I wonder if there ever was a rose called ‘Victor Groshens. Because of the 1934 reference wherein Plant Patent No. 5 was said to be for ‘La Vie’, it seems to me as though ‘Victor Groshens’ should be deleted, after merging with ‘La Vie’?
The Plant Patent 5 and the 1934 ARA reference belongs to 'La Vie', not 'Victor Groshens'. The latter name is based only on the scant Information of the great-grandchild (note on the breeder listing). It could be that this patent was actually for 'La Vie'.