HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Caramella' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Available from - Neither Angel Gardens nor Bierkreek sell the 1987 Kordes HT;
They sell the 2001 Kordes shrub by the same name.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Reply
#1 of 0 posted
30 AUG 09 by
 jedmar
-
-
|
Two different roses are shown here. I suspect one is the newer shrub Caramella, aka Caramel Fairy Tale and the high-centered one is the 1986 HT. Both beautiful; Kordes is so good with this range of color!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 9 posted
2 SEP 08 by
Unregistered Guest
|
IF any of the photos pictured is the 1987 Caramella, it's the one showing 2 roses on a black background.
|
REPLY
|
|
I am looking at the single bloom with the pinpoint center and typical HT form on a dark-green background. I think that's Caramella. I'll send a message to Lyn about our discussion here. The pair of roses on the black background was taken by a grower who is in high desert; cold nights may have produced that intense color. The form on that one looks like the shrub rose to me. Roses Unlimited sells both roses and may also be able to help straighten this out.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 9 posted
3 SEP 08 by
Unregistered Guest
|
The long-lasting blooms of the original 'Caramella' (the '86 HT) , open with a rather intense color that I think of as 'persimmon'. The color then gradually fades to a silvery pink that's reminiscent of 'Memorial Day' at its peak -- a color display that, from start to finish, is quite unique. The blooms are large with good substance & lots of petals, but they do NOT have tight, high centers.
There's been much confusion surrounding this rose since Kordes decided to use the name again when it issued the 2001 shrub rose (which I also grow). I've worked with HMF, Hortico and Ashdown to make corrections on the list of sources for the original 'Caramella', but the photos here are another matter. In my opinion, Cliff's photo (black background) is the only one that might be the HT. It appears to me that the other photos are a mix of 'Caramel Fairy Tale' (aka 'Caramella') AND 'Caramel Antike'. All three are Kordes introductions.
Confusion seems to have surrounded 'Caramella' since its introduction 20+ yrs ago. As far as I've been able to determine, the rose was introduced into the US by Wayside who, inexplicably, identified the hybridizer as MEILLAND (a mistake that persists on Pat Henry's alphabetical list at Roses Unlimited). At this point, it looks as tho RU is the SOLE source on the planet for Caramella '86. Too bad, 'cause it's a wonderful rose. I've got more info on the rose, but I suppose I've already said far more than anyone cares to know . . . ;)
|
REPLY
|
|
Dear anonymous, it would be helpful to know what city/state/zone you're growing the HT Caramella in. The persimmon color sounds yummy, but here in the coastal South colors often are much different than up north. I wish all posters of photos on hmf would indicate where the photo was taken!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 9 posted
4 SEP 08 by
Unregistered Guest
|
I now garden in coastal Carolina, but first grew 'Caramella' in Wash., DC back in the day (pre-2001) when there was only 1 rose by that name.
Regarding Helga K's photo of the bloom with the pinpoint center that you believe to be the HT . . . Just preceding that photo is a second one submitted by the same photographer. Judging by the placement/developmental stages of the 2 buds in the backgrounds of both, I believe those photos show the very same bloom taken on separate days. If I'm wrong abt that, I have to assume that the 2 roses are at least of the same variety, & probably grew on the same plant. Neither of the photos comes close to depicting the rose I've been growing as the HT 'Caramella'. Perhaps climatic factors could produce variations so dramatic that this uniquely colored rose would be virtually unrecognizable from one zone to another, but I doubt it. Anyway -- it's all frustrating, fascinating, even kind of fun (in a perverse sort of way).
I wonder why Kordes, over the years, has insisted on using certain names again and again. There must be some rational explanation, but their penchant for doing so is the source of considerable confusion for many of us . . .
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 9 posted
4 SEP 08 by
digger
|
I find stories like yours very interesting. I'm sure I am not the only one that does. Thank you for posting it.
Dave
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 9 posted
4 SEP 08 by
Unregistered Guest
|
I tend to obsess over things like this, so am relieved to learn that at least 1 person found my rant interesting . . .
Now that I've praised 'Caramella 86' & drawn attention to the fact that it's available from only 1 source, I feel I've an obligation to mention the unfortunate fact that the own-root plant in my present garden is virused. I grew this rose for 3 or 4 years before unmistakable RMV symptoms appeared for the first time in 2006. Since then, symptoms have not returned, but I now know for certain that the plant is infected & that it's only a matter of time before the evidence will resurface. Thus far, the plant's vigor appears normal & bloom production remains high. I grew Caramella for a number of years in a previous garden & do not recall ever encountering signs of RMV -- which, of course, does not mean that the plant was definitely not virused. For what it's worth, I'm almost certain that my first plant was grafted.
If there are uninfected plants now in private gardens, I'm hoping their owners will learn of this situation & provide cuttings to 1 or more of the own-root nurseries. It would be unfortunate if this fine rose were lost. Even with the virus, I continue to encourage people to grow this rose. 'Caramella' is one of a handful of rarities that I grow in spite of their RMV+ status.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 9 posted
7 SEP 08 by
digger
|
I figure all of our roses (and all I have grown the past 45 years) have RMV except for the miniatures. I refuse to worry about it. If I had my druthers.... all would be RMV free but since I don't, I just grow the ones we have and are happy with them. I still like grafted roses. I don't have the time or inclination to find out which own root plants like our soil. Dr Huey gives us a good baseline to start roses with. Hopefully, the roses eventually go own root and we have the best of both worlds.
Good luck getting this rose virus free to nurseries. Just because I don't worry about RMV doesn't mean I want roses to stay infected. Hopefully, my grandchildren won't have to deal with it.
Dave
|
REPLY
|
|
If a seedling has been tested by being grafted to virused root stock all of the roses that finally make it to the market, whether own-root or not, will be virused. For example all of the Buck roses are virused, but many of these roses have survived for years and manage to perform well in gardens in spite of being virused. Many nurseries offer own-root Buck roses, but even those roses are virused because all of the original stock was budded to virused root stock.
The roses that cannot survive with the virus have dropped out of the market.
That said, some plants of a given rose are worse than others of the same variety and you can just replace the rose with a different plant.
I, too, appreciated all efforts to clean up the root stock, but virused root stock has been around since the 1930's. It's a major task to clean up the root stock roses are tested on and which is used to graft roses.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
