|
|
-
-
|
Can this be the dark red ‘George IV’?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
2 DEC 21 by
 Johno
|
It does look washed out. It comes from the same plant as the other image. Attached to this thread is a photo of the plant label. The thorns (out of focus as they are) on the plant goes against the HMF description of ' Thornless (or almost)'. Probably an indication the rose is wrongly named . Unfortunately I have no prior experience of the rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Johno. Last evening I spent a very happy hour looking at your superb photos of the roses at Malmaison. In particular I appreciated your photos of ‘Assemblage de Beautés‘ as I had never really known what it was like. As roses sometimes come and go in public gardens, a date, or at least a year, of the photo would have been valuable.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
3 DEC 21 by
Johno
|
Made the mistake of not setting the date on my previous camera so can only give the year as 2015. (In the case of Queen Mary’s photos, they are the results of five visits to that garden since 2010.) A plan, uploaded to the Malmaison garden page, shows the garden underwent a major renovation in 2012 – 2013 and was opened in May 2014 for the bicentenary of Josephine’s death. It was clear it was still an ongoing project as new plantings were occurring around the time of my 2015 visit. The original plant label is still attached to George IV so the public label is ‘accurate’ to the rose supplied. As you paid to view the garden one would not have suspected interference with labels. Even so there were at least three errors in the garden, errors no doubt due to incorrect roses supplied and the gardeners’ knowledge base to identify the mistakes.
It is a pity the one plant listed as growing at Malmaison cannot be increased based on the photo record.
|
REPLY
|
|
