page that the roses photographed may have a different identity. HMF actually HELPS identify roses mislabeled in commerce or public gardens. There are many old 19th century roses in collection and commercial nurseries with incorrect names. Most people here recognize this. Just the same, until the plant is correctly identified, isn't it better to identify it as it is sold or seen? What else should we call the photographed rose? If you have any better ideas, please offer them. The point is to confuse as few people as possible while working to correctly identify old roses. And this site had done much to accomplish that.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 6 posted 15 MAR 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
Here here!

HMF is the most comprehensive and up to date collection of rose information ever assembled, most FREE to the public.

Many roses exist mis-labeled in old collections and arboretums as seems to be the case here.

We're all doing our best to make heads or tails of the information being presented. It is through the generous efforts of those donating time and energy that the site exists at all.

It's very easy to criticize and much more difficult to be constructive in terms of making the information presented as accurate as possible.

Much thanks to all involved.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 6 posted 15 MAR 10 by Cass
Thanks for the votes of confidence. There's nothing like criticism to motivate us to find more old rose references. In this case, those references disclose a range of color descriptions from dark bright pink to pinkish white with bright pink center. Somehow, over time, those descriptions have been distilled to two words: "light pink." Two similar rose names further complicate the task. After reviewing contemporaneous sources, I do not share the the anonymous poster's certitude that the color of this rose is pale pink.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 6 posted 15 MAR 10 by jedmar
It seems that you have not fully understood the nature of HMF. Photos can be posted by every member, References by administrators. It happens that photos are not in line with the descriptions. This can be an indication that the rose in commerce or in gardens is incorrectly identified. The following process of comparison and discussion leads to better insights.

I also believe it would be more honest to have your criticisms posted under your name, and not anonymously.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 6 posted 5 APR 21 by Michael Garhart
HMF is a volunteer system, which means you can also add insight. It improves year by year. When I first joined HMF, when it was new, the only other thing that existed were a few small online listings and places like bulbnrose. I joined HMF when it was new, and I have contributed to it every year. Many of us have. It's a mostly selfless act. You should too :D The more accurate, the better.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 6 posted yesterday by johnm99
Stumbled upon this just now. HMF is a truly astonishing phenomenon. There is an unbelievable amount of information here, and I use it almost every day. Some of the major contributors have devoted so much time and effort to this it is hard to believe! Being an open system anyone can post anything - but the number of errors is a minute percentage. Just amazing.
kev - if you are still there - you should apologize.....
Thank you for all your work, contributors. I really enjoy it!
REPLY
most recent 2 days ago HIDE POSTS
 
Initial post 2 days ago by Louis Galarneau
I had two beautiful one and lost the two of them this year from dye back ! " Did this happen to someone else with that rose ?
REPLY
© 2025 HelpMeFind.com