|
'Domaine de Chapuis' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
Here are two other references I could find:
-"Domaine de Chapuis. Gravereaux, Jules 1901. Roxb. H. violettrot "
Rosenverzeichnis Europa-Rosarium Sangerhausen 9ème édition. p97
-" 'Château de la Juvénie' (rose tendre) et 'Domaine de Chapuis' (rouge violacé)"
Nouvelle Encyclopédie des Roses Anciennes, François Joyaux. 2015. p143
I think this goes to prove the cultivar with double blush-coloured flowers is not the true variety. But I think it strange that 'Domaine de Chapuis' would be single flowered... so I am still doubtful whether or not we have the original clone in cultivation. Finally, uploading the pictures, it seemed to me this Sangerhausen clone looks strangely similar to Rosa x coryana (especially the fruits)....
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 3 posted
29 JAN 20 by
jedmar
I have added several further references to both roses: - The original catalogue card of L'Haÿ states the colour of 'Domaine de Chapuis' as "rouge violacé", which would be fitting for a rose named after a Burgundy vineyard. The current rose in L'Haÿ is definitely mislabeled - similar or identical to 'Château de la Juvenie'. - The rose in Sangerhausen is a new accession after 2005. I believe also mislabeled, as the description of Guillot from 1997 says "overflowing with petals"
|
REPLY
|
That Guillot description would be perfect to confirm the hypothesis that neither in cultivation is likely to be the original. But is this reference really from 1997? If so, on which rose is it based? does it stil exist? or is it from an old Guillot catalogue?
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 3 posted
30 JAN 20 by
jedmar
It is from the 1997 Guillot catalogue. You can find it on
https://collections-roseraie.valdemarne.fr/index.php?metier=varietes&action=fiche&id=726
and it is no longer in their catalogues.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Please add to references. Domain de Chapuis; 1901, at L'Hay, rouge violet, Microphylla Nomeclature de tous les noms de roses connus: avec indication de leur race by Simon and Cochet Pub, Librarie Horticole, Paris, 1906, p. 48.
|
REPLY
|
|