|
|
'Circus' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Initial post
28 MAR 15 by
 goncmg
|
Don't see any discussion on here, but am I right when I state that there are several strains of Circus in circulation? Or the original Circus but also others that may have some similarities but tend to be more yellow or more buff and much less colortropic? Just looking at all the pictures here (and immediately dismissing the ones of the apricot large flowered variety) there do seem to be pictures of different varieties but all of which I have either seen or grown/purchased as Circus. And that is going back to the mid-70's on up to around 2000. I believe the top right pic on the first page is the most like the "original" Circus.
|
REPLY
|
|
A couple of references confirm the different strains. Re the top right pic on the first page - all photos are revolved, or circulated, so it may be best to quote the photographer's name and the photo number when talking about a specific photo.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
29 MAR 15 by
goncmg
|
Patricia you totally are making me smile because I KNEW when I posted that comment last night I needed to better tag the pics I was referencing but I was tired! Thank you for confirming that there are "different strains" Circus out there. But to that I pose--wouldn't different strains be SPORTS? The pics that Debstwin posted DO look to be Circus Parade a confirmed sport of Circus. (They also look like Manx Queen, Dickson--I think--1966).....a few pics we can rule out as mislabels--the ones already noted by many but also, I think, what Donald Muncy posted. Circus, 1956 was a ruffled bloom and given the release date WOULD have been, with no quill to the petals and very improbably changing to deep, bright orange. THAT pic by Muncy appears to be Charisma or even Hawaiian Delight! But the color changers and small ones can be so tough to identify via a pic because the viewer needs perspective and a backstory! Some of the pics posted make the bloom--to me--seem too formal. Circus certainly had nothing like any sort of high center whatsoever (Cliff and others). But maybe if captured at the right moment it would so seem? MOST interesting to me are the pics by Lizzie and Cali Sue and Henrique because THEY seem to be of what I also once grew as Circus and once bought from a "reputable" seller AS Circus. Over 30 years ago. But I didn't think THEN it really WAS Circus and I do not think it is NOW----a pale, buffy-yellow that may or may not get some pink or red to it. So, to THAT, was some OTHER rose long, long ago mislabeled as Circus but close enough that really nobody ever questioned it? So not a STRAIN but maybe a "found" rose in actuality? I would LOVE others to chime in on this one! I think I am on the right track here. Some of the close-up pics, the ones with no ruffled edge (I am certain Circus had a ruffled edge)--Perry's Broadway from 1986? Embassy from 1967? Heck, Sutter's Gold? :-) Or goodness KNOWS any number of faceless, "decent" mini or minifloras released 30 years ago when THAT craze started and they all hit the market in a manner similar to the cerise pink Hybrid Perpetuals a la 1880...........and I KNOW you KNOW what I mean there, Patricia!
|
REPLY
|
|
I grew Circus on the 90s. All I recall was that the vigor was really, really, bad, but the rest was neat. I ditched it after 3 years. No one has time for poor vigor!
|
REPLY
|
|
The original 'Circus' was a fantastic rose here in CA.
It was compact. Repeat was excellent with well shaped phototropic blossoms.
I HAD the original a few years ago. Vigor seems to have declined over the years. It seems all clones are virused.
There are a number of impostors running around. Either that or improper selection of budwood has contributed to it's demise.
|
REPLY
|
|
It line mutates readily, so its possible that slight mutations have been grafted over time, resulting in variations.
My clone was from Weeks, when they would sell non-patented up here to Fred Meyers.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Circus is listed in the Star Roses (Conard-Pyle) catalog for fall 1955.
|
REPLY
|
|
It was bred earlier than 1955 as it was patented on April 19, 1955. We've changed the bred date from 1956 to 1955.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
There are 3 photos listed in this entry http://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=2.1189&tab=36 by Bren's Garden that are clearly the incorrect rose, all three images have been commented on and none of them had replies by the owner. Can they be moved to the correct entry?
Sue
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Circus was new in my garden in 2006 and at first, it was stingy with blooms and a definite water hog (it needed a daily drink or it would sulk). However, this year it has really come in to its own, blooming almost continually with no sulking. She is BS prone in my garden, but she has responded favorably to organic spraying so far. During the recent culling of the roses in my garden, I just didn't have the heart to remove her, she's such a blooming machine! And such fantastically colored blooms! She does have a tendency to form vegetative centers this year, but not in all blooms. Growth is also uneven, with one large basal taller than the rest of the plant.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
2 SEP 09 by
Unregistered Guest
|
I am looking to purchase the Circus Rose, and I am not having much luck. I live in Washington State.
|
REPLY
|
|
See the HOW DO I... button for instructions on finding source for this plant.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 3 posted
2 SEP 09 by
Karen
|
I am getting ready to do the yearly "culling of the roses." I also find myself setting new standards such as - do they respond to organic controls for blackspot. What organic sprays are you using? I have tried both Seranade and potassium carbonate and can't decide if either is worth the fuss.
|
REPLY
|
|
