|
|
'Anna de Diesbach' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
is there a reliable way to tell whether a found rose is La Reine, or Anna de Diesbach?
|
REPLY
|
|
Good suggestion. We need more photos of the canes of both roses, to show the prickles.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 9 posted
9 NOV 21 by
 Le_Not
|
I've uploaded a photo of the canes of my 'La Reine', in hopes that might be helpful. But I think she's thornier than described on HelpMeFind -- in fact, 'La Reine' is one of the thornier roses in my (admittedly small, mostly "thornless") garden.
|
REPLY
|
|
I see what you mean! Thanks for posting the photo. In fact the early illustrations are in keeping with your photo.
I'm back to the same problem - how do I tell the difference. We have quite a few name-lost roses in old gardens in Australia which could be one or the other - obviously it was widely-planted in its time, and is a survivor. Probably La Reine, as the earlier of the two, and the one with a name more likely to interest people here. At present I'm just calling them all "La Reine family".
|
REPLY
|
|
I've not grown either, but in the pictures on HMF, it seems to me that AdD sits down among the foliage more than LR, and the latter seems to rise a bit above the bush. I have seen AdD described as a Portland in some sources.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 9 posted
10 NOV 21 by
Lee H.
|
Margaret, did you notice the comment in references from the The Rose Annual of 1974? “'La Reine' ... blooms early and repeats well, a feature noticeable in its seedlings,'Anna de Diesbach’ (1858) and 'Francois Michelon’ 1891) . Both are in varying shades of pink. Plant-wise too, they show close affinity to ‘La Reine’, but with a deeper cup and a lesser petallage than ‘La Reine' which averages 78, they are less inclined to ball in damp conditions.”
Also, I find that my La Reine does seem to be relatively thornless (at least here in Z6 Indiana)
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you, I missed that one.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#8 of 9 posted
12 NOV 21 by
Lee H.
|
Margaret, I thought I might add one more small clue that I chanced upon quite by accident yesterday while referencing Ethelyn Keays’ “Old Roses”:
“La Reine became the head of a big family of which many survive. Her descendants have, generally, the semiglobular form, are very large, fragrant, and show lilac in the pink or rose-color and maintain a close resemblance to the funnel-shaped calyx.
Anna de Diesbach, 1858, is from La Reine and an unknown variety. This rose has a lovely bloom of a deep carmine-pink shade, very large and full, intensely fragrant; one of the most delightful and most satisfactory of this class. The funnel-shaped calyx is slightly strangled at the top; probably the “unknown” did that. It’s sepals are long, pointed or foliated. Anna is just a bit dressier than La Reine. In lasting quality and profusion of bloom it has proved to be better, with us.”
|
REPLY
|
|
That's very useful, thanks. I'll need to check the finer details but I don't think any of our foundlings would be called deep carmine-pink. La Reine rather than Anna de Diesbach, then.
|
REPLY
|
|
