HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
jedmar 
-
-
|
Seedling from 'Louise Odier' (see Florist and Pomologist, 1868, p. 251).
The J. Sieckmann catalog of 1886 has it as coming from Pradel, 1865, which is not out of the question, as Pradel was indeed releasing a series of Bourbons in those years; and so, if not established sufficiently enough to warrant a change in attribution, this is at least worthy of a footnote.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
2 days ago by
jedmar
|
We added the reference and a note. Sieckmann seems to have been more a specialist of dahlias than roses.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Ascription of a Bourbon of this name and color and time to Avoux & Crozy is looking to me more and more like an error for a Passiflora of this name and color and time which was indeed exhibited and introduced by Avoux & Crozy (see Horticulteur Français, 1855, p. 260). The white-to-blush rose appears to be not to be a Bourbon but rather Oger's HP of this name and color and just a few years later (see for instance Illustration Horticole, vol. 6, 1859, pp. 289-290).
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
2 days ago by
jedmar
|
Agreed. There is no mention of a rose by this name by Avoux & Crozy before 1885. We are merging the listings.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
How do you recommend siting this rose? One person suggests a fence, but that isn't an option for me. Any other suggestions?
|
REPLY
|
|
I have 'Red Blush', which so far, 2nd year, hasn't grown much at all. You could try it in a pot and see how fast it wants to grow. 'Hamburger Phoenix' also takes 3-4 years to become a climber, before that it was a spreading floribunda. I have not found 'Maiden's Blush' to be a fast grower either, nothing like the semiplena sport family which take off running.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
3 days ago by
jedmar
|
'Morning Blush' grew into a very large shrub resp. climber in our garden. I think it would dislocate the fence. See photos
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
According to Dominique Massad, Le Vésuve in commerce is actually Rosabelle (Bruant, 1899).
See in Bulletin n°25 Automne 2018, Roses Anciennes en France:
"L'ensemble de ces caractères me conduit à privilégier le nom de 'Rosabelle' pour cette variété commercialisée sous la dénomination erronée de 'Le Vésuve'."
He says that Le Vésuve in commerce doesn't ressemble a typical Bengal rose, at least what a Bengal rose would have been at the time (1825), but its habit is more one of a tea.
Any idea, comment, or personnal experience on that matter would be much appreciated!
|
REPLY
|
|
The Tea book authors quote Steen (1966) and Robinson (2001) as questioning the ID of the rose in commerce by this name.
I note, though, that Rosabelle is a climber.
|
REPLY
|
|
Very interesting!
Massad says that Le Vésuve grows up to 3m50, therefore somehow is a climber....
In my climate (zone 5) it is too cold for it to grow well, let alone climb so I cannot have an opinion on this matter.
|
REPLY
|
|
I suppose that raises the question, of whether there are two roses currently being sold as Le Vesuve - one a climber, one not. I don't grow it myself but the two plants I've seen, at Renmark (climate zone 9b, this week in a heatwave to 47C) aren't what I'd call climbers.
|
REPLY
|
|
If by any chance you had a picture....!
|
REPLY
|
|
I'll post a photo of the bush, which is the only one I have taken.
|
REPLY
|
|
I can well believe FDY is an ancestor of the rose sold as Le Vésuve which has a similar wiry growth habit and shape, sharpness and density of prickles seen on Fortune’s Double Yellow.
Photos of Rosabelle (Bruant, 1899) appear to be the same as those of Le Vésuve (Laffay, 1825) and Climbing Le Vésuve on HMF.
Does anyone know whether there is a plant of Rosabelle with an unbroken link to a reliably named old plant, or are we looking at photos of the same foundling with several suggested identities?
I have only seen the rose sold as Le Vésuve grown as a free-standing shrub, where it is either kept to a moderate-sized mound by very regular trimming, or allowed to form a much larger mound of long, prickly canes, interlocked by those vicious prickles. I’ve not seen it grown on a supporting structure to see how tall it grows as a climber.
I believe Dominique Massad's suggestion should be seriously considered.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 13 posted
7 days ago by
jedmar
|
I had been looking at 'Rosabelle' at Tête d'Or (originating from L'Haÿ) in the context that it is a another seedling of Bruant from FDY, beside the lost 'Fée Opale'. FO is a good contender for the false 'Park's Yellow'. PY in commerce matches well the description of FO. It is a vigorous once-blooming climber, with foliage very similar to that of FDY. However, it does not have the nasty spiny prickles of FDY. At the time, I could not come to a conclusion. We should also remember that 'Hermosa' in commerce also has very nasty spines.
|
REPLY
|
|
Intriguing discussion. One problem though; would a seedling of FDY repeat as much as the rose in commerce as Le Vesuve does?
One of its seedling is described as having few prickles!
|
REPLY
|
|
The early refs mention this - running the French text through a translator: eg "..... a truly remontant rose bush. This character is very remarkable, given that it comes from the non-everbearing Yellow Fortune Rose." (Journal of the National Horticultural Society of France,1903) Page 469.)
and, from Horticultural Review Magazine (1900) Page 7 - "Two new sarmentous roses. — M. G. Bruant, horticulturist in Poitiers, to whom we already owe great gains in Roses (Rose Madame Georges Bruant, Rosa calocarpa, etc.), has just obtained two remarkable new features. Both will be put on sale. They come from the exquisite yellow Fortune’s Double Yellow, fertilized by various varieties of teas.
One of these Roses has a pearly white background, a yellowish center, and flesh pink edges. She will be called Fée Opale.
The other, with flowers in bouquets, light pink with salmon reflections, will be called Rosabelle. It is remontant, while the first is not."
|
REPLY
|
|
I absolutely agree that 'Fée Opale' seems right for the false Parks' Yellow and hope there will be a smoking gun to provide the final piece of evidence.
Jedmar - do you have access to any information regarding the provenance of L'Hay's Rosabelle?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#11 of 13 posted
6 days ago by
jedmar
|
'Rosabelle' is listed in Gravereaux's first catalogue of 1900. The catalogue card in the archives is also of the period up to 1910 or so. The same with 'Fée Opale'. So there is a good chance that they were both planted immediately after Bruant commercialized it. 'Rosabelle' is still there, 'Fée Opale' not.
We can also find both in the catalogue of Bagatelle of 1912, where they were apparently planted side by side.
|
REPLY
|
|
Do you think the plant of Rosabelle growing at L'Hay dates back to that time Jedmar?
Thanks very much for that early Journal des Roses reference. Most of that description would describe the rose sold as Le Vésuve very accurately but the concluding remarks about certain features of Fortune's Double Yellow being less evident in Rosabelle gave me pause:
"Dans cette variété, l'influence du père (le rosier thé) s'est fait plus sentir; la vigueur est encore considerable, mais les caractères extérieurs de la mère, bois, feuillage, épines, se manifestant avec moins d'apparence."
(In this variety the influence of the Tea rose father can be felt more, its vigour is again considerable, but the exterior characteristics of the mother, wood, foliage, prickles, are less evident.)
If Rosabelle is/was viciously prickly like Fortune's Double Yellow, do you think the breeder might have mentioned it here? An oversight or a reason to back away from this identification?
Prickliness is something that is most evident to the hands-on gardener, and in earlier times many rosarians had gardeners to do the hands-on work while they took care of the eyes-on side of things. The prickles of Le Vésuve are sharp and sneaky, with many concealed beneath the leaves, but.....
I'd love to hear what others make of this.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#13 of 13 posted
6 days ago by
jedmar
|
After more than 120 years, I doubt that it is the original plant. However, comparison of the L'Haÿ plan of 1902 with the current one reveals that Noisettes, which include 'Rosabelle' at L'Haÿ, are still in the same location within the garden (section 33 of 1902). I hope Dominique Massad sees this thread and comments on it.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
