HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Madame Ferdinand Jamin' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
I note that no one refers to 'Mme. Ferdinand Jamin' as being floriferous or a perpetual bloomer; but immediately upon its introduction and thereafter 'American Beauty' is cited as having that distinction.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
“I am one that does not believe that 'American Beauty’ and ‘Mad. Ferdinand Jamain’ [sic] are one and the same. I remember the latter rose distinctly when I was with Ellwanger & Barry. This firm plants all hybrid perpetual roses outside in nursery rows, and if there is any place where we can see the characteristics of roses, it is in the nursery rows, where you can see so many of each variety together. All I noted in ‘Mad. Ferdinand Jamain’ which is similar to our Beauty was its fragrance. The habit of growth and its free blooming qualities are altogether different from ‘American Beauty’. I believe that ‘American Beauty’ belongs to this side of the great waters, and is a true American. Chester, Pa. D.T. Connor.” [American Florist, vol. 3, 1887, p. 111]
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
"Mr. Burton proposed a bumper to 'American Beauty, the best rose that has ever been introduced,' coupling it with the firm of George Field & Bro., of Washington, D.C., to whom belongs the credit of discovering its good qualities, and called upon Robert Craig to respond. Mr. Craig did so in his usual happy style, and related among other things, that one morning about four years ago he received a rose from Washington, which was a revelation to him; the flowers were large, of good color, with long stems and deliciously fragrant. The following morning he received letters from John N. May and Ernest Asmus, both of which stated in effect that there was a fine rose at Washington, and asking for a date to be named when it would be convenient to go and see it growing. Nearly everybody in the business is familiar with the subsequent history of the Beauty," American Florist, vol. 4, 1889, p. 388.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 6 posted
21 FEB by
 Lee H.
|
I sense, with your recent posts, a case being built to divorce ‘American Beauty’ from 'Mme. Ferdinand Jamin‘.
|
REPLY
|
|
Who, me? ;-)
Yes. First off, in the origin story involving J. Cook, Field, and so on, we are not dealing with rascally people. These were, before and after, respected horticulturists/florists, established in their professions, who had too much to lose from trying to palm off some ringer which, if it were a fake, they would have known would be detected as such within a short amount of time, and who moreover were never connected with any such shenanigans before or after. Cook is well known for his distinguished place in American horticulture of the time; less known is that Field had been the gardener for the White House during two administrations, and was an honored member in the floral industry through his death in 1925. I believe that this is a case of roses which were largely lookalikes, and perhaps exacerbated by some fly-by-night sellers unable to obtain the original stock of 'American Beauty' (or unable to afford it) propagating and selling 'Mme. Ferdinand Jamin' as 'American Beauty', to profit by the interest in it, and so the two became mixed in commerce. The kind of skulduggery which people trying to spice things up like to imagine takes place throughout commerce always by everyone really has rarely if ever been found in connection with established horticulturists who had long careers. I believe it would be prudent, whichever side of the question one is on, for 'American Beauty' and 'Mme. Ferdinand Jamin' to have separate listings, "pending developments."
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 6 posted
21 FEB by
jedmar
|
Very difficult to separate them unless some genetic analysis can establish that there are two distinct roses in existence.
|
REPLY
|
|
The existence of one rose or two roses today has nothing to do with whether in the past there were two separate roses. We're talking about separating HMF entries for them, not separating roses currently existing.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 6 posted
22 FEB by
jedmar
|
That is not so easy. To which listing do we assign photos, gardens, nurseries?
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly--it's not an easy matter to undertake, as, due to the confusion, it's not clear what is what. At the very least--and I think this is only being fair to both sides of the question--I suggest that HMF include a statement on the description page of the combined entry that, "It continues to be debated, with responsible parties on each side, whether 'American Beauty' and 'Mme. Ferdinand Jamin' were originally separate roses or not. Adding further difficulty is that, if they were originally separate, the two may have become mixed in commerce such that those comparing them may not in fact have proper representatives of the two roses to review."
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
“Some years ago a hue and cry went up about 'consumption' among the roses grown for cut flowers in winter, but since cultural methods have been improved we hear no such complaints. We will go further and say that apparently the roses now grown seem to have a stronger constitution than they did when they were first introduced. I have in mind, particularly, American Beauty. There were never finer flowers of this standard variety in Philadelphia at Christmas time than there were last Christmas, and I feel safe in saying they were cut from the very stock originally received from George Field & Brother, of Washington, D.C., in the early eighties, no change of stock being deemed necessary nowadays,” American Florist, vol. 21, 1904, p. 974.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
