HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Mrs. Herbert Stevens' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
'Mrs Herbert Stevens' is worrying me.
The parentage was said to be 'Frau Karl Druschki' x a dilution of Niphetos (refer 1922 reference). Does the rose we all grow look as though it had a bit of 'Frau Karl Druschki' in it? Not to me, but it is possible. (It is of interest to look at the 1905 and 1910 photos of 'Frau Karl Druschki', noting the foliage and thorns.)
What really concerns me is that one would expect photographs of a 1910 rose to pop up, but there is only one older photo (1913) of 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' in our files.
On the other hand, we have 1882, 1889, 1894, 1894, 1903 and 1912 photos of 'Niphetos', three of which look like the rose we all grow.
As early as 1912, there is a reference which said the long pointed bud of 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' was like 'Niphetos'. It is on the (my) cards that we all may have been growing 'Niphetos' for the past 106 years and calling it ' Mrs. Herbert Stevens'.
|
REPLY
|
|
It's an interesting question Patricia and you are right that we need more early photos of 'Mrs Herbert Stevens'.
I've found two more and have uploaded them - one the shrub and the other the climber.
It's surprising that there aren't many more photos of such a popular rose - I'll add more if I find them.
I've never had difficulty believing that 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' came from 'Frau Karl Druschki' because the foliage of both roses begin to yellow when they are hungry - usually at exactly the same time here and before any other roses begin to complain. They are my coalmine canaries.
On your question of whether the rose we know as 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' might actually be 'Niphetos', I agree that there are some odd colour descriptions for what are essentially white roses, and when sorting through the references, there are a lot of words but a frustrating absence of detailed description of both roses.
That 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' is correctly identified is supported by the fact that it has been in commerce continuously since its introduction, and well known by nurserymen, florists and gardeners. There are widespread examples of old plants that still have their names and people who know the rose well, having worked with it for many years.
Hillary may have more to add to this as she has done a lot of work on this question in the past.
|
REPLY
|
|
A very quick answer Billy.
Karl uploaded that close-up photo from H. H. Thomas in 2012. To me, it doesn’t really look like my puffy nodding bloom, but rather an stiffly upright hybrid tea bloom.
And while the distance photo is stunning, I am not sure that this 1939 photo could be used to distinguish minor features of a 1910 rose.
Rushing here, but I can only say that “something” has been continually in commerce for a long time. Let's search on.
Patricia
|
REPLY
|
|
Some of the features mentioned in the 'Niphetos' refs can be seen in the rose we know as 'Mrs Herbert Stevens', eg the large outer petals, but I don't think we can make the descriptions of 'Niphetos' fit the rose we know as 'Mrs Herbert Stevens'.
References to 'Niphetos' consistently mention 'full' and 'double' blooms and more than one writer considered the prickly stems and impressive curved prickles worth comment. ("The thorns are solitary, much recurved, and very thick." Journal des Roses 1880; "The ‘Bridal Rose’ ['Niphetos'] is not easy to arrange; her drooping, delicate Victorian graces, to say nothing of her viciously curved thorns, militate against you. It is best to take off the thorns, certainly those at the base of the stem, before you begin." Constance Spry 1959)
The bloom of 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' is not full, even in cold weather. It is barely double - semi-double at times, and its modest prickles are downward-pointing but not hooked.
|
REPLY
|
|
The description for 'Niphetos' in the 1836 reference "outer petals large, those in the center narrow and look as if crumpled, (ragged, irregular)" seems to match Constance Spry's 1959 photo. So that trait and "thorns very thick" from the 1880 reference (thanks for addding that one Billy), are two excellent ways to distinguish between the double 'Niphetos' - and the semi-double to barely-double 'Mrs Herbert Stevens'.
My doubts are much eased and I must say it is an absolute pleasure to read the early references for 'Niphetos'' with my early morning cup of tea. Thanks again Billy.
|
REPLY
|
|
You're welcome Patricia. I spent much of the night trawling through Trove, looking for extra photos of 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' and there are some - have taken grainy screen shots and will trim and tidy them up and get them loaded here asap.
Not sure how very helpful they are as, apart from being grainy scans of newspapers, the photos are invariably of blooms staged for exhibition, so in all likelihood wired to hold them upright and best bloom ever produced. One appears in a photo next to a completely erect 'Mrs Foley Hobbs', infamous for looking down at the muck, so we know that one, at least, is wired.
There are thousands of mentions of 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' in Australian newspapers - many in relation to The Argus and other plebiscites. Hundreds of letters to the Ed listing it as a favourite and hundreds complaining when it fell off the lists of 'best 12'. Many of the references simply list it among the prize winners in various shows.
Most people seemed to love its whiteness. The references that suggest it was a less than white rose are curious. They're there near the time of its introduction, but don't persist. Looked at closely, most roses, including 'Mrs Herbert Stevens', have subtle colour variations - yellow near the petal nubs, carmine spots and streaks after cold weather, greenish or yellowish or blush tinges in the bud, especially where the sun first strikes the outer petals as the sepals part. Since most people prized 'Mrs Herbert Stevens' for its whiteness and its generosity of bloom over a long season, I wonder whether those early refs were simply noting these small variations. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
|
REPLY
|
|
My thoughts, in my 2008 reference for 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens Cl.', were:
"My roses are nearly pure white, but some authors note a fawn or green shading to the centre, which I have not really observed".
Billy, please don't spend nights searching. Nights are for sleeping!
Patricia
|
REPLY
|
|
We are all growing Mrs. Herbert Stevens as an own root plant. Grafted / Budded performance may be similar to older pictures.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
28 MAY 18
|
* This post deleted by user *
|
|
|
.....where she could climb its way to full sun
You might just have 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens Climbing.' 1922, and not 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens' 1910.
|
REPLY
|
|
Oh crap, posted photos to the wrong page :) Yes ofc I have a climbing one, just did not pay attention when uploading :) Will repost at the correct one. :)
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Regarding the parentage of Mrs Herbert Stevens, I remember reading years ago that when it was first introduced it was described by one commentator as looking like a cross between Frau Karl Druschki and Niphetos. When the breeder was asked what the parentage was he said that is was a complex series of crosses which included Niphetos, but not with it as an actual parent. I'm paraphrasing here because I can't remember where I read this, and I can't see it in the references section. I think the FKD x Niphetos label is probably someone's guess that has simply then been recorded as a 'fact'. An actual cross between the fertile FKD and Niphetos is likely to produce triploid offspring. I don't know the ploidy of Mrs Herbert Stevens but it happily produces hips and seeds for me, so I don't think it would be a triploid.
It was introduced as a tea, not a hybrid tea, and it looks very much like a tea to me. It may have a bit of something else in its makeup but not enough to class it as a hybrid tea, in my opinion.
|
REPLY
|
|
Try the 1922-p26 reference.
I lean towards hybrid tea - see the 2008 p10 reference for 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens Cl.'
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
16 FEB 18 by
 HubertG
|
Thankyou, how could I have missed that? That's quite compelling then, that it isn't a straight cross from Niphetos, and straight from the breeder's mouth too!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
In Thomas for Roses <2005 catalogue, they list:
Under hybrid teas (p11) 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens' - white fragrant, low. 1910.
Under Climbing Roses (p28) 'Mrs. Herbert Stevens'. Pointed. white flowers and buds. Scented.
They do not list 'Niphetos'.
The "low" for the bush is interesting.
Same for their c2010 catalogue. pages 12 and 29.
|
REPLY
|
|
Could be due to the harsh conditions in their area. IIRC they don't feed or irrigate much, if at all.
(I must say their roses seem to go like rockets if given a really good home)
|
REPLY
|
|
|
