HelpMeFind Roses, Clematis and Peonies
Roses, Clematis and Peonies
and everything gardening related.
Member
Profile
PhotosFavoritesCommentsJournal 
kev
most recent 8 JUN SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 12 JUL 10 by kev
the rose pictured here is pink.Duc de Fitzjames is not this colour.It is a deep violet/purple and dark crimson red.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 9 posted 13 MAY 12 by MelissaPej
The 'Vintage Book of Roses' says that there are two plants in commerce called 'Duc de Fitzjames', one darker than the other. Mine is lilac pink, similar to the flowers I see in the photos. My plant came from 'La Campanella' in Italy, but I don't know where they got their mother plant. According to Vintage the darker-flowered variety is likelier to be the correct one.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 9 posted 13 MAY 12 by HMF Admin
Interesting, thanks for taking the time to sharing this insight with HelpMeFind. Just what HMF is all about - a tool to collect and disseminate gardening information to a participating online community.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 9 posted 31 JUL 18 by jedmar
La Campanella has many of their Gallicas from Cour de Commer - the collection of François Joyaux. 'Duc de Fitzjames' in commerce is often 'Mme Lauriol de Barny', a Bourbon rose.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 9 posted 3 AUG 18 by MelissaPej
I don't have 'Mme. Lauriol de Barny' in the garden and haven't seen it, at least not identified as such. I took a look at the newest page of photos of this variety on HMF, and, though I haven't made a careful comparison, right now I wouldn't swear that the rose I see in the photos isn't my 'Duc de Fitzjames'. My rose is a good tough variety with opulent blooms, coming easily from cuttings, has never reflowered later in the season, and gets some fungal disease after blooming, though not enough to do it any harm. Lanky in growth; thorny. I'm fond of it, mainly because of the very handsome blooms combined with the ability to flourish in quite poor conditions.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 9 posted 4 AUG 18 by jedmar
Melissa, it would be very helpful if you could post some photos of your 'Duc de Fitzjames' on HMF.
REPLY
Reply #6 of 9 posted 16 AUG 18 by MelissaPej
I'm a reluctant photographer (and this isn't the season anyway). I wanted to add to my description that my 'Duc de Fitzjames' sets hips, which are rounded oval, about 2cm wide and slightly longer, and smooth, the orifice not wide, sepals not persistent. They haven't matured yet so I don't know their color. A final note: my rose has long-lived canes, and suckers out, slowly and not aggressively.
REPLY
Reply #7 of 9 posted 28 MAY by Emily W.
I came here to check on the color of this rose because last year it was a medium to light pink and this year it's quite dark with violet undertones. Would anyone know what would change the color.
REPLY
Reply #8 of 9 posted 8 JUN by Palustris
Is this rose on its own roots or is it grafted? Sometimes the rootstock of a grafted plant will send up its own cane that would be a different color than the scion.
REPLY
Reply #9 of 9 posted 8 JUN by Emily W.
It's an own root that I bought as a cutting 3 years ago from High Country Roses. As he has come into full bloom, they seemed to have lightened a little, ut still not as light as they were last year. I will try to post a picture from a few days ago.
REPLY
most recent 2 DEC 22 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 12 MAY 10 by kev
because of the flower size and other considerations this variety should be considered a polyantha or floribunda.it certainly isnt a large flowered rose.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 13 MAY 10 by Cass
You should address your concern to the American Rose Society's Registration Committee. LCl is the ARS class, and that's what HMF reports.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 2 DEC 22 by NewDawn
I agree that while it may be officially listed, its flowers are no more than an inch. Perhaps this was a translation issue. Perhaps a mention of flower size could be put on the front listing as many readers dont read the comments or even notice the different tabs. Just a suggestion. :)
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 2 DEC 22 by jedmar
The bloom size of 1.25" is there
REPLY
most recent 25 JUN 22 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 14 APR 10 by kev
the rose shown hers is that of a deep cerise pink not a light pink.either the description is wrong or the photo is incorrect.In this case, the photo is definately wrong.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 3 posted 14 APR 10 by jedmar
The photo shows a mislabeled plant in one of the large rosaries. I believe the original 'Sans sépales' is extinct.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 3 posted 25 JUN 22 by Callimarcio
The original 'Asepala' alias 'Sans Sépales' isn't extinct at all!
'Asepala' is well and fine under its true name at L'Haÿ.
In fact Jules Gravereaux added twice this variety in his collection:

First under the French name : 'Sans Sépales' (originally kept at L'Haÿ in the bed LXXV, B22), then mislabelled in the collections after him, during the 1990's and inexplicably by 'Brennus' (perhaps due to the extreme curators negligence at L'Haÿ).

Second under its Latin name 'Asepala' (bed LXXXI, B19), it came back indeed later through some exchanges with the USA during the late Gravereaux years.

The 'Sans Sépales' however has substituted 'Précoce' (Vibert, 1843) at L'Haÿ, as well other mosses (John Cranston, Rotrou, etc... due to heavy negligence). This problem can be also seen in the Loubert's collection.
In my opinion, after having diving deeply in archives and old collections, this is more the original 'Précoce' who's gone forever...
REPLY
Reply #2 of 3 posted 25 JUN 22 by Callimarcio
you're right, 'Sans Sépales' was mislabelled at L'Haÿ and was strangely replaced by the bengal 'Brennus' (Laffay, 1830). This mistake is still present at L'Haÿ and in the Loubert's collection.
REPLY
most recent 5 APR 21 SHOW ALL
 
Initial post 15 MAR 10 by kev
again the picture here does not fit the rose described .the rose is a white/pale pink. the picture here is that of a bright rose pink type there are so many like this here. that i doubt the professional objectivity and research savy of those who built this site. to say the least i am disapointed.
REPLY
Reply #1 of 5 posted 15 MAR 10 by Jeff Britt
I believe that the photo is one of a plant sold as or labeled as Madame Dubost. You will note on the description page that the roses photographed may have a different identity. HMF actually HELPS identify roses mislabeled in commerce or public gardens. There are many old 19th century roses in collection and commercial nurseries with incorrect names. Most people here recognize this. Just the same, until the plant is correctly identified, isn't it better to identify it as it is sold or seen? What else should we call the photographed rose? If you have any better ideas, please offer them. The point is to confuse as few people as possible while working to correctly identify old roses. And this site had done much to accomplish that.
REPLY
Reply #2 of 5 posted 15 MAR 10 by Robert Neil Rippetoe
Here here!

HMF is the most comprehensive and up to date collection of rose information ever assembled, most FREE to the public.

Many roses exist mis-labeled in old collections and arboretums as seems to be the case here.

We're all doing our best to make heads or tails of the information being presented. It is through the generous efforts of those donating time and energy that the site exists at all.

It's very easy to criticize and much more difficult to be constructive in terms of making the information presented as accurate as possible.

Much thanks to all involved.
REPLY
Reply #3 of 5 posted 15 MAR 10 by Cass
Thanks for the votes of confidence. There's nothing like criticism to motivate us to find more old rose references. In this case, those references disclose a range of color descriptions from dark bright pink to pinkish white with bright pink center. Somehow, over time, those descriptions have been distilled to two words: "light pink." Two similar rose names further complicate the task. After reviewing contemporaneous sources, I do not share the the anonymous poster's certitude that the color of this rose is pale pink.
REPLY
Reply #4 of 5 posted 15 MAR 10 by jedmar
It seems that you have not fully understood the nature of HMF. Photos can be posted by every member, References by administrators. It happens that photos are not in line with the descriptions. This can be an indication that the rose in commerce or in gardens is incorrectly identified. The following process of comparison and discussion leads to better insights.

I also believe it would be more honest to have your criticisms posted under your name, and not anonymously.
REPLY
Reply #5 of 5 posted 5 APR 21 by Michael Garhart
HMF is a volunteer system, which means you can also add insight. It improves year by year. When I first joined HMF, when it was new, the only other thing that existed were a few small online listings and places like bulbnrose. I joined HMF when it was new, and I have contributed to it every year. Many of us have. It's a mostly selfless act. You should too :D The more accurate, the better.
REPLY
© 2024 HelpMeFind.com