HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
HubertG 
-
-
|
Rose Listing Omission
Flavorette Pear’d
See, https://hirts.com/flavorette-peard-rose-proven-winners-4-pot/
A brand new way to love roses. On your plate! The new line of Flavorette roses will transform your garden from just viewable, to edible! Each rose was bred for reliable landscape performance and excellent taste, so you’ll get the best of both worlds. With Flavorette Pear’d™ rose you’ll get soft pink, bowl-shaped blooms. Each petal is thick and soft, perfect for adding a lush feeling and a pear flavor to sweet and savory dishes alike.Top reasons to grow Flavorette Pear'd™ rose? An exciting way to bring the garden to your plate, Great disease resistance ,No deadheading required
Growing Zones 4 - 8
Continuous Bloom or Rebloomer
Mature Height: 3' - 4', Spread: 3'
Blooms on new wood in the summer
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 5 posted
yesterday by
jedmar
|
Synonym added, thank you!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 5 posted
yesterday by
HubertG
|
Oh wow, a rose marketed for its flavour! I've never seen that before.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 5 posted
yesterday by
Lee H.
|
Just as Gypsy Rose Lee learned: “You Gotta Have a Gimmick”.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 5 posted
yesterday by
jedmar
|
Check this link of Pheno Geno Roses in Serbia
phenogenoroses-com.translate.goog/rose-collections/taste-of-love-edible-roses-collection/
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 5 posted
today by
HubertG
|
Thank you, very interesting! My first thought with roses specifically marketed as being edible is that they wouldn't want to be reliant on toxic sprays to remain healthy, but when I look up the file here of 'Renee van Wegburg' I see that it is healthy and can be grown organically, so they have obviously factored that concern in.
I guess how gimmicky it all is might rely on how true the taste claims are. It suggests to me the description of some wines - I can rarely taste all those subtle taste descriptions.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The article in 'The Florists' Exchange' of 6th March 1915 on page 535 provides Alexander W. Montgomery's own account of his breeding of 'Mrs. Charles Russell' which amounts to a cross between 'General MacArthur' and a seedling of his own development. If his explanation uses the standard conventions, then the pedigree should be 'General MacArthur' x [Climbing Mrs. W. J. Grant x {Mme Caroline Testout x (Mme. Abel Chatenay x Marquise Litta)}] to my reckoning.
It's interesting that he uses the climbing form of 'Mrs. W. J. Grant' something which isn't mentioned in the other references.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
10 DEC by
jedmar
|
Very interesting! Parentage modified accordingly.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 2 posted
10 DEC by
HubertG
|
Thank you! I see where the number of descendants of 'Climbing Mrs. W. J. Grant' has now jumped up from "5 unique descendants" to 14,632. :-)
I'm hoping that Montgomery was also asked about the breeding of 'Hadley' as I suspect a similar breeding was behind this rose rather than the somewhat ambiguous one often cited.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
This same photo also appears in 'The Florists' Exchange' of Dec 13, 1913 on page 1319 with accompanying text about Hadley's introduction on page 1321.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
A separate listing should be created for 'Pink Frau Karl Druschki', which is a sport which appeared for the California Rose Company, which introduced it in 1910 (see their catalog of that year). In the 1917 catalog of the California Rose Company (p. 10), they specifically state that 'George Arends' is "distinct from Pink Frau Karl Druschki’.” In their 1913 catalog, the California Rose Company indeed has a photo of 'Pink Frau Karl Druschki', which I will upload.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 9 posted
8 DEC by
jedmar
|
We haven't listed this "sport" separately, as its origin is doubtful: California Rose Co. issues it in the same year as a sport of 'Frau Karl Druschki' in which 'Georg Arends' appears in Germany in two possible versions, by Hinner and Fischer. The latter version is also doubtful, and thought to be stolen from Hinner. In their 1917 catalogue, Califormia Rose Co. changes the date of their soport from 1910 to 1887, i.e. 14 years befor Lambert commercialized 'Frau Karl Druschki'. It smells like a scam.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 9 posted
8 DEC by
Lee H.
|
I don’t know if this adds to the conversation, or muddies it, but the Leedle Springfield [Ohio] Rose catalog of 1919 lists “Red” Druschki as synonymous with ‘George Ahrends’. It lists ‘Pink Druschki’ as synonymous with ‘Heinrich Munch’.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks, Lee H. This practice of invoking a well-known rose by nurseries calling it the same name with a different color beginning the name--for just one instance 'Yellow Maman Cochet'--seems to have been made to make rose historians' lives difficult!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 9 posted
9 DEC by
HubertG
|
I see too where "Heinrich Munch' first appears in the C. C, Morse & Co (San Francisco) catalogue of 1917 page 98 as "Henry Munch" stating it to be a sport of FKD when it wasn't.
"HENRY MUNCH (Pink Druschki)
A sport from the favorite white rose, Frau K. Druschki. This variety produces its flowers in great profusion, for a long period. Silvery pink. A fine acquisition. Very strong in growth. 75c¢ each."
It's probably just a simple error but I wonder if marketing a very popular rose as a sport instead of a seedling generated more interest and sales.
|
REPLY
|
|
It is most unlikely that a rose ('Georg Arends') which had just been released in Germany in 1910 would show up propagated with enough specimens to offer customers half a world away in California that very same introductory year when Arends was exclusive to its introducer--it would be more than a "scam" it would be a "miracle." Agreed, that 1887 is curious; it likely refers to some stage of the birth and origin of the company, the name of which it follows in the text. It's obviously a mix-up of some sort because they state clearly enough in their 1914 catalog that the date of the rose is "1910" and the rose doesn't appear in any of their catalogs prior to 1910. 'Georg Arends', as well as 'Heinrich Münch', acquired a synonym or indeed "nickname" of 'Pink Druschki'/'Pink Frau Karl Druschki'; but the California Rose Company addresses this issue directly and states in its 1917 catalog--in which they offer both--that 'Georg Arends' is "distinct from 'Pink Frau Karl Druschki'" (I did not put this clearly in my original posting, which I have edited). If you can offer any instance in which anyone of the era ever accuses the California Rose Company of scamming concerning any of their offerings, or in which anyone of the era says that that company's 'Pink Frau Karl Druschki' is the same as 'Georg Arends', now would be the time to do so.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#5 of 9 posted
8 DEC by
HubertG
|
It's odd though that California Rose Co's 'Pink Frau Karl Drushcki' is very fragrant as is 'Georg Arends' and very much unlike 'Frau Karl Druschki', although it isn't impossible it didn't also sport a strong fragrance as well as colour.
From page 61 of their 1913 catalogue:
"PINK FRAU KARL DRUSCHKI. H. R. (California Rose Co. 1910)
A true sport from Frau Karl Druschki (white). Style of growth and wood nearly identical with the parent; color, a very pleasing shade of deep pink similar to Mrs. Laing and extremely fragrant; flowers borne on very long upright stems of grand substance and lasting; flowers full but always open perfectly. 50 cents."
George Arends first appears in the California Rose Co's 1915 catalogue as follows:
"GEORGE ARENDS
Apparently the same as Pink Frau Karl Druschki, by California Rose Co."
|
REPLY
|
|
It can happen. 'Marguerite Guillard', sport of 'Frau Karl Druschki', has a scent. Scentless 'Baronne Adolphe de Rothschild' has a scented sport in 'Mabel Morrison'.
As to the sameness question, a couple of years of experience has the California Rose Company stating in 1917 that 'Georg Arends' is “distinct from Pink Frau Karl Druschki." Does 'Georg Arends' have the same growth and wood as 'Frau Karl Druschki'? In introducing 'Pink Frau Karl Druschki' in 1910 (p. 37), the California Rose Company states that "the style of growth and wood is identical with the parent." As I understand it, Arends has few or no prickles, while Druschki is prickly.
Again, if the contention is that 'Pink Frau Karl Druschki' is really 'Georg Arends', it would have to be explained how an obscure company in California came to be in possession of it simultaneously with its being introduced in Germany, and with sufficient stock of it to be able to offer it to its customers.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 9 posted
8 DEC by
jedmar
|
Before proceeding on this matter, I have been researching mentions of a pink sport of Frau Karl Druschki in contemporary American magazines, hoping for an evaluation. Nothing in The Florists' Exchange or The American Florist. Other suggestions?
|
REPLY
|
|
Mentions of it are elusive, and probably to be found in the future, if to be found at all, in the fleeting California gardening periodicals of the time, which I haven't yet examined and which are not much digitized at present, as far as I know. A few other catalogs list it without saying much, as for instance the Young & Lester catalog of 1918, where listed separately from 'Georg Arends'; but to the best of my current knowledge the facts such as they are are those found in the various listings of the California Rose Company, starting in 1910. The Pacific Rose Company's catalog of 1928 states that a rose called 'Pacific' (sport of 'Los Angeles') "resembles Pink Frau Karl Druschki" (p. 28).
|
REPLY
|
|
|
