HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
-
-
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
-
-
|
Available from - Glenorie Roses
brucetreloar@gmail.com
|
REPLY
|
|
Are you sure of the veracity of this one Ozeboy? I thought only the climber was available in Australia.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 12 posted
23 APR 10 by
kev
|
ozeboy is quiet correct here .the best source is our mr.rose himself David Ruston of Renmark who lists it and has it in his collection.his list is available online and is a great reference to have.kev.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hello kev. I do see in David's 2003-2004 Collection listing, on p36 that he is listing 'Souvenir of Wootton' hybrid tea, 1888. However correspondence from Pat Toolan and Margaret Furness who have spent much time in David's garden helping him to prune etc, wrote to me in 2006: <i>"Once again we were stopped in our tracks by .....and yet again by a pillar rose labeled 'Souvenir of Wootton', but which appears to be its sport 'Climbing Wootton' circa 1897 HT from Butler/Craig – bright magenta red full blooms beckoning us from afar." </i>
Perhaps when someone is next at Renmark, they could confirm for you that the plant at David Ruston's garden is the 1897 climber, and not the 1888 bush.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#3 of 12 posted
24 APR 10 by
Cass
|
It would be nice to see a photo of the rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
we have the only souvenir de wootton in existance (that we know of) here in Baltimore, a cutting was sent to us from sangerhousen and the original plant there has since been destroyed. I will upload some photos but helpmefind has to approve of those and post them. our wootton is growing in a public garden and we have successfully rooted cuttings
|
REPLY
|
|
The plant at Renmark has been hacked back to bush size. When we first saw it, it was behaving like a pillar rose.
|
REPLY
|
|
A plant at Renmark, grown from the original one on David Ruston's property, is definitely a climber. I'll photograph it when it's in flower.
|
REPLY
|
|
We look forward to seeing that Margaret.
Here is a rose which came to me as 'Souvenir of Wootton' and my provenance reads something like: Rustons-1; a lady-2; a man who budded it on to R. multiflora-3; a nursery who shipped it to WA-4; in 2009. To date it has not climbed, but in this garden I wouldn't place too much importance on that. I have listed it in my garden records as 'Climbing Wootton'. However, I am having difficulty in reconciling my rose with the photo of 'Clg. Wootton' in the Heritage Roses in Australia journal Winter 2006, page 58.
|
REPLY
|
|
I think we got a wrong'un the first time round from the same source, and had it re-budded. I'll have to wait till it flowers to double-check the one we have now. The original plant is still there, if needed.
|
REPLY
|
|
Re the photo of 'Clg. Wootton' in the Heritage Roses in Australia journal Winter 2006, page 58. It may have been the rose that was circulating as 'Argosy'?
|
REPLY
|
|
That issue is of course the one missing from my collection. But if it's the photo I posted on hmf under Cl Wootton, the plant wasn't / isn't growing among Clark roses. There are Clark roses growing isolated elsewhere at Ruston's, but that's as much as I can offer till flowering season.
14 Nov 2014: I missed the spring flush, but have posted a whole-plant photo to show that what we have in the HRIAI Collection is definitely a climber.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#12 of 12 posted
8 JUN 19 by
Ms.Lefty
|
Todd - Fellow Baltimoron here! I'm wondering whether your Souvenir de Wooten is still alive and growing (at Cylburn, I assume), and whether you (or anybody else) been able to propagate it.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
8 MAY 10 by
kev
|
why are some roses referenced such as this one with two very distinctly different blooms pictured..it is very disturbing.
|
REPLY
|
|
This is one of the ways we find out that a rose sold in a particular area under name X is incorrectly identified - there are plenty of them!
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#2 of 4 posted
3 MAR 19 by
marcbb
|
Hello Margaret,
I recently saw your post regarding the rose called "Madame Berthe du Mesnil de Montchauveau". The reason why I noticed it is that my wife is the owner of the old house in Normandy (France) where Mrs Berthe du Mesnil de Montchauvau used to live in the late XIX century! Hence I would be very interested by any information related to this rose and more than happy to by one !
Kind regards, Marc de Berranger
|
REPLY
|
|
Kev - the early references we have indicate this rose was “silvery rose”, so unless this rose changes colour drastically, it might be that AmiRoses photo is not of the original rose.
Marc - Margaret lives in Australia. As you live in France, and this rose was bred in France, you might have a better chance of finding it. I will ask the photograher, Marita Protte, where she photographed this rose and hopefully her reply might guide you further. There are two nurseries in France in our BUY FROM tab that may be stocking the light pink rose.
.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes, my comment was a general one - I know nothing about the rose. It would be lovely if you could find one and return it to the garden.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
6 MAR 10 by
kev
|
the picture shown for this rose must be the incorrect one as it has pink buds and the rose is yellow
|
REPLY
|
|
There are some on Google Images, if anyone wants to see what type of yellow it is.
|
REPLY
|
|
|
