HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
billy teabag 
-
-
|
I have two young Julias Rose plants. They both produce flowers with very good scent and the growth habit is very upright. The foliage is more of the matte dull green color and in my opinion is a bit sparse and could be more dense. The stems are spaced a bit too far apart. However, that could improve a bit as the bushes mature over the next couple of years. My Julia's Rose plants have 5 leaflet sets as I remember.
I have tried to grow Cafe twice and both times the plant didn't survive the first year. The first plant lived until winter and succumbed to the winter temps even though it was overwintered in my unheated garage. I generally don't lose any of my "Pot Ghetto" overwintering in the garage but that particular year I lost 20 for some unknown bizarre reason, so I won't blame that on the rose. The second try with a Cafe plant was short lived as the own root plant I received only lived about 4 months. It was never vigorous and just faded away slowly. That was two years ago--2008--and I would like to give Cafe one more try before giving up on it completely.
|
REPLY
|
|
The brown-violet roses all seem to have a hard time growing on their own roots (at least for me). If you can get any of these brown/violet roses on a suitable rootstock for your climate (or graft them yourself), you will be pleased, I think. I am growing Julia's rose on it's own roots, and my experience is similar to yours -- not a particularly vigorous plant. I just got a plant of Cafe grafted on Pink Clouds by Burling (which is an excellent cold weather very vigorous rootstock by the way), and it looks like it is going to be a winner. Try Burlington roses, and see what she can do for you -- she also does custom grafting.
|
REPLY
|
|
Our 'Julia's Rose', growing in a warm - hot climate, sounds just like your descriptions. It's budded onto Fortuniana, which will often help with vigour, but this rose is not what I'd call a garden-worthy rose. It's not unhealthy, but quite sparse and spindly.
I think you're right about the brown/violet roses.
One for the cutting bed with the other ones we grow for the blooms and forgive the shortcomings of the bush?
I wonder if anyone can report a vigorous, well foliated plant of 'Julia's Rose'.
|
REPLY
|
|
I do agree that the brown/russet/violet roses seem to be poorer growers on their own roots. Most all of them I have grown seem to need a good rootstock under them. The one exception is the Terracotta HT that is a sport of the HT florist rose Leonidas. My Terracotta's and one other I have seen in person grow quite well on their own roots with no problem, including being very winter hardy with no added help from me in my zone 5b/6a area. I also grow Leonidas and I almost cannot believe that Terracotta is a sport of that bush. Terracotta is ten times the plant and rose that Leonidas has ever hoped to be. Terracotta is more vigorous, winter hardy, heavier blooming, has better flowers, denser foliaged, and way more disease resistant than Leonidas is. There is just no comparison between the two for me. It is a shame because I think when people see Terracotta is a sport of Leonidas they assume it is very like the parent except for the color which it is not in any way. Even the petal pigmentation is much better on Terracotta than Leonidas. And, Terracotta will set OP hips and I have never had any luck at all trying Leonidas as a pollen or seed parent either one. In short, I just have a hard time believing that Terracotta is a sport of Leonidas because there are way too many differences 'tween the two.
But, most of the brown/russet/coffee/lavender roses just aren't good doers on their own roots. Of course we shouldn't forget the brown floribunda Hot Cocoa of course. It too grows well own-root or budded either one and it seems to pass that vigor to it's offspring. I have seen some gorgeous huge bushes of Hot Cocoa that were own-root that were better than those budded onto multiflora or even fortuniana.
I have heard of using Pink Clouds as an understock but haven't seen any in person. I think I might try to purchase a couple of plants of Pink Clouds and give it a try myself.
|
REPLY
|
|
'Belle Epoque' does very well own-root. Its one of the exceptions imo. 'Ann Henderson' is probably okay own-root, but the dang thing mildews, even in the PNW.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
One of the distinctive things about Bardou Job - the rose collected from a venerable plant that had never lost its name in Mrs Howie's garden in Adelaide - is that the canes are thornless.
Prickles are rarely mentioned in descriptions and I think this is unfortunate. When trying to chase down the identity of a foundling rose, the presence or absence of prickles is such a simple way to rule a contender in or out.
Bardou Job has the distinctive leaf serrations of its parent, Gloire des Rosomanes, but not its prickles.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I'm curious to know if 'White Ensign' sets hips. Could anyone here who grows or grew it please comment on this?
|
REPLY
|
|
None on my small plant. None that I can see on photos recently taken by ozoldroser of a big plant at Renmark.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 6 posted
25 MAY by
HubertG
|
Thanks Margaret. I couldn't see any hips showing in any of the photos here, and there are plenty of flowers that could be fertilised. I was thinking it might be triploid given its introduction as a Hybrid Tea but as a reputed seedling from 'Niphetos'. George Knight thought of it as a Tea in his 1931 reference and as the foundling "Monty's White Tea" it was obviously thought to be a Tea. Perhaps its parentage is actually more complicated than a simple T x HT but in any case it probably isn't a standard diploid Tea or tetraploid HT.
Givemecaffeine's photos show it flowering with good growth in winter too. I think I'll be ordering this rose to replace my lost 'Marie Lambert'. Thankfully it's still commercially available.
|
REPLY
|
|
It's a terrific rose.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#4 of 6 posted
16 AUG by
HubertG
|
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the parents is 'Kaiserin Auguste Viktoria'. I can see similarities in the flower form, bud, habit etc.
|
REPLY
|
|
My untrimmed old plant hasn't set any hips to date, HubertG
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#6 of 6 posted
16 AUG by
HubertG
|
Thank you for that, Billy. I suspect it does have a funny ploidy that makes it not produce hips, possibly being a T x (T x HT), or something like that. I wonder if the pollen is fertile though. I've ordered a plant of it and it should be coming very soon. I'm rather excited because it does look like, as Margaret says, a terrific rose.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
According to Dominique Massad, Le Vésuve in commerce is actually Rosabelle (Bruant, 1899).
See in Bulletin n°25 Automne 2018, Roses Anciennes en France:
"L'ensemble de ces caractères me conduit à privilégier le nom de 'Rosabelle' pour cette variété commercialisée sous la dénomination erronée de 'Le Vésuve'."
He says that Le Vésuve in commerce doesn't ressemble a typical Bengal rose, at least what a Bengal rose would have been at the time (1825), but its habit is more one of a tea.
Any idea, comment, or personnal experience on that matter would be much appreciated!
|
REPLY
|
|
The Tea book authors quote Steen (1966) and Robinson (2001) as questioning the ID of the rose in commerce by this name.
I note, though, that Rosabelle is a climber.
|
REPLY
|
|
Very interesting!
Massad says that Le Vésuve grows up to 3m50, therefore somehow is a climber....
In my climate (zone 5) it is too cold for it to grow well, let alone climb so I cannot have an opinion on this matter.
|
REPLY
|
|
I suppose that raises the question, of whether there are two roses currently being sold as Le Vesuve - one a climber, one not. I don't grow it myself but the two plants I've seen, at Renmark (climate zone 9b, this week in a heatwave to 47C) aren't what I'd call climbers.
|
REPLY
|
|
If by any chance you had a picture....!
|
REPLY
|
|
I'll post a photo of the bush, which is the only one I have taken.
|
REPLY
|
|
I can well believe FDY is an ancestor of the rose sold as Le Vésuve which has a similar wiry growth habit and shape, sharpness and density of prickles seen on Fortune’s Double Yellow.
Photos of Rosabelle (Bruant, 1899) appear to be the same as those of Le Vésuve (Laffay, 1825) and Climbing Le Vésuve on HMF.
Does anyone know whether there is a plant of Rosabelle with an unbroken link to a reliably named old plant, or are we looking at photos of the same foundling with several suggested identities?
I have only seen the rose sold as Le Vésuve grown as a free-standing shrub, where it is either kept to a moderate-sized mound by very regular trimming, or allowed to form a much larger mound of long, prickly canes, interlocked by those vicious prickles. I’ve not seen it grown on a supporting structure to see how tall it grows as a climber.
I believe Dominique Massad's suggestion should be seriously considered.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#7 of 13 posted
7 AUG by
jedmar
|
I had been looking at 'Rosabelle' at Tête d'Or (originating from L'Haÿ) in the context that it is a another seedling of Bruant from FDY, beside the lost 'Fée Opale'. FO is a good contender for the false 'Park's Yellow'. PY in commerce matches well the description of FO. It is a vigorous once-blooming climber, with foliage very similar to that of FDY. However, it does not have the nasty spiny prickles of FDY. At the time, I could not come to a conclusion. We should also remember that 'Hermosa' in commerce also has very nasty spines.
|
REPLY
|
|
Intriguing discussion. One problem though; would a seedling of FDY repeat as much as the rose in commerce as Le Vesuve does?
One of its seedling is described as having few prickles!
|
REPLY
|
|
The early refs mention this - running the French text through a translator: eg "..... a truly remontant rose bush. This character is very remarkable, given that it comes from the non-everbearing Yellow Fortune Rose." (Journal of the National Horticultural Society of France,1903) Page 469.)
and, from Horticultural Review Magazine (1900) Page 7 - "Two new sarmentous roses. — M. G. Bruant, horticulturist in Poitiers, to whom we already owe great gains in Roses (Rose Madame Georges Bruant, Rosa calocarpa, etc.), has just obtained two remarkable new features. Both will be put on sale. They come from the exquisite yellow Fortune’s Double Yellow, fertilized by various varieties of teas.
One of these Roses has a pearly white background, a yellowish center, and flesh pink edges. She will be called Fée Opale.
The other, with flowers in bouquets, light pink with salmon reflections, will be called Rosabelle. It is remontant, while the first is not."
|
REPLY
|
|
I absolutely agree that 'Fée Opale' seems right for the false Parks' Yellow and hope there will be a smoking gun to provide the final piece of evidence.
Jedmar - do you have access to any information regarding the provenance of L'Hay's Rosabelle?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#11 of 13 posted
8 AUG by
jedmar
|
'Rosabelle' is listed in Gravereaux's first catalogue of 1900. The catalogue card in the archives is also of the period up to 1910 or so. The same with 'Fée Opale'. So there is a good chance that they were both planted immediately after Bruant commercialized it. 'Rosabelle' is still there, 'Fée Opale' not.
We can also find both in the catalogue of Bagatelle of 1912, where they were apparently planted side by side.
|
REPLY
|
|
Do you think the plant of Rosabelle growing at L'Hay dates back to that time Jedmar?
Thanks very much for that early Journal des Roses reference. Most of that description would describe the rose sold as Le Vésuve very accurately but the concluding remarks about certain features of Fortune's Double Yellow being less evident in Rosabelle gave me pause:
"Dans cette variété, l'influence du père (le rosier thé) s'est fait plus sentir; la vigueur est encore considerable, mais les caractères extérieurs de la mère, bois, feuillage, épines, se manifestant avec moins d'apparence."
(In this variety the influence of the Tea rose father can be felt more, its vigour is again considerable, but the exterior characteristics of the mother, wood, foliage, prickles, are less evident.)
If Rosabelle is/was viciously prickly like Fortune's Double Yellow, do you think the breeder might have mentioned it here? An oversight or a reason to back away from this identification?
Prickliness is something that is most evident to the hands-on gardener, and in earlier times many rosarians had gardeners to do the hands-on work while they took care of the eyes-on side of things. The prickles of Le Vésuve are sharp and sneaky, with many concealed beneath the leaves, but.....
I'd love to hear what others make of this.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#13 of 13 posted
8 AUG by
jedmar
|
After more than 120 years, I doubt that it is the original plant. However, comparison of the L'Haÿ plan of 1902 with the current one reveals that Noisettes, which include 'Rosabelle' at L'Haÿ, are still in the same location within the garden (section 33 of 1902). I hope Dominique Massad sees this thread and comments on it.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
