|
|
Roses of Yesterday and Today Archive
-
-
|
I have just added an additional 80+ varieties Roses of Yesterday and Today sold in the late forties through the fifties. I was fortunate to be able to photograph the content pages of the additional catalogs. I am continuing working on the exceptions list to match what the system didn't automatically add to the database, so there will be a few more soon!
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
Having 2 listings for Roses if Yesterday and Today is very confusing. I have not bought from them because this Archive listing made me believe they were no longer selling roses. This is not true. I finally wrote to them and Guinivere nicely replied and they are open and actively selling roses. I didn't know about the other listing. There should be some way to let potential customers like me that they are open. I'm sure this has hurt their ongoing business as I am surely not the only one who thought they were closed.
Thank you.
Anne
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Anne. I'm sorry you were confused. When you search for the nursery name, it brings up both pages. The original page for the Archive, I believed explained what it was. I think most people would look at both pages out of curiosity. I have altered the description of the Archive page to, hopefully, help it be less confusing. The Archive contains important information which shouldn't be lost. It should also be found easily, so it should be listed under the original nursery name. Might you have a suggestion to maintain this information, keep it readily available for whomever wishes to access it and not potentially confuse anyone? Thank you.
|
REPLY
|
|
Hi Kim,
I think the problem is that I have been going to the "Buy From" category, a very useful tool, and I have gotten the archive for more than one rose.. Maybe if it were somehow put as a garden rather than a nursery the confusion would be lessened as the plants would not pull up in the "Buy From" category. I never looked up just the nursery as I assumed it was closed.
Thank you!
Anne
|
REPLY
|
-
-
Initial post
21 JUL 13 by
 goncmg
|
I have the 1979 catalog. Will review it to see if anything is different from 78 or 80, both of which seem to be in the data bank here. Always have and still do appreciate the concept Stemmler and Wiley inherited from Tillotson and maintaned to a degree, but 34 years ago the catalog rhetoric would read something to the effect of ".....we hate to drop a historically important rose but this is not popular with you so this is the last year we will list it." ?!?!?! So I am somehow admonished, guilted into buying, and at the same time you as a collector item supplier (ALLEGEDLY!!!) is dropping the rose due to poor sales? Once Stemmler died---and this is almost 40 years ago----the heart went out of this place. How they are still around is beyond me. They are simply not relevant in any manner.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you. I appreciate it. The way they're still around is as a shadow of their former selves. Read their story here. http://www.rosesofyesterday.com/moreaboutus.html
For a few years, they were reselling commercial stock. From the above, it appears they are actually producing some roses. They are as relevant as any other rose producer in our dying industry. At least they are continuing to keep some of the harder to get roses available. And, yes, "guilting" us into buying slower selling roses worked. Sometimes, people just need a kick in the behind to get them to move. They wouldn't attempt to guilt anyone into buying if there weren't plants sitting there requiring homes. Once those were gone, no new ones would be produced. Fortunately, the mother plants frequently remained in the ROYAT gardens for future production. I'm glad to see the relatives keeping something of it alive.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
To date, the roses contained in these catalogs I've been unable to find elsewhere are:
Connie's Cluster
Karinska
La Belle Marie
La Belle Suzanne
McCoy Musk
|
REPLY
|
|
A thought is that 'La Belle Marie' might be 'La Belle Mariee'. (See Old Roses: The Master List p325)
and
'La Belle Suzanne' might be 'La Belle Sultane'
|
REPLY
|
|
Possibly, Patricia, thank you. Those two varieties were listed in the 1964 index you emailed me. Might you please have the opportunity to look on page 24 of the 1964 edition to determine what they may be? Thank you!
|
REPLY
|
|
Determined and files made for both roses, my dear Kim. I don't know who the breeder is though.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thank you Patricia! I've added them to the archive. At least we now know they existed. I've also created pages for the other three, complete with the catalog references, and added them to the archive.
|
REPLY
|
|
