HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
"Agnes Smith" rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
"Agnes Smith" has a good scent to my nose but it's unlike other Teas and really hard to describe. Trying to concentrate the scent I put a bloom in a small, sealed container and after a while I sniffed it. I found that a distinct damask scent was detectable in this way. It isn't really discernable otherwise, and even after knowing it's somewhere there in the make-up I don't know if I'd be able to detect it on a fresh flower. It makes me think that this rose must have some Bourbon breeding in its background although it's probably distant as I wouldn't think to class "Agnes Smith" as anything other than a Tea. It makes me wonder how late or early a Tea it really is.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The flowers on "Agnes Smith" can often come huge for a Tea. I measured one today that was just over 12cm (5 inches) across. There was only one other flower on the bush today that approached this size, the rest being their normal more moderate size. There was nothing out of the ordinary about the branch that the large blooms were on either. It just seems to happen randomly.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I can’t help noticing that “Agnes Smith” in W.A. and S.A. seem to be a more diaphanous and lighter-weight bloom, than those grown in NSW (HubertG’s and Jane Zammit’s) which seem to be a heavier bloom with more petals.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 14 posted
24 DEC 18 by
 HubertG
|
I find the petal count varies quite a bit . My photos were of blooms that were a bit more double than usual. I probably posted them because they look a bit more sumptuous and impressive, but more often than not they come little more than semi-double, and I do recognise my specimen in the WA and SA photos.
I'd ask if "James Watson No.1" should be included in this file as, just judging by the photos and remarks, it doesn't appear to be the same as "Agnes Smith".
|
REPLY
|
|
Mine, which was the source of the one in the HRIA Collection at Renmark, came as Irene Watts.
|
REPLY
|
|
Margaret - yes. I also have a version which came from Noelene Drage in 2000 named as Irene Watts. I placed another plant which came from Araluen in 2004 named as “Agnes Smith” in the same bed and they appear to be the same rose. I placed both of these plants at the southern edge of the bed but taller roses and plants to the north are now shading them too much. Hence my 2017 cuttings which are now out in full sunshine.
HubertG - “James Watson No. 1” is included with the “Agnes Smith” file because Jane Zammit, now deceased, and an experienced nurserywoman grew them both, studied and photographed them together. Please see the Comments of September 2014.
|
REPLY
|
|
It brings back the question over a few widespread foundlings: could it have been used as an understock?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 14 posted
25 DEC 18 by
HubertG
|
"Agnes Smith" and "James Watson No.1" still look different to me, just going by the photos of JWNo1 and growing "Agnes Smith". The foliage is rounder, the buds fatter on JW1, the flower form different. And then there's the comment on the description page that says JW1 balls. Agnes really doesn't ball. Just my two cents.
Margaret, they could have been used as an understock but wouldn't there have been a relatively limited number of stocks being used in Australia even over a span of a hundred or so years? Most would have been recorded somewhere in nurseryman's list or somewhere like that. My feeling is this is a cultivar in its own right, but of course that's just a guess.
|
REPLY
|
|
I was trying to work out how it could have become known as Irene Watts - it isn't that, nor either of two roses sold under that name (Comtesse de Labarthe in NZ, and Pink Gruss an Aachen distributed by the Beales nursery).
There must have been a stage when nurserymen and amateurs went wild trying out which roses would make good understocks - even suckerers were used, eg Rugosas (!) and the rose sold in Aus as Anais Segalas. Ozoldroser and I were asked to ID an understock which was unmistakably Mlle Cecile Brunner.
|
REPLY
|
|
HubertG, perhaps sometime you would like to look closely at the two plants ("Agnes Smith" and "James Watson No.1") at Rookwood and give us your advice?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 14 posted
26 DEC 18 by
HubertG
|
Sure, next time I go ... if I could ever find where they are growing that is.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think the original "Agnes Smith" disappeared a few years ago - not known whether removed by the family or stolen. "James Watson 1" was beside a huge mausoleum (photo in the "Agnes Smith" file). I'd hope both would be in the Long Garden, where propagated foundlings have been planted.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#10 of 14 posted
26 DEC 18 by
HubertG
|
I'd probably be able to find the mausoleum, but the roses in the long bed aren't labelled at all.
|
REPLY
|
|
If I was in Sydney I would take you by the hand and lead you to the Rookwood office (not too far from the Long bed I seem to recall) and prompt you to ask them where you could find these to roses to study. I would also introduce you to the Heritage Roses in Australia Sydney group who should know. But I am not in Sydney, so you will have to find out these things for yourself.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#12 of 14 posted
27 DEC 18 by
HubertG
|
Lol, that's a hint!
|
REPLY
|
|
The experiments with understocks continue. Frank, who grows Teas, Chinas and Riethmuller roses near Mackay in our hot tropics, says he's changed over from Manettii to Carabella.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#14 of 14 posted
11 JUN 20 by
HubertG
|
I happened to visit Rookwood Cemetery today and I found the Watson mausoleum. I saw three roses growing there, all seemed different in habit, although only one was flowering. There was a very short rose to the right facing the door that looked like a Hybrid Tea with straight stems, looked like it was struggling, no flowers. There was a Tea just to the left as you face the door, maybe 1.5 high and the same across; spreading, no blooms but some hips. On the left side of the mausoleum was another Tea with pale pink flowers but rather high maybe close to 8 feet, and dense in growth. Most blooms had partially shattered and the only bud was too high to reach to smell. There were hips on it, and the bush was well foliaged for early winter (though I think that was the sunny side). I'll post photos soon.
One reference here says that there are three roses planted at the mausoleum. I'm not sure which ones they are meant to be but of those I saw today, one was definitely different to the others (the HT), and the tall bushy one didn't immediately seem like "Agnes Smith" to me (although very hard to tell because of few flowers).
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I wonder if 'Maud Little' (Tea, 1891, Pierre de St Cyr x Comtesse de Labarthe) might be a contender for "Agnes Smith".
Many aspects of Agnes remind me of CdL and I came across Maud Little looking up CdL's offspring. Although Pierre de St Cyr is a Bourbon, looking at the photos here it can bear some resemblance to Agnes, and it isn't difficult imagining it as one of the parents.
The time period is about right too, although I have no idea if, or when, it was introduced in Australia. Just some food for thought.
The other thought is that even though this rose was renamed after Agnes Smith who died in 1893, her husband Archibald was buried in the same grave in 1901. Had a large rose been planted on Agnes' grave it would have made things awkward for Archibald's burial. Even though "Agnes Smith" might have been a rose variety already very old in 1901, it still could have been an introduction closer to Archibald's death.
From the Old Rose Advisor:
Maud Little (Dingee & Conard, 1891). From Pierre de St.-Cyr (B) x Comtesse de Labarthe (T)
Of moderate growth, satisfactory stature, medium culture, flowers beautiful and full; colour, China Pink, delicate with a distinctly bright tint; distinctive, noticeably beautiful.
|
REPLY
|
|
It might be a contender. I too have seen similarities between the two roses, mainly in the foliage, I think.
I have indexed many old catalogues but I can find no record of 'Maud Little' entering Australia (in my computer). It still might have come in though - my selection of old Australian catalogues is relatively small.
It was not listed in The Dingee & Conard Co. 1901 catalogue and only the name was mentioned in the American Rose Annuals 1917 to 1922, so at this stage, there is almost no information on 'Maud Little'.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 7 posted
6 MAR 18 by
HubertG
|
I found this description online for Maud Little in a Dingee catalogue under new roses imported 1891:
"Maud Little. — Raised from Pierre St. Cyr and Duchesse
de Brabant; a very pretty Rose, of good form and substance,
not entirely full, but very handsome and sweet; color soft
china rose, with a peculiar glowing, lustrous bloom ; very
beautiful. 25 cts. each."
This certainly suggests it was a European rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
We'll add that reference if we can have a page number please HubertG. I presume it is the 1891 catalogue?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 7 posted
7 MAR 18 by
HubertG
|
It appears to be the 1892 catalogue. Here's the online transcription:
https://archive.org/stream/ournewguidetoros18ding_1/ournewguidetoros18ding_1_djvu.txt
I can't see a page number.
There are lots of interesting tea descriptions. You'll have your work cut out for you.
I found two things interesting. Firstly, all their roses were cutting grown and secondly, they offered a cheap package deal of three roses that they said thousand of customers took up. The three were Marie Lambert, Coquette de Lyon, and Mad. Agatha Nabonnand. I can only assume that these in particular were offered because they were easy to propagate by cuttings. I wonder if they still exist in the same gardens all over America.
|
REPLY
|
|
The latter two have no recent photos, and no seller or garden currently listed on hmf. Gone, gone.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 7 posted
8 MAR 18 by
HubertG
|
They might still be growing somewhere or be something else in disguise. Regarding the Marie Lambert offer by Dingee; I was just reading the descriptions for Ducher as there seemed to be some confusion between the two roses. One of the early writers said how Ducher differed from the other Chinas in that it was very hard to propagate by cuttings. If this is true I suppose that this would distinguish the two roses as distinctly separate if Dingee could offer thousand of Marie Lambert from cuttings.
|
REPLY
|
|
Good point: that unwillingness to grow from cuttings should be a valid discriminator.
There are plenty of lost-name roses around; but early descriptions (and recent) were usually so non-specific that there's no chance of identifying them. Unless they have an unusual characteristic, eg like Marquise de Vivens.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
