|
|
'Portadown Fragrance' rose Reviews & Comments
-
-
|
Doesn't self-clean, no obvious hips.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Thanks Patricia. I'm relieved to see the descriptions of large flowers, which the one we were given certainly has. I wouldn't call ours orange-pink but we've only seen it from one garden at one time; will wait and watch.
|
REPLY
|
|
A pleasure. Watch out for any dark wood and foliage, black thorns, and broad but short petals.
|
REPLY
|
|
The spring buds are coral-pink or orange-pink, so I'm thinking the ID is right after all. Will check thorns tomorrow.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
References seem to be unanimous that 'Portadown Fragrance' was introduced in 1931. What is the authority for placing the date of introduction "before 1926"?
|
REPLY
|
|
As it won the Clay Cup (for fragrance), from the National Rose Society, in 1928 (see 1932-215 reference), it is presumed it would have had to be in a trial for a couple of years before that. So the deduction was that it was BRED sometime before 1926, and INTRODUCED in 1931.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
From the photo by Margaret, I am thinking that Picture and this rose may be related. Such as half-sisters? They seem to have that wavy foliage, and similar bloom type. Different, of course.
|
REPLY
|
|
I hope they're different! The garden it came from was the source of two others, which were both incorrect. I hope one out of three is right.
|
REPLY
|
|
The colour seems just plain wrong,
Hazlewood 1937 called 'Portadown Fragrance' coppery and associated it with the colour of 'Heinrich Wendland'.
Perhaps someone might like to compare other more identifiable characteristics of 'Portadown Fragrance' such as:
Bush: Low, sprawling.
Wood and prickles: dark red with black spines.
Blooms: petals short and blooms flat. 60-70 petals.
|
REPLY
|
|
My plant is very young. See the petal photo re number and shape. I'll get prickle photos tomorrow.
|
REPLY
|
|
