HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
'Reverend T. C. Cole' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
5 APR 09 by
 jedmar
|
If the breeder strangled himself on March 28, 1879; then the rose must have been around before that?
|
REPLY
|
|
Is it recorded in concrete that the rose was bred by the Reverend?
His father was a Nurseryman and given the date of 1880 for the release of this rose,
it seems possible to me that the Father released this rose to commemorate his son.
One entry under the reference tab gives 'Cole' as the breeder.
Is it possible that it was later assumed that the Reverend raised this rose?
Rarely did Breeders name roses after themselves.
|
REPLY
|
|
It would make good sense that the rose raised by the Rev. was introduced posthumously by his father (or one of his brothers).
|
REPLY
|
|
The only references I can find to the rose are...
From Horticultural Flora of South-eatern Australia
A Brief History of Australian Breeders
Quote "The earliest Australian raised rose was probably 'Rev.T.C.Cole' COMMEMORATING Rev.Cole of Vic and released in 1880."
From Historical Records of Australian Science
MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY
BOTANY in COLONIAL VICTORIA
Quote "Thomas Cornelius Cole (first signature on the matriculation roll; enrolment number 18550001), who happened to come from a horticultural family."
and
"The subsequent COMMEMORATION of the University’s first botany student with
the yellow ‘Rev. T. C. Cole’ rose seems beautifully appropriate.
It originated from a seedling raised by Cole."
The Reverend's Father was also named Thomas Cornelius Cole.
Isn't it possible that a mix up occured over which Cole actually bred the rose?
Incidently-it is not correct that this was the first Australian raised rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks for the additional references Sandie.
They make it clear that the rose was named in memory of the Rev.
Are these from copyright publications? If so, would it be possible to ask permission to add this information to HMF References for this rose?
On the question of whether the breeding of the rose might have been attributed to the wrong T.C. Cole, information from the Brunnings catalogues (1897 etc): ("Rev. T. C. Cole. This is a seedling which originated in this colony, and was raised by our old and esteemed friend, the late Rev. T. C. Cole, .....") seems personal enough to be credible, and the Law, Somner & Co catalogue of 1886 also refers to the rose 'Rev. T. C. Cole' as "a seedling raised by the late Rev. T. C. Cole ...." and this was 3 years before the death of T.C. Cole senior.
Putting the information together, do you think it's safe to assume that the rose was bred some time before 1879 by the Rev T.C. Cole but not named and introduced to commerce until after his death?
This would make 1880 the date of introduction rather than the year the rose was raised.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Billy-I will PM you re the copyright situation on the quotes.
I did not have access to the info contained in the Brunning and Law,Somner catalogues.
Thats the 'written in concrete' I was asking about in my first post.
Seems conclusive that the Reverend was the raiser.
thanks
Sandie
|
REPLY
|
|
Hello Sandie, We all have access to the Brunning and Law Somner catalogues. They, and another 30 items from books and catalogues are all included in the references. Fairly repetitive, but it is all 'written in Helpmefind'.
|
REPLY
|
|
If the rose Rev.T.C. Cole was released around 1880, it is a point of fine distinction as to who developed it. Rev TC died in 1879 and was outlived by his father by 10 years (1889). Rev T.C. was well-known in Melbourne for his fine rose garden at St George's Malvern and maintained a life long interest in Roses. From what I know, 10 years of studying the family, I would say that Rev T.C. developed the rose but it may have publicly released after his death by his father and brothers.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you for this insight.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 9 posted
16 FEB 21 by
Johno
-
-
|
Responding further to PeterA’s photos. A very rushed comment PeterA, sorry no time to do more this morning.
You must do a little homework and ascertain more of the provenance of your plant. Where did Werribee get it from and what is the site number of their plant? I know they have two very similar roses. It would also be valuable to have the provenance of their ‘Chromatella’. Would you let us know any provenances? Use Margaret’s system of
A.-> B.-> C.-> Werribee-> Geoff Crowhurst-> John Niewesteeg-> PeterA.
I don’t theeenk your plant is ‘Mrs. Graham Hart’ as that receptacle seems more rounded than your plant.
It seems very similar to what I grow as ‘Chromatella’ but your pedicel seems greener than my reddish-purple pedicel of ‘Chromatella’.
Some provenances that I know of:
“Ma Lovelock”, Meadows S.A.-> Margaret Furness in 2014-> Werribee-site no.?>
Chromatella: Ross Roses->
These two have been found to be the same.
Werribee’s Chromatella is said to grow like a bush (see Margaret’s comment 8 Oct 2018)
|
REPLY
|
|
Werribee's putative Rev T C Cole is what I sent them as "Ma Lovelock's."
They insist it is different from their Chromatella, flowering at different times.
Some of the Tea ladies are convinced that "Ma Lovelock's" is Chromatella.
I did wonder if I'd sent them Mrs Graham Hart by mistake, but PeterA grows it and it is the same as mine, but different from the putative Rev T C Cole.
Looking at other climbing yellows I propagated, in case it's a different mislabel: Cl Souv de Mme Boullet, Cl Lady Hillingdon, E Veyrat Hermanos, Reve d'Or, Bouquet D'or: I doubt that it's any of those.
Which comes back to an earlier speculation: is Werribee's Chomatella correct?
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Margaret, you have photos of “Ma Lovelock’s” in the ‘Reverend T. C. Cole’ file
And we have the study name “Ma Lovelock’s” in the ‘Chromatella’ file.
I am not sure if we should have both.
Would you like me to move the study name out of ‘Chromatella’ and into the ‘Reverend T. C. Cole’ file?
If you are really not sure, we can always give it a file of its own. That way we can always add a notation that it may be either......
Sorry to be picky.
I note also that you have left the photos of the very old bush in a paddock (listed as ‘Cloth of Gold’) photos 108983 and 108993, in the ‘Chromatella’ file. Does this differ from ‘Ma Lovelock’s’?
|
REPLY
|
|
I'm inclined to move the study name to the Rev T C Cole file, but with a note that it may not be the same rose.
The old bush photo I left as it was at Cherry Gardens; "Ma Lovelock's" came from Meadows. I don't have a plant from the Cherry Gardens bush to compare with it. They are both very hard to strike from cuttings.
|
REPLY
|
|
This probably needs more discussion. Please see the 2015 reference In the ‘Chromatella’ File.
|
REPLY
|
|
Unfortunately the only place where "Ma Lovelock's" can be compared directly with Chromatella is Werribee; I think their observation, that the flower flushes occur at different times., can't be discounted. If Renmark revives, I can try planting a bought Chromatella near "Ma Lovelock's".
|
REPLY
|
|
Well, I know that you gave them “Ma Lovelock” in 2014, so they have had it for quite a while.
The ‘Chromatella’ that the girls found to be the same as “Ma Lovelock” apparently came from Ross Roses.
And from some old records in my computer, David in 2008 thought that “Ma Lovelock” was Chromatella’
It makes me wonder about the provenance of the Werribee ‘Chromatella’.
|
REPLY
|
|
I wonder not about just the provenance, but the ID, since they said it grows like a bush. As Billy says, anything yellow in an old garden is assumed to be Chromatella. I'll ask Wal if they have records.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The Argus 1898
Article
IN MY GARDEN-by an Amateur.
"Marechal Niel, Rev.T.C. Cole (a Victorian native), and Cloth of Gold will supply charming
variations between light yellow and deep old gold-the first hanging its head always pensively, the last boldly looking you in the face, and the other coming midway between the
two, of which it is a cross product."
|
REPLY
|
|
What a wonderful find Sandie.
Observations like this are treasures.
I think it was Rose Marsh who said of climbing foundlings in Australia that if it's red it invariably gets called Black Boy and if it's yellow, Cloth of Gold - but Rev T.C. Cole was very widely grown - and said to be long-lived - and I hope it is among our foundlings and that it is positively identified one day.
|
REPLY
|
|
"...Mr. Shimman, gardener to Mr. H. C. E. Muecke, showed cuts of lilac; Dobbie's white spiral oandytuft (very fine); several roses, including Reine Marie Henriette and Devoniensis, both of which had about 200 blooms on the bushes ; also the hybrid between the well-known Marechal Niel and Cloth of Gold named Rev. T. C. Cole, after the raiser, who grew it in Victoria...."
Evening Journal (Adelaide, SA) Mon 8 Oct 1894 page 2 SA Gardeners' Society
Muecke is a wellknown older family in SA and we had a HRIA member.
|
REPLY
|
|
It might be worth while in a warm climate to attempt that cross again.
|
REPLY
|
|
Pat, I am sure you are talking about Paddy Muecke who was also a long term member of the Rose Society. See the ARA's 1990-15, 1991-15, 1999-47, and 2003-60. In the 1999-47 her address was given as Heathpool, S.A. but I am sure she grew up on a famous property. She loved old roses and in the 1999-47 ARA she mentioned 'Souvenir de la Malmaison', 'Lady Hillingdon', 'Albertine', 'Duchess de Brabant", 'Fantin-Latour', 'Molly Sharman-Crawford' and 'Celine Forestier' and another five more modern roses, as amongst her favourite roses. Perhaps she might have talked to other members about an old yellow climber at her childhood home.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
