|
'Paul Ricault' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
I have added a note [*It is believed that 'Paul Ricault' sets no hips] to the 1986 reference. Am I correct in that assumption? I note that there are no descendants for 'Paul Ricault'.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
There are a couple of glitches in the ‘Paul Ricault’ references: Macoboy, 1993 reference (and Susan Irvine, 1996 possibly copying) said ‘Paul Ricault’ had “relatively few thorns”.
And I wonder was Peter Beales, when he said “repeat flowering” (1992 ref), confusing ‘Paul Ricault’ with ‘Mme. Isaac Periere’
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Available from - Karl Otto Schütt www.historische-rosen-schuett.de
|
REPLY
|
-
-
On rating this rose I had to rate its bloom frequency as good for the following reasons. Although it blooms only in the Spring (in the Pacific Northwest from the very last of May to the last of June), the waves of blooms through that period are simply magnificent. It is not uncommon to have hundreds of blooms in an average year regardless of the wet weather and, easily, in a drier, warmer Spring, perhaps closer to a thousand over the month of blooming. A really great old rose, that demands respect with its thorny habit, often mistakenly called a "cabbage rose" by older visitors, even though it is not generally considered by the experts to be a Centifolia. Although the stems are usually short, a single cut rose will perfume an entire room. Consequently, a bouquet of this rose will overwhelm anyone entering the room with its fragrance. If you have the room (grows well along a tall fence) and the determination to fight its vigor and thorns, it will reward you with glorious landslides of saucer sized, highy fragrant blooms. Its enormous month long bloom makes up for its single Spring bloom.
|
REPLY
|
I agree with you, Phillip. I think more people should grow the once blooming roses for the long lasting show that they put on. Gorgeous!!
|
REPLY
|
|