HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
DescriptionPhotosLineageAwardsReferencesMember RatingsMember CommentsMember JournalsCuttingsGardensBuy From 
'Nivea' rose Reviews & Comments
Discussion id : 166-575
most recent 1 APR HIDE POSTS
Initial post 31 MAR by Deborah Petersen
As usual, I am wishing that HMF would better distinguish between the climbing form of 'Aimee Vibert' and the shrub form of 'Aimee Vibert'. According to the Vintage catalog, where both were sold, the shrub form was the original and the climbing form (which they called 'Aimee Vibert Scandens') a sport, but the description here gives a height of 9'10" to 15', which would be the dimensions for the climbing version. I have grown the shrub form, from Vintage, for more than 12 years now and it has stayed 4' x 4' with little in the way of pruning and is altogether delightful. With the two forms intermingled under this name, is is difficult to determine, for example, which form a vendor is offering, etc.
Reply #1 of 4 posted 31 MAR by Lee H.
Did you notice that there is indeed a separate and distinct entry for the climbing sport?

I do agree that the listed height seems optimistic for the shrub version.
Reply #2 of 4 posted 31 MAR by Deborah Petersen
Yes, but notice that two of the three sources given for the climbing version are historical only and now defunct. And, among the vendors for the supposedly shorter, original variety of 'Aimee Vibert', High Country Roses is, in fact, offering the climbing variety, though Rogue Valley Roses claims to be offering the 4' shrub. Heirloom Roses, based on their catalog entry, seems to be offering the climbing version too. The photos are, of course, also all over the map.
Reply #3 of 4 posted 1 APR by Patricia Routley
Deborah, it is no trouble to quickly skim through 18 or so, mostly French, pages of Aimee Vibert references looking for a height. We have:
1835 2 to 3 feet
1856 moderate grower, dwarfish
1873. 2m. (6'7")
1879 before getting bogged down by this reference.

What about if we make the 1824 Aimee Vibert rose 3 to 5 feet. (Anita has said 5 feet)

Unfortunately I can find no reference to a height for the 1841 Aimee Vibert Climbing, apart from the 1992 and 1993 UK references which mention 15 feet. We will use that height for the moment.
Reply #4 of 4 posted 1 APR by Deborah Petersen
Thanks, Patricia -- I think specifying the correct, shorter height would help a great deal! Folks would then realize that the page they are posting on is for the shrub form of the rose, not the climber, and hopefully, over time, things will get sorted out.
Discussion id : 153-749
most recent 1 NOV HIDE POSTS
Initial post 29 OCT by odinthor
I wonder if anyone more expert than I with genealogical research and so on can find anything more on the actual person Aimée Vibert? Did she marry? Were there children? And all such questions about her life. My many years of effort to find out more on her have been in vain--not a scrap of further information has come my way. I'm wondering if perhaps the naming of 'Aimée Vibert' was to honor her upon her decease. We know that "our" Vibert also had an accomplished son, who then in turn himself had an accomplished son; but on Aimée--no information.
Reply #1 of 11 posted 29 OCT by Nastarana
Possibly a child who died in infancy?
Reply #2 of 11 posted 29 OCT by odinthor
Yes, thanks, that's along the lines of what I'm suspecting; and it seems it would have been a death from long before this rose existed: His wife Adèle had died in 1816; and I have a note somewhere that a daughter (name unknown to me) had died in 1815. Perhaps that 1815 loss was Aimée.
Reply #3 of 11 posted 29 OCT by jedmar
Wikipedia in German states that Vibert's parents were Robert Vibert and Aimée Françoise Leiris. Source is the death notice in the Archives Départementales des Yvelines, Montfort-l’Amaury, NMD, 1866–1870. So Aimée would be his mother. I am adding the link from Wikipedia below:|/_recherche-api/visionneuse-infos/arko_default_618914e3ee7e4/arko_fiche_61951103cd355/arko_default_61894d9727a8e/image/1455032|0|27
Reply #4 of 11 posted 30 OCT by odinthor
Yes, thanks; but Buist visited Vibert in 1839, and V., in referring to the rose in question, says to Buist, 'Celle ci est si belle, que je lui ai donné le nom de ma fille chérie--Aimée Vibert." ("This one's so pretty that I gave it the name of my dear daughter--Aimée Vibert.") So the daughter was named after Vibert's mother, and the rose after Vibert's daughter.
Reply #5 of 11 posted 30 OCT by jedmar
That is quite possible. If the daughter was in her full bloom as Buist says, then she must not have been an infant when she died. Is the date of marriage of Vibert and Adéle Heu known?
Reply #6 of 11 posted 30 OCT by odinthor
I unfortunately don't have the year of the marriage of Jean-Pierre Vibert and Adèle. Jean-Pierre Vibert was born in 1777. His son Théodore, who became an engraver, was born in 1816; and somewhere I ran across that a daughter (unnamed) had died in 1815. Jean-Pierre had been off fighting in the Napoleonic wars; it's conceivable (speculation!) that he married upon his leaving the service (wounded) and returning to Paris, which would explain the rather late period in his life (nearly age 40) for his children being born. That's an excellent point about full bloom; To me that has an air of a girl being perhaps indeed somewhat newly in full bloom, and so being, say, about age 16 or so, which would fit with the era when Vibert's other children were born.

I suppose another way to go about finding out more on Aimée would be to scrutinize writings by or on our Vibert's grandson Jehan-Georges Vibert, the noted painter and print-artist, for remarks on any aunt of his. Doubtless somewhere out there in the Art world is a scholar who is an expert on Jean-Georges Vibert, his life as well as his works, and who would immediately recall having run across any such reference.
Reply #7 of 11 posted 30 OCT by jedmar
Also it might be useful to check birth documents of Théodore Vibert. If he was born in Soisy-sur-Seine in 1813, then the Vibert family was probably living there at the time. There is prbably a list of the household in some archive of the Départment of Essonne. The distance from Soisy to Chennevières-sur-Marne, where Vibert had his garden is 20 km, i.e. doable by horse or carriage.
Reply #8 of 11 posted 31 OCT by HubertG
Could it possibly be that Aimée is a sort of a nickname that doesn't appear on an official baptism/birth record?
Reply #9 of 11 posted 31 OCT by odinthor
That's a good thought. It reminds me of the situation with the name of Moss 'Félicité Bohain', in which "Félicité" is seemingly a nickname bestowed on one Victor Bohain, friend of Heine (see the entry for that rose in my new edition of the Old Rose Adventurer). So we see that that kind of nicknamery is a "done thing."
Reply #10 of 11 posted 1 NOV by HubertG
There's a handful of Vibert catalogues from the 1820s online, and I see that in both the 1822 and 1824 catalogues there is an entry for a rose called 'Petite Aimée' as well as roses called 'Petite Lisette' (1817), 'Petite Eugène', 'Petite Ernest' and 'Petite Sophie (1820). My guess is that he's naming roses after his children as they are born. Perhaps finding some of these names in old baptismal records etc might confirm this, and would suggest Aimée was born at least as early as 1822.
Reply #11 of 11 posted 1 NOV by odinthor
That is a great observation that never had occurred to me. I bet you're right. Vibert would have had to remarried (well, or at least to have had a second partner) after his wife Adèle had died (in 1816).
Discussion id : 145-049
most recent 23 MAY 23 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 23 MAY 23 by Kim W Florida 10b Humid
Available from - High Country Roses
Discussion id : 135-960
most recent 1 JAN 23 HIDE POSTS
Initial post 1 JAN 23 by HeathRose
I read this recently: Gertrude Jekyll, Wood and Garden p.40 "What are generally recommended as climbing Roses are too ready to ramp away, leaving bare, leggy growth where wall-clothing is desired. One of the best is climbing Aimée Vibert, for with very little pruning it keeps well furnished nearly to the ground, and with its graceful clusters of white bloom and healthy-looking, polished leaves is always one of the prettiest of Roses. Its only fault is that it does not shed its dead petals, but retains the whole bloom in dead brown clusters."
Reply #1 of 1 posted 1 JAN 23 by Lee H.
I will heartily agree with everything that Ms. Jekyll has written. But I will add a second fault; Aimee seems to be the most appetizing rose in my garden to deer. Fortunately, she is vigorous enough to shrug off repeated attacks.
© 2024