I have an own-root rose which came in 2009 as "Not Baltimore Belle". Apparently it was one which Mistydowns were selling as 'Baltimore Belle'. Today, it seems to me to be the same as "Lewes Kell" but I only have a few small clusters to compare. My note of April, 2009 says: "An overseas visitor to South Australia said it wasn't 'Baltimore Belle' as grown in the U.S. but was the same as the one on Roses Loubert's website." I was never able to find the rose on that website.
I remember saying it was like a larger-flowered version of Felicite-Perpetue; which should make its flowers larger than "Lewes Kell". My plant went to Renmark so I can't check.
The Redoute picture of ‘Adelaide d’Orleans’ that Flodur gave us directions to, is reminding me very much of “Lewes Kell”. It certainly has the same buds. This picture has the same thorns too, but this is countering Mrs. Gore’s 1838 comment “Thorns not numerous” and Prevost fils 1830 “thorns…sparse”. . Prevost fils also said the flower size was 2 1/2 to 3 1/4 inches, and this is the only fly in the ointment, as the flowers on my plant of “Lewes Kell’ are only about 1 ½ inches wide. Pat and Margaret – what is the size of your average flowers?
For Bergman, I've put some prickles and the last very thin blooms in the "Lewes Kell ROR" file that Cass has opened. Only the smaller, thinner end canes have the zig zag (Noisette?) effect in my picture. The larger canes have no zig zag. Brent C. Dickerson's 1999 book 'The Old Rose Adventurer' has some interesting points which are turning me off this rose being 'Adelaide d'Orleans'. He quotes Prevost fils, 1830 as saying: Thorns not numerous...thorns hooked, sparse... Flower size 2 1/2 to 3 1/4 inches.
Our rose is thorny. And I think the flower is smaller - guessing here - probably about 1 3/4 inches.
