'Catherine II' rose reviews and comments

	Description		Photos		Lineage		Awards		References		Member Ratings		Member Comments		Member Journals		Cuttings		Gardens		Buy From

'Catherine II' rose Reviews & Comments

My HMF:

☐ POST COMMENT

Discussion id : 65-925 most recent 6 MAR 18 SHOW ALL

Initial post 21 JUL 12 by flodur

Reply #1 of 21 posted 21 JUL 12 by HMF supporting member

HMF Admin

Reply #2 of 21 posted 21 JUL 12 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

Reply #3 of 21 posted 21 JUL 12 by HMF supporting member

HMF Admin

Reply #4 of 21 posted 22 JUL 12 by flodur

Noisette as reference should be reliable. But he mentiones a rose in 1826 that appears in the catalog of Laffay in 1832. Wilhelm Keller, Duisburg sells it already in 1828 as a Monthly rose. Noisette seems to be wrong. Anyhow, if jedmar has a reliable indication that the rose in commerce is not C. II he should tell us, give a name and transfer all the photos of C. II to that rose.
Again, if " La plus grande partie est hybride de l'indica, du semperflorens, et du sinensis" they should be continuous flowering, sorry Mr. Noisette!

Reply #5 of 21 posted 22 JUL 12 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

Not always. So-called Hybrid Chinas are usually once-blooming. I found another reference in Loudon's "Gardener's Magazine" of 1827. There roses "blooming the greater part of summer" are marked with an asterisk. Catherine II isn't. Is today's Catherine II possibly a different china?	REPLY

Reply #6 of 21 posted 25 JUL 12 by flodur

That is true, but the first reference that mentiones Laffay as breeder is "Nomenclature de tous les Noms de Roses, 1st edition Page 33" and this book is based on the informations received from the breeders. So it might be that the "Catherine II before 1826" is a different rose and the todays rose is exactly the rose described in the early references, that say more than just the name: Laffay 1832. On the other hand it was normal that a rose, 2, 3 years before it appered in the breeders catalog was already given to nurseries or merchants like Keller, Duisburg for sale. And he clearly says "Monatsrose". According to "Die Rose: Ihre Aufzucht und Pflege von Robert Betten S. 227, 1922" this is a continuous flowering rose. No doubt, Catherine II, Laffay 1832 or 1829 is the original one!

Reply #7 of 21 posted 25 JUL 12 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

Please let me disappoint you: The "Nomenclature" is just a collection of all kinds of name information gathered from many sources - Simon and Cochet did not do any research themselves. The mention of the breeder Laffay they have taken from Prévost's catalogue of 1829. Meanwhile, I even consider that not a 100% guarantee that Laffay is the breeder, as Prévost often mentions different synonyms coupled to different nurseries: So, Catherine II. Laffay mewans with certainty that Laffay sold this rose under that name, but the real breeder "might" have been different. Many roses attributed to Laffay had to be assigned to other, usually amateur breeders, as more documents came to light.

Coming back to 'Catherine II', I agree that it is strange that Noisette lumps it under roses which are once-blooming. Betten is not a reliable source for the original rose, as he describes the rose he knows in 1922. The best we can do is to go back to Prévost's short description and compare with the current rose. He seems to consider as a special characteristic that the stalk of the flower is arched - this you can see in many Tea roses.

Reply #8 of 21 posted 26 JUL 12 by flodur

Concerning Simon et Cochet you are in contradiction to F. Joyaux, Enzyklopädie der Alten Rosen, page 10.

I mentioned Betten only to explain the german word Monatsrose, that is no longer used today.

Prévost in "Catalogue descriptif, méthodique et raisonné...du Genre Rosier, 1829, page 178" says breeder: L (= Pépinières de M Laffay , à Auteuil. see page xij). And he presents Catherine II in the section: "ROSIERS INDIENS, TOUJOURS FLEURISSANTS." together with other roses that are continuous blooming. The description of the blooms is exactly the todays rose: Folioles grandes. Pédoncule arqué. Ovaire gros et long. Fleur grande , pleine , semi-globuleuse , carnée , quelquefois un peu lilas.

Reply #9 of 21 posted 30 JUL 12 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

Reply #10 of 21 posted 1 MAR 18 by CybeRose

Reply #11 of 21 posted 2 MAR 18 by CybeRose

Reply #12 of 21 posted 2 MAR 18 by flodur

Zhat is not correct. You find the rose page 178, No. 695 in the chapter: XLe Espèce. ROSA INDICA , Lindley. And that are the Chinas! Have a look: https://archive.org/stream/cataloguedescrip00prev#page/178/mode/2up/search/catherine	REPLY

Reply #13 of 21 posted 2 MAR 18 by CybeRose

Reply #14 of 21 posted 2 MAR 18 by flodur

Yes, it reblooms, pretty good! Of course, Jedmar is wrong - Chinas rebloom! If you take Rosa sinensis, under which Noisette lists this rose as synonym of Rosa chinensis (IPNI does not accept Rosa sinensis, only chinensis), it has to rebloom. At that time sinensis was used for the roses comming from China or beeing hybrids of that roses and their main characteristic was the color and the reblooming.

Reply #15 of 21 posted 3 MAR 18 by CybeRose

Reply #16 of 21 posted 4 MAR 18 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

Thank you, Karl! I can only point out to discrepancies in early publications. After working with rose literature for a long time, I have come to the conclusion that a great portion of the OGR's we have today are mislabeled - the paper trail does not support the continued existence and true naming to our times. We have first hand experience how careless nurseries are today in identification, propagation and distribution; and I suppose it was no different in the 19th century. It was actually so bad, that similar, but distinct roses were officially declared as synonyms. One day we will be able to genetically compare current roses with herbarium specimens - some surprises are sure to follow.

Reply #17 of 21 posted 4 MAR 18 by CybeRose

Jedmar,
I have collected some old reports of deliberate "substitutions" that could have contributed to the confusions.
In one nursery, orders for Perle des Jardins were filled with Safrano, Jean Pernet, Mme. Margottin, Isabella Sprunt, or Marie Van Houtte, depending on availability.

Then there was the case of 'Augusta'. Some growers thought it was merely 'Solfaterre' under a different name. Others claimed it was too similar to 'Cloth of Gold' to deserve a name of its own. But I have found contemporary reports that 'Solfaterre' was substituted for the other two.

Karl
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/KKing/NurseryFraud/Fraud.html

Reply #18 of 21 posted 4 MAR 18 by HMF supporting member

jedmar

I like your catalogue of nursery frauds! This was not limited to roses. In peonies in North America it was so bad, that the American Peony Society had to form a Committee on Nomenclature and establish test grounds at the Cornell University. Listen to this from the "Manual on the Cultivation and Propagation of the Peony" (1907):
"In the year 1901 I sent to Kelway & Son for five plants. They flowered only imperfectly the following year, but I was afraid on account of these imperfect flowers that they were wrong. I immediately wrote them to send me five more plants in my shipment of that year. The next year, when the first five were two years old, they produced flowers of Festiva Maxima. The second lot flowered well in 1904, and I showed them at the exhibition of the Massachusetts Horticultural Society in June, and they awarded me a first class certificate for them. At the rose show of this same society, which followed the peony show in one week, Messrs. T. C. Thurlow & Son showed a peony under that name, which they had imported from Kelway & Son, which I had on my grounds under two names—one imported from Kelway & Son in the year 1901 as Princess of Wales, and another one as James Kelway, later. I also have had the same peony from another grower in America as the James Kelway. At the last peony show William Whitman's gardener, of Brookline, Mass., showed a Duchesse de Nemours (Calot) under the name of Lady Alexandra Duff, imported direct from Kelway & Son. To sum it up, we have first Festiva Maxima; second, Grandiflora Nivea, an old variety of 1825—for this is the second variety which I received and which was awarded the first-class certificate by the Masachusetts Horticultural Society in 1904; third, we have the one sent Thurlow & Son, which I already had as Princess of Wales and James Kelway; fourth, we have the old variety of Duchesse De Nemours (Calot) which was sent to Mr. Whitman. Here are three old varieties re-named and sent out as Lady A. Duff, and two varieties of his own growing. Princess of Wales and James Kelway, also as Lady A. Duff. All this time Kelway & Son are saying the stock is nearly exhausted, but for our money they are shipping this stuff. I am led to the conclusion that there is no such peony as Lady Alexandra Duff, or Lady A. McDuff, as it was first called. It has been, probably, a re-naming of an old French variety from the very beginning, and when one variety runs short select another and so continue the fraud. E. J. Shaylor, Peony Specialist"

Reply #19 of 21 posted 4 MAR 18 by HMF supporting member

Kathy Strong

It's still happening. There was one particular company in Tennessee a few years back (and out of biz now) that I ordered from on-line six different varieties. When they came, they were all clearly tagged with the variety names I ordered. When they bloomed, they were all the same pinky purple hybrid tea rose, that may or may not have been Peter Mayle, one of the varieties I had ordered. They ignored my complaints. I was mad and emailed a fraud complaint to the Tennessee Attorney General, who got right back to me and said I was not the only complaint, and that they had already filed something against them. I ended up getting my refund from the State of Tennessee!

Reply #20 of 21 posted 6 MAR 18 by CybeRose

Some years ago, when I was webmaster for the Int'l Bulb Society, I fielded a number of complaints about a Georgia company with a similarly bad reputation. At the time I knew that the company was doing business under three different names. I have since learned that they had maybe a dozen or more names, depending on what they were pushing at the time. I discreetly warned members against the company.
Karl

Reply #21 of 21 posted 6 MAR 18 by CybeRose

Jedmar,
I did a quick search and found that the peony 'Lady Alexandra Duff' is currently available. But which one?

It's exactly the same as with roses.

I have seen a rose identified as 'Gen. Jacqueminot' that does not match the old descriptions or pictures. And this rose was still being sold in the mid 20th century. How could I trust the many dubious identifications of old Teas that were largely displaced by HTs, unless the old varieties had some very distinctive characteristic?
Karl